Analysis: Closed System - versus - Open System

Asked by: Toad-Uoff
  • Law of OnE - versus - Law of Zer0

    Closed System :vs: Open System

    Static System :vs: Dynamic System

    Chaos :vs: Order

    Pandemonium :vs: Equilibrium

    Entropy/Waste :vs: Synchropy/Recycling

    non-self-repairing :vs: self-repairing

    Twinkie-ism (aka: Collectivism ruled by Moralism) :vs: Diversity (aka: Individualism ruled by Libertarianism)

    Control rules the Roost (relevant government: Nazism) :vs: Order rules the Roost (relevant government: Democracy)

    Complicated ruled by Opinion (aka: Randomatic/Shit Happens) :vs: Simplicity ruled by Necessity (aka: Systematic/Fate Happens)

    OnEism :vs: Zer0ism

    Zionism :vs: WEism

    Law of oNe :vs: Law of Zer0

    Luck Driven :vs: Destiny Driven

    Pride :vs: Fortitude

    Greed :vs: Charity

    Lust :vs: Love

    Envy :vs: Hope

    Gluttony :vs: Temperance

    Wrath :vs: Justice

    Sloth :vs: Prudence

    Death :vs: Eternal Life (aka: matter CANNOT be destroyed)

    Hell :vs: Heaven

    Satan/Opinion Reigns Supreme :vs: God/Nature Reigns Supreme

    Also, the term “Synchropy” is similar to the term “Syntropy” (anti-entropy) which Syntropy is considered to be a fictional werd, but that’s because this world’s academic scholarly minds think there’s no such thing as anti-entropy, so there's no official werd for anti-entropy but a few terms/werds have been coined and I looked at all of them and Syntropy was the closest werd to use but it didn’t cover things right so I created a new werd, since anti-entropy (Synchropy) happens to be what’s known as Synchronicity. ;)

    Synchropy (aka: anti-entropy) = Zer0 entropy of a perpetual motion Open System (aka: Synchronicity)

    Therefrom, the following OTP’s are true:

    “The Law of One rules the roost of a Closed System, creating the inevitable, OnEism, also known as Can’t/Death/Hell; whereas the Law of Zer0 rules the roost of an Open System, creating the evernevernevermore, Zer0ism, also known as Can/Eternal Life/Heaven.” – Old Toad Proverb

    “Can’t = Closed System = Death = Hell = st00pid; Can = Open System = Eternal Life = Heaven = Intelligent” – Old Toad Proverb

    “There is no don’t/Me, there’s only do/We. Therefore, if you can’t don’t, then don’t can’t; then once free of the kNot, We-Can/Wiccan happens Naturally.” – Old Toad Proverb (aka: Law of We-Can/Wiccan/Nature/Zer0ism)

    “The simple Open System Binary Nature of Truth/Logic & Life/Love is simply that they SourCe directly out of the Law of Zer0, whereas Mistruth/Ignorance & Death/Hate SourCes directly out of the Law of One.” – Old Toad Proverb (aka: Open System Law of Truth/Life)

    “Everything’s a Boojum, until proven otherwise, then cross your fingers you didn’t get it wrong.” – Louis Carroll

    Ribbit 

  • Analysis: Closed System - versus - Open System. Open System.

    Open-systems theory originated in the natural sciences and subsequently spread to fields as diverse as computer science, ecology, engineering, management, and psychotherapy. In contrast to closed-systems, the open-system perspective views an organization as an entity that takes inputs from the environment, transforms them, and releases them as outputs in tandem with reciprocal effects on the organization itself along with the environment in which the organization operates. That is, the organization becomes part and parcel of the environment in which it is situated. Returning for a moment to the example of biological systems as open-systems, billions of individual cells in the human body, themselves composed of thousands of individual parts and processes, are essential for the viability of the larger body in which they are a part. In turn, "macro-level" processes such as eating and breathing make the survival of individual cells contingent on these larger processes. In much the same way, open-systems of organizations accept that organizations are contingent on their environments and these environments are also contingent on organizations.

    As an open-systems approach spread among organizational theorists, managers began incorporating these views into practice. Two early pioneers in this effort, Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, began viewing organizations as open social systems with specialized and interdependent subsystems and processes of communication, feedback, and management linking the subsystems. Katz and Kahn argued that the closed-system approach fails to take into account how organizations are reciprocally dependent on external environments. For example, environmental forces such as customers and competitors exert considerable influence on corporations, highlighting the essential relationship between an organization and its environment as well as the importance of maintaining external inputs to achieve a stable organization.

    Furthermore, the open-system approach serves as a model of business activity; that is, business as a process of transforming inputs to outputs while realizing that inputs are taken from the external environment and outputs are placed into this same environment. Companies use inputs such as labor, funds, equipment, and materials to produce goods or to provide services and they design their subsystems to attain these goals. The organization itself is analogous to the body, and external market and regulatory conditions are analogous to environmental factors such as the quality of housing, drinking water, air and availability of nourishment.

    The production subsystem, for example, focuses on converting inputs into marketable outputs and often constitutes a primary purpose of a company. The boundary subsystem's goal is to obtain inputs or resources, such as employees, materials, equipment, and so forth, from the environment outside of the company, which are necessary for the production subsystem. This subsystem also is responsible for providing an organization with information about the environment. This adaptive subsystem collects and processes information about a company's operations with the goal of aiding the company's adaptation to external conditions in its environment. Another subsystem, management, supervises and coordinates the other subsystems to ensure that each subsystem functions efficiently. The management subsystem must resolve conflicts, solve problems, allocate resources, and so on.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.