Not everything important can be measured or described

Not everything important can be measured or described

“All things come into being by conflict of opposites, and the sum of things (τὰ ὅλα ta hola, "the whole") flows like a stream.” …and “I am a citizen of the world (cosmopolites)". [1]

When we think about ourselves as knowing because of some who might have some education that leverages to a certain measuring system, or have a certain mixture or pattern and links as part of our physiological brain, and a larger cultural support that exists for some populations or part of the world that encourages individual‘s expansion, we fail to admit that changes are part of a much larger system.

Today’s world although made of contradictions has a tendency towards liberation at the individual level such that all individuals become part of the world. From a system’s perspective, we should not count the real time interactions and connections as being the main ones or having the same weighing factors since these are not important unless their significant change becomes an important factor.

Whether a director or CEO talks to people who work in an organization, becomes important only if a certain number of people have decided that this is important to them. Otherwise, companies can function very well in an individual cell that has a proper balance. In a more original print-out, thinking was just about having the correct balance. The balance will never be achieved if we weigh only what we can see or measure since the invisible connectivities are at work and changes cannot be observed by the ones who are afraid or opposed to change. At component level, we might have some information about how our system is designed, because we have large libraries with particles pre-assembled, as well as, some mechanisms that lead us to a belief that we can figure out on how the assembly and disassembly is being completed.

What we do not know is “what” really makes them do anything? If the answer is the “environment” then we should ask ourselves who or what is behind the “environment”?

In statistics we know that sometimes, some numbers represent accidents while on other occasions they imply either an incremental change or, rather a significant change. We know how to track and monitor almost everything that is material because we are the ones who measured and inserted into the system what we have created. We know those processes that we want them measured if and when we know that certain parameters are away from a normal distribution. What happens when people are the ones who changed and can no longer be categorized within a normal distribution?

Any organization and/or company expect changes to happen, but we should ask ourselves, what kind of changes do they really want to see?

In a system that often punishes anything out of normal distribution and expects a trained behavior, the changes are often painful and difficult to all of us. When compared with organizations where free will is understood as the main opportunity for changes, we will understand that there is communication among all of us and the “environment” is capable to help us to make those positive changes.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope;

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus

Resilience born from love
The spectrum of thinking