C-83. Positive restructuring

If we did not have the four stages of consequentiality as a tertiary Read (C-8), then we might well be tempted to approach potential restructuring efforts, seeking to improve performance, as though this were but a Stage 4 issue – i.e., of deciding to exchange or modify the current structure. We would neglect the needs and developmental resources of Stages 1-3. We would overlook the consequentiality of (1) Nature of Things => Needed functionality; of (2) Needed functionality => Developed capability; and of (3) Developed capability => Structure (both of process and product). We would be looking to (Stage 4) Structure => Function, there to compare values of existing structures with their established functionalities. More decision making than problem solving: that a dynamic imbalance (XI) with threats to potential productive interdependency (C-71, C-80).

Thus handicapped, we would not – and should not — be surprised to see such events as: 1/ newly appointed/elected officials who, assuming more responsibility than possessing capability, looking “to shake up” things by calling for a structural review – even overhaul; 2/ members of an establishment switching to another, sometimes opposed, establishment (e.g., religious conversions); 3/ attempts to “scale up” an organization based on control system (responsibility) rather than operating system (capability) considerations; 4/ voters opting for a change per se rather than endorsing specific initiatives; 5/ more management than leadership; 6/ more vocational training than finding a calling.

Nor should we be surprised that rebellion, a Stage 4 condition, can be confused and confounded with revolution, a Stages 1-4 condition. Rebellion, thus understood, can leave us without any functioning structure (“anarchy” instead of community). Revolution attempts to build new functioning structure – even to the extent of developing new behavioral structure with which to build that functioning structure. (We saw a related confusion in the [tertiary] reading of the U.S. Constitution and its Preamble. Apart from suggesting blood instead of minding, Jefferson had a point to make about the contribution revolution could make.)

We seem to appreciate that this Present that we envision – i.e., that we construct (App. XIX) — contains too much of the immediate future, relatively speaking (e.g., “immediate vs. delayed rewards,” dangers of global warming and overpopulation). However, we do not seem to appreciate that this same Present contains too much of the immediate past — i.e., not enough realization of the first three stages of consequentiality and not enough appreciation of and in this World of Possibility. CEM-history has much it can Tell us – tertially speaking (App. XI; C-8).

The need for restructuring, and opportunities to thereby profit (in more ways than one) from restructuring, our existing structures is great. See, for example, C-84 re societal structures and C-86 for a HAS restructuring of the humanism, art and science establishments. Also see C-85, where we restructure concepts as theoretical constructs for optimal realization (from understanding through to composed [Stage 3] restructuring).

(c) 2013 R.F. Carter