Centered over Bounded Sets
Centered over Bounded Sets is a rule of systems thinking having to do with how one thinks about any Set ({ }): a group of items, entities, or parts. Since systems are, by definition, a set of parts with some relationship, the rule applies to all systems. This rule is an implication of Rule One in systems thinking and an important guideline in discerning The Prime or using [1] The Prime frame in the Semantic Ontology Framework.
There are two primary ways of thinking about groups of things, or sets: centered sets and bounded sets.1 Centered sets are defined by their relationship to some central point, element, and or motion. On the other hand, Bounded Sets are defined by a common boundary. Modern thinking2 — based on Newtonian dynamics — was focused primarily on working with bounded sets. Things were seen primarily as static, disconnected entities that, once defined, changed little and behaved consistently according to assumed characteristics. Post-modern thinking3 — based on Einsteinian dynamics — is focused primarily with working with centered sets. Things in this type of thinking are seen as dynamic and related to all other entities. Though they may be described in a certain state in a particular time frame, they will always change and behave in ways that can only be predicted according to relative conditions.
In most cases, one should only focus temporarily on bounded sets: groups of things defined by a limit (a bound) because these bounds are either inherently arbitrary or of secondary importance to relativity and systemic relationships. Bounded set are only useful when one needs to make a justified assumption about a boundary for efficiency purposes. But if the bounded set becomes permanent or primary, it will lead to perceptual or systemic dysfunction and long-term inefficiency.
Instead, one should focus primarily on centered sets: groups defined by their orientation to a Prime or center which creates and supports their relationship to each other. While centers in the centered set take more energy to discern and monitor then bounds, they offer more holistic power, fidelity, and integrity in interactions (participation), controls, and interventions (leadership).
[Centered sets also better represent the idea of Holarchy that all things are holons: they are both a whole and a part of a larger whole.]
[Bounded sets should only be used when it is necessary to focus on the components parts of something to the exclusion of other parts and relationships.]
[Bounded sets pose a real problem when thinking about reality.]
[Why describing things is often more faithful than defining things.]
Related Entries
References & Notes
- Some add “fuzzy sets” as a third type of thinking, but since it yields confusion rather than definition to a set, I see it as a non-set condition where its temporary unclear what set will emerge from the observed environment.
- This would be the type of thinking central to the Citizen VS and Achiever VS of Emergent Value Systems (EVS).
- This would be the type of thinking central to the Village VS, Systems VS, and Universe VS of Emergent Value Systems (EVS).