Lynn Rasmussen

Want life with a man to be easier?




* Email
* First Name
* = Required Field
We will never sell, rent, or otherwise give away your private information.

Add to Technorati Favorites Top Blogs
May 7, 2007

Love Is Easy: A Systems View

A client mentioned recently that she didn’t quite “get” systems thinking. I told her that getting systems thinking is not required, but she always wants to know more and to go deeper.

Here’s a simple explanation that might be helpful:

A basic concept in systems thinking is that, in a complex system, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Looking at the parts of a system won’t help to understand the whole. It’s like looking at hydrogen and oxygen to describe water. (Thanks for reminding me, David Ing!)

Universities break human experience into parts to make sense of it and to study it. This works for machines but it doesn’t work for a basic understanding complex living systems like people and relationships. I’m not saying that the different approaches are wrong. They are simply too fragmented and complicated to be helpful for everyday people. Experts are  required to sort through and interpret the complexity.

Because a systems approach asks different questions, the answers are different. Instead of looking at human experience psychologically, philosophically, spiritually, and physiologically, I ask question like: What are the processes of the self? What are the boundaries, flows, and feedbacks? What is the systemic environment?  Is the system open or closed to its environment?

A simple example is a system’s view of love.  Love can’t be defined or well described from psychological, philosophical, or religious views. A systems view provides the possibility for a very different, simple definition.

Here’s my current version of a definition of love:

Love is the inner feeling and the outward expressions associated with the flow of information, matter, and energy between people. This flow results in the bonds that form social groups like marriage and community. Love is genetic and required for our survival.

Fear, anger, jealousy, grumpiness—the negative emotions—represent a protective closing to that flow. There is only one way to increase love: Open up and increase the flow.

Prayer, meditation, martial arts, and professional training are all means of “stepping back” from protective emotions and opening up. When we open up, we can see more clearly in order to respond, and then, after responding, we can see what is working and adjust our responses.

Emotions and feelings are an inner guidance system. They are clear indicators of our current level of consciousness at any given time. Am I open and clear? Is my perspective broad? Or am I protectively closed down and reacting aggressively or fearfully?

In this simple example, I integrate emotions and awareness, physiology, spiritual/religious teachings, and sociology—the formation of social groups. This is not philosophical speculation about how the mind works or how thinking works. It is a framework and a logic that is more in sync with who we are.

Does this make sense? Is it simple enough? Or complex enough?

You can begin an exploration of systems thinking at the site of the International Society for Systems Science . I posted this entry on my Amazon Connect blog. This week I’ll make an Amazon book list for systems thinking.

If anyone has any favorite recommendations for the list, I’d appreciate suggestions!

One comment for this post.

  1. Comment from David Ing on May 17th, 2007 :

    I haven’t thought about a systems view on love for some time — David Hawk said that students in the Social Systems Science program at the University of Pennsylvania used to make fun of Russell Ackoff’s definition in “On Purposeful Systems”.

    I think that one of the challenges with modelling or defining love is that it has to be viewed from both individual and group perspectives. What does it mean when a woman is in love with a man, but the man isn’t in love with the woman?

    In economics, utility theory has some of the right ideas. It’s okay to order preferences (e.g. I love person X more than person Y). It’s not possible to create a quantitative scale (e.g. I can’t measure that I love person X twice as much as person Y). Love is not symmetric (e.g. although X loves Y, Y doesn’t necessarily love X). Finally, love is not transitive (e.g. although X loves Y and Y loves Z, this does not mean that X loves Z).

What do you think?