I am a physicist by education, and a practical business entrepreneur by profession - two quite different fields. At times we have all tried to unify our understanding of different areas that we have been exposed to, and so I have attempted to do the same here on a broad common theme that seemingly touches both of these two rather diverse subjects.
The word 'order' here can be taken in its widest sense, for example it could refer to our religious or political beliefs, or it could equally be applied to our economic, material or logical states of being. The word 'chaos' refers to the soup of life, the infinite ether through which beauty and creativity emerges.
The theory of chaos and order states that in order to re-create a better order, the key word here is order, one must disturb the existing order even though it may at first appear to be the correct order when initially observed. It is reasonable to assume that if the order observed initially is indeed in a state of perfection then it will be re-achieved by the process of deriving it. That is to say that a process is the order rather than the end result of the process, as it is the process that should be repeatable and not just the end result.
Having proposed the above theorem, we must be in a state to perform the repeat process for if we do not, then we are moving further away from the order itself, as it is the act of re-enacting the creation of order that is in question here. So, it emerges from this that there are two elements that make up the order of the world in which we live. One is energy, or the impetus required to create the process, and the second is the process itself that is repeatable.
As a force of energy is required to bring about change, it is logical therefore that we conserve energy if we seek change, and that we document the processes that we consider to be repeatable. The processes are refined, improved and subjected to complete change if we are to consider this apparently adventurous approach. Disturb the current order, and thereby seek to re-arrange the elements due as a result of breaking up of the current order into new configurations and solutions that have never been thought of before. Observation of highly successful enterprises and individuals shows that this is indeed a most powerful and healthy outlook.
The question occurs, however, that after how many iterations of the disturbances of the order is it that we begin to feel a degradation of the quality of the new solutions as they appear. The point here is that after an optimal solution or state of existence is reached, one can 'over-do' the process derivation, so we have to be attuned to our environment to make sure we stop at the right moment.
It will become monotonous if we are to achieve the same results each time, so it is conceived that with new re-arrangements of the processes our end results will be different, whether they are better or worse will depend on the quality of the process. So, consistence, whilst providing a stable state of reproducible processes, is in fact acting in a negative manner when we consider the entropy of the system. We should, therefore aim to achieve the order that is the process by frequent re-assembling of the elements which gives rise to a breakdown of consistent behaviour. If that is the case, then we are consistent in our approach of being inconsistent! In other words, randomness is not unhealthy.
That is at least the proposed internal engine of the system as a whole. What is perceived by external systems is the result, or the public interfaces of our internal system. One satisfying thought for the business-minded is that external entities, for example competition, may observe that we have processes that are quite mystifying because of their dynamic nature yet they can not understand why our results or achievements are so high on the whole.
This leads to an attraction between the two systems where the external system queries the internal to discover the processes that it finds so fascinating. Curiosity therefore is an external force that also contributes to the disturbance of the system, thereby fuelling the chaos that is in the internal system already. Thus, unknowingly, the external system is actually contributing towards a new process that changes the public interfaces anyway. This is also the findings of Quantum Physics that by observation, you are actually changing the system.
Looking at our daily lives if stress is caused by expectations, then we can state that the reverse should be true, i.e. that stress is alleviated by the removal of any expectations that we have. Broadly, in the above system, as it is ever-changing, we can therefore become happy and peaceful, if we assume that as the system is continually being changed we can not expect a pre-defined process to exist at any one point. We can expect the individual elements, however, to be present with little change. Therefore, we can conclude that the frequent disturbances of any system are good to the point of re-defining processes and therefore influence the quality of the final result. This causes less tension, as we cannot guarantee the same order each time. What we can say with some certainty, however, is that the elements comprising the order are nearly always the same, unless new research shows otherwise.
We must aim, therefore, for changes to any system, whether well established or not. We need to take into account the constraints that are present that limit our drive to change. These are other people and systems already in place, the rigidity of the current system, and rules imposed within the current system that prevents new thought. This gives rise to tension. Implicit within the above statement is that existing rules must be questioned positively and new methods formed to create a truly organic culture. This can be viewed as a constructive process rather than a rebellious approach. The new rules formed should be less restrictive and more open to future change than the current ones.
Extending this principle we can state that all of the above thoughts points to a generalization of the systems where possible, as the more specific the system is the more rigid the rules will become, and chaos is limited or removed completely. Can we take a well-defined specific system and convert it to a more generalized case? We can certainly try, and store the rules of the system in isolation away from the process itself, thereby separating processes from data. Intellectually, it is more challenging for us to be able to generalize because it is hard to devise a 'one solution fits all' mind-set.
Finally, what is it that drives us to make the changes? What is the driving force? Here, we can state that the possibilities of newness and improvement are the driving force. The chicken-and-egg situation is that do we have to have a goal in order to form the process or the re-formation of any process? Or, is a goal in itself the result of the process that we define? It sounds crazy but if we are designing the process without the final objective then we are increasing the number of possible end results by not approaching the end point, as there is no defined end. In this way we would have a generalized theory but no specific end result, so to make sense of the whole thing we must in reality have broad but defined aims when seeking a new improved process.
Modern thought and life-styles revolve around achieving end results and goals, so that if we are given a target, then we are tasked with the problem of creating a process that will yield the result as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately in business today our success is measured by what we produce and not by how we produce it. A combination of what we are expected to achieve (stress), and the newness of the solution that we could potentially form, therefore, is the driving force behind change. However, if we question even that which we are expected to achieve then we are changing the order on a larger scale, as achievement of a target is also an element of a larger process.
If we consider the above analysis, then there remains the question that where does knowledge fit in? What is it that we need to know as a pre-condition of the process in order to be successful? Expanding the theory, as the only elements in the scenario that are constant, or remain the least changed, are the individual elements that comprise the final process, we can therefore logically assume that if we gain a very good understanding of these individual elements then we will be in a better state to re-arrange them than if we were confused about them. Let us state that we must first identify these elements in the context of our problem domain, and then we must gain an isolated understanding of these so that we can integrate these into the final process. To draw a practical analogy, the individual elements could be people with different faiths, cultures and belief systems, and we all make a concerted effort to understand these core elements our final system will be a much healthier one.
Finally, once the solution is found, meaning a marriage of the process, the business rules, and the technical knowledge that is needed, we can document this. Strangely this becomes historical as soon as it is completed. Therefore, if there is any previous cycles of development that show us how the process was derived, then we must study it and then identify the process and the technical knowledge that was used. We may or may not use this again, but we will have a previous history that will help us to improve the new process. This goes back to our heritage and cultural roots from whose study we can improve our futures.
So, to summarize our findings, for a given process that we are involved in:
There must be frequent derivation/re-derivation of the process and order.
Where there is history, we should study it. This will help us to understand the process and also to appreciate expert knowledge that was used.
We must identify and isolate this expert knowledge needed for the process.
We must learn and document the expert knowledge separately.
There must be an identification of rules within the process.
There must be a distinction of rules from the process itself.
There must be goal-orientation (stress) and possibilities of new solutions (hope).
There must be active search for change without total randomness.
Finally we must document the process for future generations.
We are all in a continuous state of evolution and we must therefore distinguish between two types of stress as we live our lives. One is a required positive stress, where you are driven in a direction that leads to success and praise, and the other which is detrimental to the health and to the problem in hand which we must aim to control.
We must not formalize thought, as this will narrow future thought, and restrict a happy and prosperous future.
Moz Shahid manages his software development company, InfiNET Point Limited, http://www.infinetpoint.co.uk and has a keen interest in Philosophy, Spirituality, Business Success, and Self-Improvement techniques.
He applies his technical knowledge and deep insights into how successful systems work through the software he develops and techniques he has employed himself to achieve his goals.
One of the flag-ship products developed by Moz's company is a tool called "CMS Desktop", which is a tool that is designed to manage and grow your client base through e-mail marketing and customer relationship. You can download a free copy of this powerful software by visiting http://www.cmsdesktop.co.uk