A red and green book without any pictures.

In any form of recording there will be distortions. Let this be clear. Events are instantaneous, records are permanent. Though in the written word these distortions are well known and there are conventions to hold them.
As it is not so with video. Yet it is believd that video is real, yet that it captures events. Clearly this is not so. Reality and the screen. So let it be explicit. What could be held as real, yet it is only lies, and they are not easily seen now. The day will be.
Who must I compromise for what must be a lie?
Who will suffer the consequences, yet who will reap the benefits. And all without honesty.
That is how it must be, and it cannot be in me, so it is not.

A workshop guide to systems and the paradox of the invisible cow.

Given any sort of sensing device, however crude, the process of accumulation of information will begin. Information in its raw state is effectively useless. Each piece of data necessarily relates to a specific point in time. Once that moment has passed, the data become historical. The only thing that can provide meaning to the individual piece of data is if it can be linked to other pieces of data.
( See 1. )
This essential linking of data together into strings and webs is what produces the concept of 'meaning' within a universe that would otherwise be experienced as random. The webs of interconnection or data networks are the simplest and most essential of systems.
( See 2. )
Even at this stage it is worth pointing out that these webs do not feed backwards and impose meaning on experienced data. The data remains effectively random. The networks of links that are formed are created by humans. There is no reason to assume that the links forged are in any way inevitable or universal.
( See 9. ) . Different species would almost certainly order their interpretation of data into webs in other ways. Even within the one human species, it is clear that different cultures construct different networks for the data they collect. The most difficult task within intercultural communication is the recogmition that peoples individual networks of reality may be constructed differently, and equally effectively.
And these networks are systems.
And systems are very often used to impose meaning on data that does not conform. And it can be made to conform. Perception of data is not inevitable. It is based on the ability to fit the data within a pre-existing system. Contradictory data is very commonly 'lost' to perception. All these things happen. They happen frequently. They become invisible because there is no network to store them in.
( See 6. )
Why is there no network?
Within Western society there is a dependence on the processes of logic for the creation of systems. Logic is not universal. It is not inevitable. It is Western civilisations favoured tool for building systems. No more.
( See 2. )
And data that contradict logical systems are by definition illogical. So they do not exist. So they can be 'un-existed'.
This is a system for making that clear.
That is, it is a system for allowing seemingly contradictory data to find a place with a logical web building system. It makes such data valid and acceptable.
So, does that allow you to see more or less non-conforming data?
( See 9. )

If I was to ask what is the nature of time, I would be accused of asking meaningless pseudo-philosophical questions.
True of False?
( See 12. )
Time is a system. It is applied to observations of data in a linear fashion. It provides each observatiuon with a position in a sequence. Its 'moment in time'.
Time is a tacit assumption within the sytem of observing.
( See 12. )
If a piece of data existed that contradicted the system of time that has been imposed, would it be observed?
Would it be possible to observe it?
The system reinforces itself by removing the possibility of perception of data that contradicts the system. It is a closed loop. Time is a system that is applied to data. Systems restrict data you know. They have boundaries, you will see.
( See 11. ).
If your networks for data allowed you access to data that contradicted the system of time would you be far sighted or mad?
Could you have occurred within a current culture?
What is an anarchist?
( See 13. )
The concept of anarchic behaviour assumes a more fundamental hierarchy of order. Data is not ordered, systems order it. The order is optional. Chosen. The order has no absolute reality. It is imposed at will. The order is restrictive.
Would it be fairer to say that the imposition of systems on data was the true anarchy?
( See 13. ).

Systems are found inevitably wherever data is collected. In every radio-telescope, every research laboratory, every office block. Every filing cabinet.
( See 1. )
Every time you talk to a person you accumulate data of all sorts, and you use a system to store it. To make it meaningful. The systems can be very complex.
( See 14. )
Every parking meter and every traffic warden have systems for storing data about the movement of motorists. They use very different systems. It would be fair to assume that their understandings of the situation differed widely. Yet they can come to very similar conclusions. Which system is right?
( See 12. )
The much smaller differences of system between cultures seem to have much greater significance.
Every time you employ a system you create boundaries to observation. Does knowing that increase or reduce the amount of non-conformist data you can perceive?
You have answered this question before. Has your answer changed in a different context?
Why?
Systems occur wherever data is accumulated. Otherwise data simply occurs and is meaningless.
See 11. )
In looking at your own communications with people, what systems do you use? The simplest system to see is a verbal one. Words occur in sequence. They are very good at imposing sequential or 'time dependent' order onto observations. Words are very deceptive with things that are perceived as simultaneous.
He smiled at the very moment the mirror shattered.
The mirror shattered at the very moment he smiled.
These statements are explicitly simultaneous.
Do they have different meanings to you?
Do you use a non-verbal system of communication. What are the limitations of that?
Do you have to verbalise your understanding before you can fit it into a system of memory?
( See 8 & 9 )

Systems mislead and restrict observations of data. They remove data that is not consistent with the system. They can reinforce erroneous realities.
( See 11. )
What is the purpose of systems?
Systems allow a restriction of data. If you are unable to store all data, you have to be selective. You cannot store all the data you receive. What was the headline in your newspaper today?
( See 3. )
So data has to be selected, and it is selected into webs. It is fitted into position. It has its place. In that way, the structure of the web can be stored, the individual pieces of data can be disregarded. They become inevitable from the context that the web creates. By the use of networks and systems, more data can be stored than would otherwise be possible. It increases the efficiency of the biologhical storage system.
( See 1. )
So the system chooses what data it will store. It also restricts the data that is available to be seen.
Within communications with other people, what does your system choose to record? How is that related to your own previous experience of life.?
What information do you systematically disregard?
Is there any way in which an answer can be given to that question given a systematic viewpoint?
What is spontenaiety? If your response is 'illogical' does that change your viewpoint? Do you see yourself more clearly, or the other person?
What are the risks in disregarding the usual systems of interpersonal communication. What are the benefits?
You perceive yourself as unwell in some way. You come to me as a counsellor. In a situation outside your normal experience I offer you an alternative perception for the events surrounding your feeling of being unwell. Networks, systems, information, the things that can be perceived. You cease to perceive yourself as unwell.
You perceive yourself as unwell in some way. You come to me as a spirit doctor. In a situation outside your normal experience I tell you that you have entered a trance. In this magical state I proceed to remove a plastic bag and two rusty nails from your stomach. I tell you this is why you were unwell. Networks, systems, information, the things that can be perceived. You cease to perceive yourself as unwell.
Any further scenarios you must write yourself.
So what is the purpose of systems? Is it possible to be systemless?
(and also see 6. .)

If systems occur, and they occur inevitably, are there any common properties they have? The question has to be asked not only from a human perspective of human systems. Other systems cannot be perceived except in the parts that conform to human systematic expectations. Our own systems of perception exclude data that does not conform to our own systems of perception.
( See 5. )
In physics it has been said that you have to know what you are looking for before you can find it. Truth is like that.
In looking at other people, do we see anything except reflections of ourselves? Is any other data available to us?
It is possible that the common properties of human systems can be used to gain access to data outside the scope of our personal systems of understanding.
( See 9. ) How would such data be stored, and would it be corrupted by the process of storage, or would the system be corrupted by its presence?

One of the properties of systems is that they have boundaries. It is easily seen but it is not easily seen. If you are talking, you are not using a system for hearing. That is probably so. Systems have boundaries that are easily overstepped, but easily overlooked. There is a way of cooking, and it is not applied to talking. There is a boundary between them. There is a system of cooking and a system of talking. They are each used separately.
( See 9. ) What is the purpose of the boundaries. That may not be so simple to see at present. The boundaries help to restrict the material the system is asked to act on. The boundaries exclude consideration of vacuum cleaners from systems of cooking. Perhaps there is a use in that.
Boundaries which are thin black lines. If there are no boundaries would it be called life, or would it not be called?
( See 2. )
How do you use boundaries. Do you use them to restrict the information you have to deal with or to increase the accuracy with which you choose the system to use. Do you make a choice of the system you will use?
( See 4. )
How is the choice justified? Is it?
Systems have boundaries and the boundaries are part of the process of choice when an input is applied to the system. In effect it says 'is this input suitable for this system'. A question that is asked without words. Do you ask it without knowing because of that?
( See 6. )
Boundaries are used to define what is and what is not. How arbitrary is that decision. It depends on the systems? Does it depend on the way that systems resemble each other. If systems are constructed in fractal patterns, where each element breaks down into pieces of the same shape. Or builds into pieces of the same shape.
If that is the way systems are shaped then it does not matter where the boundaries are, the content will be the same.
If that is not the case, then it does matter.

One of the properties of systems is that they oiccur in steps. There is a sequence. An order. It lends credence to the fractal pattern of systems. No more. Systems occur in steps. The steps are identical, though they may perform different functions, they do so in the same way.
An input is received, an action is applied to it, and an output is produced. The output from one step becomes the input to another.
( See 12. )
Head, lead, load, goad, goal, foal, fool, foot.
From head to foot in seven stages, a letter at a time. The output from each stage becomes the input for the next. A sequential action plan. A system. The alphabet is the boundary, and each letter becomes a stage. At every stage the system makes sense.
Input, action, output. Input, action, output. Input, action, output. That is how it continues. Step by step.
Systems are made of steps, and the steps are identical.
How does that affect the way you go about problem solving?
If the steps are sequential is it possible to miss one out? Is the process meaningful if a stage is missing?
There are two distinct styles of step. They are applied differently, and they dictate the 'style' of the system. They determine the 'friendliness' of the system. The difference is confined to the action stage of the step.
In the first style, the input is treated 'educationally'. The action is characteristically poorly defined. The emphasis is on moving the input onwards. On motion not on outcome. 'Educating' steps withinsystems take a very broad range of input, conforming more or less to the requirements of the boundary at that stage of the system. The action has the effect of increasing marginally the conformity of the input to the system requirements. Being acted on successfully by the system incorporates the input into the systems range of perceptions. It reduces the disconformity of the input.
The second style is harder edged. It is the process of filtering. The setting of standards. It screens out the unsuitable input. There is no compromise. Rejected input is placed outside the boundaries. It reduces disconformity by rejecting it. It increases the conformity of the input.

In general terms within a system there are a series of steps that are to be performed.
The early steps are usually 'educating' steps. The intention is to accept as wide a range of input as possible. This increases the validity of the system. Its universality of application. It is characterised by the concept of 'tolerance-but' often rephrased as 'tolerance-and' (there is no significant difference). a stepof this sort can often be identified by its explicit tolerance.
'This is quite acceptable because it is not the issue at this stage all I require is an increase in conformity at this other place'.
So conformity is increased, patterns of action and precedents are establiished, and the system takes control of the input.
Tolerance-but some conformity is expected in payment for that.
Tolerance-and I do not contract to cease reducing disconformity at each stage. The input will be educated into an acceptable, rather than tolerable position.
The later steps are characterised by filtering steps.
Are you small? - yes.
Are you blue? - yes.
Are you round? - Yes.
Three simple filter steps. You are a small blue thing, like a marble or a stone. Of all the possible inputs, this is what is left.
Within any system, a diversity and disconformity of input develops into a conformity and reduced variability within the output as the stages progress.
An initial slowness of action of the system caused by unpredictable behaviour of the input is reduced. As the stages progress, the action of each stage becomes faster. This is perceived externally as increasing skill, power or authority. The operator of the system is validated by the system increasing its speed of operation. The perceived skill of the system is applied to the operator by association. The 'expertisation' of the individual caused by the increasing conformity of the system inputs. The fastest method of reducing disconformity is through 'filter' style stages. It is interesting to note that the most authoritarian systems include a high dependence on filter styles stages. 'Educating' stages are far less rapid in their reduction of disconformity. It is rare to see authoritarian systems operate on a tolerance-and basis. A pass-fail attitude is much more prevalent.
An initial broad spectrum of input develops into a very specific input. The production of 'authority' by specialisation. Within education systems, students are constantly restricted in subject matter, further and further. Knowledge become greater and greater about less and less.
Experts quite commonly lose general skills in the process of specialisation, yet they create authority for themselves by that means.
What happens to the computer scientist (or chemist) who has lost the ability to communicate outside that field of expertise?
What are the implications for political leaders?
What are the implications for perceived authorities?
Have you applied a pass-fail stage in deciding which people you speak to?
What are the real terms of your tolerance?
(See development 1-14)
Do I have to do any more than raise the concept of the manipulation of systems to alert you to the possibilities?
( See 6. )
If I can mislead you about boundaries I can increase disconformity within your systems and reduce your effectiveness. I can possibly even lead you to reject all suitable input.
If you believe that cod liver oil taken internally will eliminate stains on the carpet, how will that affect your ability to perceive?
If I tell you that it will prevent something that is actually quite unlikely anyway, how will that restructure your reality?
What happens if I give you two systems, but the step between them is missing?
This is how you make cement powder. this is how you lay concrete.
If you cannot complete the system you must be stupid?
This is the art of disinformation. Failing to supply all the pieces.
If you don't know what is missing, there is no way of asking for it. Failure reinforces the concept of stupidity.
This is a brand new car.
And this is petrol.
I am not going to explain about oil to you.
And you will not be travelling very far.
Do I have to do any more than raise the concept of the manipulation of systems to alert you to the possibilities?
( See 6. )
How would you manipulate a system to increase the positive benefits of that system?
Is an artificially manipulated experience of success valid.
This is a brand new car.
And this is petrol.
I am not going to explain about oil to you.
Would you be so kind as to drive this car into the garage, and I will run you down to the station to catch your train.
Do I have to do any more than raise the concept of the manipulation of systems to alert you to the possibilities?
( See 6. )

Resonance systems. If systems are made in very similar ways, with very similar stages, is it possible to create conceptual resonance between them. If you are an expert in a particular system, is it possible to be fluent in another system by recognising and acting on the similarities of form, regardless of the apparent diversity of detail.
It has been argued that this is how Aristotle achieved greatness.
Is it possible for authority to be carried over from one system to another?
If so, is that authority real or spurious?
Is the fluency in the new system real or fortuitous? How much part does chance play in the creation of broad authority?

Closed systems are systems in which the output from a stage or series of stages is fed back into the input of the stage or series of stages. The conformity of the data at any point is increased up to a level. The action of the stage is reduced. As the system cycles, each element of data has already been acted on by each of the stages, and is lesslikely to be changed by any of them.
Closed systems tend towards stasis with respect to the external systems. Internally, the perception of progress is maintained. The apparent increase in validity is maintained. Internal authority is still created. Characteristically that authority is restricted to the closed system, which does not allow new input.
Have you ever had your authority or understanding justified and been unable to justify it?
'He doesn't understand these things'?
Closed systems create confidence and authority very easily. It need not be durable. There are advantages and disadvantages to closed systems, dependant partly on the effectiveness of the closure. If there is no data outside the system, there is no challenge to authority.
Do limitations on perception close the system of perception?
How would the introduction of perception beyond the closed system be treated?
How did Newton get away with it? Or Einstein?
Authority?
Is the telling of a story the establishment of a system? If that story is limited, does that close the system?
Confidence and authority increase. What happens if the closed system is challenged or opened?

Imagine a system that closes. The output at the end of the system has been completely changed by the action of the system. It is fed back into the input of the system, and the first step is a filter that eliminates it completely. The output is not acceptable as input at some point in a closed system. The system crashes. It inevitably eliminates all of its content.
The concept of 'reductio ad absurdum' is used in mathematics to test validity. Does it test validity or system campatability? If the system becomes large enough is it possible to see beyond the boundaries of that system?
What happens if a system effectively performs no action. The output is unchanged and re-used as input.
This could create security and happiness or frustration and anxiety.
The difference is one of perception beyond the system concerned. If the system is large enough, the probability of happiness is increased.
Is this why large political groups are more stable than small ones?
Is this an argument for group therapy?

Part of the inevitable systematisation of life. It is part of the inevitable systematisation of life.
At the end of the day we come back to systems. We inevitably come back to systems. Of all the things that are studied first of all the things that are studied. First of all. This is where systems start. The study of systems. And in studying there are boundaries. Unrecognised boundaries. The inevitable consequence of systems.
So what are the boundaries. In the systems and in the study of systems and in the process of study itself there are boundaries. At times it is because of the boundaries that the system is recognised. So why is it that...
In studying systems we are really looking at boundaries. Is the first thing we see clearly the lines that define the edge of the system. The point at which the system no longer applies. Do we look for the point at which we recognise we can go no further without stepping outside the system. So there are boundaries. They are often first.
And systems run in steps. That is the important thing to note. They are the same hierarchic steps that punctuate all of experience. The steps to be seen in all things. They are the steps you will be trying to use in reading this. First one thing and then the next. A steady p[rocess that leads to an end. Each step has defined for it a starting point and an ending point. Each step defined for itself two things. It takes its input from a specific source. That is it defines the form, shape or style of the input. Then it performs a step on it. It operates a small and exactly defined action on the input material and changes it by some degree into the output material. And the output material is inevitable, based on the definition of the input and the operation performed. So each step generates an output which is exactly controlled. It is exactly ready for the next step. The step that follows.
The process of performing an operation on an input reduces its disconformity to the requirements of the system. That is one of the purposes of the operation. It is an inevitability. Such a step can only reduce disconformity to the systems ideals. As the system steps up hierarchically, so conformity to the system ideals is increased. Such hierarchic systems reduce disconformity at each stage. It is one of the purposes of the system.
In performing each operational step in the system, the validity of the input is increased, and this is fed back into the input itself. Such it is. The conformity of the input is increased, so its validity, perceived or not, is increased. That is the second important aspect of systems.
Systems operate with an assumption about the nature ofcomplexity. To be fully effective systems have to construct themselves out of a sereis of simple steps. It is important that the step itself is simple and self evident. To some extent the step must be determined inevitably by the input material. Thus the output from a step determines the operation of the next step. The conformity of the output therefore influences the reliability of the following step.
Thus as an imput follows the path of a system its conformity is increased and the reliability of the input for the next stage is increased. With increasing conformity of input and increasing reliability the system operates faster and more efficiently, with fewer and fewer difficult decisions and unanswered questions. The increase in efficiency and speed is used as a justification for the process of systematisation. It must be the right thing to do, it is so much smoother.
Early stages within systematisation are therefore characterised by slowness, lack of precision and efficiency, and low reliability. The input material can fluctuate in its qualities widely, and the steps have to be poorly defined and poorly tuned to the input in order to ensure as wide an effectiveness as possible. The maximum amount of basic random input has to be captured at the bottom end of the system. As the steps continue , systematisation occurs, so that the later stages of the system are characterised by high levels of conformity, high levels of predictability within the inputs at any stage, high speed and high efficiency.
The loss of variability of material occurs by two processes. The first uses early stages with wide applicability and low precision to catch a wide range of inputs, but which then operates on the input in a general way to reduce its disconformity and variability.
The second process is a screening or filtering action. A wide input is filtered to allow only the most suitable portion to be operated on by the next stage.
Within most systems both of these processes are operated. Characteristically the first process of modifying input to reduce disconformity is operated in the early stages, and the second process of screening out or rejecting unsuitable input is operated within the later stages of the system.
So systems have boundaries, though they are often perceived rather than experienced, and they operate in steps, acting in sequence, to reduce disconformity.
The benefits of systems are many. There is a reduction of doubt, and hence insecurity, both to the operator and to the material of the system. There is a consequent increase of validity within the system.
There is also an increase in the speed and efficiency of the system. A form of 'expertisation', or creation of system skills. These are often extended beyond the system they were built within. Authority built on skill within a particular system is often carried over into other systems, where the skills required may be very different.

A system is a system is a system.
It has a start and an end.
This is the end.

Is it possible to change a system from inside a system?
Is it possible to understand a system from outside that system?

Appendix 1.
Appendix 2.
Appendix 3.
Appendix 4.
Appendix 5.
Appendix 6.
Appendix 7.
Appendix 8.
Appendix 9.
Appendix 10.
Appendix 11.
Appendix 12.
Appendix 13.
Appendix 14.