\documentstyle{article}

\title{Postmodernistic Information Concerning Autopoiesis out of Chaos}

\author{Ante Lauc \\ Faculty of Economy \\ University of Osijek \\ Gajev trg 7 \\ Osijek, Croatia \\ e-mail: alauc@public.srce.hr }
\date{}
\begin{document}
 
\maketitle

\abstract{Autopoiesis as a new concept of interpretation of reaality
requires understanding of the four Aristoteles causes.
The next step is understanding of four types of development:
human, organisaional, economic and cultural.
The key category is understanding of freedom which is for the author
high effienciecy and high democracy with minimal pollution of the
nature.
All questions and answers must be ``closed''.
It can be done throught the permanent restructuring and reprocessing.

{\bf Keywords:} human development, organisational development, economic development, cultural
development, autopoiesis, self-organisation
}

\section{Introduction}
 
This short article will present a summary of theory and methodology
of postmodern organization (PMO) including the sketch of
technology.  

It seems that the most important problem in the world is lack of
development. There is an enormous demand for it but supply is too
short. 

Four questions in the best philosophical tradition of Aristoteles
would be helpful to overcome the problem of demand:
 
\begin{enumerate}
\item What is causa prima finalis? (What is objective function of the
subject of  development?)
\item What is causa prima efficiens? (What are causes of growth and
development of the subject of development?)
\item What is causa prima materialis? (What are the means of growth
and development?)
\item What is causa prima formalis? (What are  rules of the
configuration and the
   organization of the subject of development?)  
\end{enumerate}

The next phase is to find out answers to questions of supply.
Through theoretical and empirical research it is suggested to look
after the answers in the following fields:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Human development (HD),
\item Organizational development (OD),
\item Economic development (ED), and
\item Cultural development (CD).
\end{enumerate}

The purpose of this article is to apply the theory of self-organization
and autopoietic theory combining four questions and four
answers. In the narrow sense, PMO is the problem for causa formalis
and inside organizational development. But in the broader sense 
with postmodern approach we could  analyze all questions and all
possible answers, using synergistic force (H. Haken \cite{Haken83}).
 
The author of the theory of self-organization, based on the
paradigm of non-linearity, irreversibility, and dependence, is Ilya
Prigogine --- winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Before
him the man was in opposition with nature (Monod and Jacob). Such
philosophy is the result of Newton's paradigm based on mathematical
assumptions of linearity, reversibility, and independence of
relations. It started with Galileo and F. Bacon and Descartes as the
spiritual leaders of Modern Age. While  Aristoteles' view was based
on perception, a modern age was based on cognition.
Postmodern age includes senses, feeling, thinking and doing with
permanent restructuring and reprocessing within and between
subjects.

With deeper understanding, beneath this antagonistic relationship
(Galileo as negation of Aristoteles) there is harmonic relation,
Galileo as negation of negation -- renegation -- of Aristoteles. 
The best modern scientists were inspired by Cartesian tradition,
with only several, who tried to interpret reality according to 
philosophy of Leibniz, and Hegel as the opponents to Newtonian
paradigm.
 
Due to Prigogine's research \cite{Prigogine84} we now have a new model of nature, that
could be in harmony with human being and society. The key idea is
freedom. Hegel's interpretation \cite{Hegel65} of nature is a challenge, because
it helps in explaining non-linearity, irreversibility and
interdependence of relations. Aristoteles philosophy, enriched with
discoveries of Heisenberg's uncertainty, Bohr's complementarity and
Prigogine's non-linearity and irreversibility demonstrate the
spiral movement of postmodern science. The author is not competent
to interpret Aristoteles and Hegel philosophy of nature, but is
only a believer, owing to intuition in Bergson tradition. 
It is not a pure chance that scientists with Prigogine paradigm
quote Hegel, while scientists with  Newtonian paradigm ignore it. 
It requires a special research to discover relationship between
religion, philosophy and science. Hypothesis behind this article is
that autopoietic theory requires a better knowledge of religion, 
philosophy and the best scientific discoveries. Ignoring it we are
falling into Newtonian paradigm, although we need not be conscious
of that. 
 
Modern paradigm is allopoietic (defined by outside) and defines the
border in artificial nature  (buildings, machines, economic
products, and political relationships). With postmodern paradigm
owing to autopoietic approach (defined by inside) we have
capabilities to design products and relations that will be in
greater harmony with man and nature.  Economy and sociology are
limited with idea of equilibrium. Prigogine with discovery of the
behavior of nonequilibrium and nonlinear systems is a predecessor of
postmodern age. Nature is rarely in equilibrium. Life is now
interpreted as self-organized phenomenon that is far from
equilibrium. 
 
Social sciences ignore this new paradigm resulting in low quality
of products, low productivity, stagflation, wars, and environmental
problems. 
 

\section{Development as Autopoiesis and Self-organization}
   
From the author's point of view autopoiesis and self-organisation are
the bridge between causality and finality, necessity and freedom,
nature and man. Without it we are forced to live in a less efficient
and less democratic organizations. High efficiency and high
democracy with minimal pollution of nature could be the way to freedom.
 
With deeper understanding of these three goals we could overcome
sustained development, stagflation, and environmental problems,
because knowledge of the purpose should eliminate much entropy.  
 
The problem is how to design decision making to reach at least two
goals (efficiency and humanness). It is the problem related to
causa prima finalis.  
 
Before postmodern age the humanistic and natural sciences were
separated and the objective function was split between developing
efficiency and humanness. Human and cultural development prefers
the second objective, while organizational and economic development
prefers the first one.
There is very little research on correlation of these  two
variables. Probably the reason is a lack of postmodern paradigm in
contemporary social sciences. Author's hope is to help reinterpret
the viewpoint far from equilibrium, from modern paradigm toward
postmodern paradigm, from chaos and necessity as opposites to
freedom as a renegation of chaos and necessity.   
This prevalent, traditional reasoning is the result of division of
labor (ignoring Durkheim \cite{Legradic77}), the lack of understanding of the wholeness
(ignoring Hegel, Capra, Wilber, Prigogine, Jantsch), the lack of
emotional involvement (ignoring Freud, Jung, Reich, Plutchik,
Kelley), the lack of lateral thinking, the lack of mutual understanding to
be in the other's shoes (Vanek \cite{Vanek70}), and --- as synthesis --- the lack of
knowledge and understanding of development in general. 
  
Autopoietic theory enables us to develop decision making that will
harmonize these two either opposite or complementary approaches
(technical versus humanistic, economic versus political, male
versus female, man versus nature, discursive versus intuitive).
 
\section{Development and Causality}
 
Causa prima efficiens has its roots in Darwin's law of survival of
the fittest. It is a necessary condition, and a sufficient one
could be the will for power (Nietzsche). How to achieve greater
rate of return or how to survive? 

Behind this behavior is either natural or social law of necessity.
Behavior determined only with these laws is near equilibrium. It is
based, in some way, on the second law of thermodynamics and the
result will be according to the prognosis of maximal entropy and
elimination of life. With optimistic view, the life is the only
chance in the universe, pure gamble of roulette (Monod \cite{Prigogine84}). It is
owing to postmodern paradigm far from truth and freedom. 
Such behavior  ``near equilibrium'' is demonstrated in the literature
of the 20th century and every sensitive human being is conscious of it in
everyday life. 

Contemporary scientists are very often afraid to look after the
thelos, and for many of them teleology is too similar to theology. 
The result is that we are too near the equilibrium, defined by
chaos and necessity, without understanding of freedom as thelos. 
If we are defined only by causality we behave almost as spiritual
animals in Hegel sense. With better understanding of the history of
philosophy and development of the concept we could reach a better
understanding of the concept of development. Before Galileo there
was a dominance of thelos with poor understanding of causality.
With Galileo instead of why, the dominant question became how. It
was negation of finality (not re-negation) and affirmation of
understanding of causality. Descartes and Bacon developed the
ontological frame for industrial and scientific revolution. Before
Newton, as the ``new Moses'', nature and natural laws laid hidden in
the night and God said: ``Let Newton be''. The world was changed and all was
light (Pope), but we have lost the way. As Einstein said we don't
know where we are going, but we will reach there soon \cite{Prigogine84}.

\section{Human Development}
 
In human development it is suggested to analyze human needs, as A.
Maslow has proposed understanding of human nature \cite{Maslow82}.  Motivation
depends upon probability of success and amount of benefit. The
background is a conative aspect of personality. It is this writer's
experience that the Plutchik theory of emotion \cite{Plutchik62} is helpful as
an interface between nature and man, biology and psychology. The key
problem is to overcome the need for security and need for prestige
(fight or flight) through self-actualization, that is in fact a
need for freedom. In Plutchik's model, self-actualization is more
probable with orientation and exploration above 50\%. Maslow's basic
position is that when things are seen as a whole, the prospects are
far more cheering than they look at the first sight. Pessimism is
the outcome of ``partialism''. Whoever is nearer to the 5th level of
needs is more capable for autopoiesis.  Self-actualisers, says
Maslow, are capable of more love than  others, as well as of deeper
relationships. They have  a clear and pragmatic sense of difference
between good and evil, although they are more capable of tolerance
about the other people's lack of it.

They are example of the behavior that is far from equilibrium in
Prigogian sense. Their 'peak' experiences, the oceanic feeling, the
sense of limitless horizons opening up to the vision is very
similar to the Chinese experience of Tao or Indian experience of
samadhi. Maslow saw a human nature as naturally self-transcending,
as permanent re-negation, re-structuring and re-processing. Freud
is within Newtonian paradigm, because  he is unable to see far
beyond ego-satisfaction, that is probably nearer to equilibrium. 
Rogers research \cite{Rogers72},
specially, coefficients of correlation before and after his
psychotherapy, demonstrates that the more healthy a person is the
better self-organized a person. Maslow and Rogers did not use the term
self-organisation or autopoiesis, but it is implicit in their theories of
personality. Some psychologists use these terms but their approach
is either negation or ignorance of postmodern paradigm. The
criterion for differentiation is related with causa prima finalis.
Skinner's experiment with operant conditioning helped very much in
partial understanding of human nature, but when he tried to
extrapolate his empirical work he reached the wrong conclusion ---
there is no need for freedom and dignity. Discussion about his book 
``Beyond Freedom and Dignity'', specially with C. Rogers, is well
known. Author's experience is that the best criticism is when it
comes within one's paradigm. The Author asked Skinner: ``Is the freedom
the best reinforcer?'' His answer (it could be if somebody is closed
in room) proved that his understanding of freedom was very narrow,
almost near equilibrium, and with such constraints in cognitive
map, his conclusion is logical.
 
The general hypothesis for understanding of human development is
that a free and creative person thinks as s/he feels, communicates
as s/he thinks, and does as s/he says. These transformations of
feeling in thinking, thinking in communication, and communication
in deeds is ignored in modern psychological research. Without
understanding and progress in 3C (from ``connectivity'' to
``compatibility'' and ``coordination'') in accordance with the new paradigm
we will be closer to the equilibrium.  Chuck Kelley's research \cite{Kelley74}
about an armor and the flow of the radix is promising.
 
Without more precise understanding of dialectical thinking through
renegations, at least for decision-making which should be more
efficient, effective and democratic, we have to know that the
greatest constraints are the lack of knowledge. Triadic classification
(technical, economic, and psychosociological knowledge) is
necessary but not sufficient for designing a professional development.
Author's research \cite{Legradic77} has discovered a very low correlations
between knowledge levels and intensity of problems. Most people do
not know that they do not know, specially about their own emotions.
How to overcome fear, anger, sorrow? 
We propose to start learning with technical discipline (about
material, energy, equipment, process, product), transform technical
categories in economic (cost -- benefit analysis, marginal
productivity, law of fair exchange) and economic ones in humanistic
(need for work and love; how to achieve self-actualization and peak
experiences). 
 
The greatest problems are in the group dynamics from family
development and team work to self-organizing in any organization. 
 
Authors' theoretical and practical work on the theory of interaction
could be classified into the three basic laws:

\begin{enumerate}
\item[X.] The law of the transfer of information;
\item[Y.] The law of the relative deprivation; and
\item[Z.] The law of reciprocal behavior.
\end{enumerate}
 
By the first law we have to define the elements of sets of
information on feelings, thoughts, problems, know-how, and
solutions ranging from an individual to the group, with all
possibilities. Physical units (human being or a group) have
arithmetic speed ($n+1$) in matching and ordering, while images of
these, owing to interactions, have geometric speed ($n^2+1$).
The only rational solution is through re-negation that minimizes
the entropy with on-line feedback whenever it is possible. Loud
thinking is a negative feedback which minimizes entropy too.
Anonymous questionnaires are the second best solution with negative
feedback and off-line regulations. They are very often necessary
for self-learning as the first stage in socialization in the sense
of postmodern age. 
 
The law of relative deprivation explains the emotional background
of problems within and between human beings. An individual mainly
compares oneself with better achievers in relevant economic and
political values (money and/or status). The result is relative
deprivation -- either envy or injustice, depending on relations in
productivity and consumption. Self-actualisers are free of this
law.  
 
The law of reciprocal behavior explains actual behavior relating
expectation and realization. There are three categories on
qualitative level (help --- ''+``, indifference --- ''0``, and
obstruction --- ''-``) and enormous quantitative differences. On
qualitative level there are nine combinations, where three
symmetrical ones are the most frequent. Anticipation and
satisfaction of help are called familiarity, because it is
initiated in the family, but in the life out of the family it has
negative connotations. It is informal and infantile level of
autopoiesis. Owing to the first and second law (X and Y), the next
phase is an exchange of negative (-), instead of positive (+). Such
a case is called the revenge (eye for eye, tooth for tooth as in
Old Testament). The final stage in natural order is nearer to
equilibrium --- (neither exchanges of ``+'' nor ``-'' but exchange of
zeros) and returns to the anomy. Such spiritual death
sooner or later leads into physical illness and death as cumulative
of errors in work and interactions.  

Postmodern  paradigm opens enormous possibilities for human
development (HD). Author suggests that with better understanding of
religion, philosophy and modern discoveries in natural sciences, as
stereoscopic view, we could understand much better problems in HD
and define more creative questions and answers. Difference between
Skinner and Maslow could be explained as behavior near and far from
equilibrium. The first one points out the causality, the second one
emphasizes the finality. With OD, ED and CD we will synthesize
them. Without autopoietic interpretation it seems impossible. 
 
\section{Organizational Development}
 
In organizational development, beneath this area, there are natural
laws discovered in physics, chemistry and biology that have
synthesis in technological development. In interaction with
achievements in human development we could design postmodern
organizations that could have higher rate of growth owing to
alliance of man and nature. Ergonomy is an attempt to understand
the interactions of man and machine without much insight in
enormous potential of human being and nature.  
Shigeo Shingo \cite{Shingo86,Shingo86a} has proved that
``improvement engineers''  (in Maslow
terminology --- self-actualisers) demonstrated the essence of his
theory --- zero quality control as the production system,
manufacturing with no defects. To achieve this ideal in many
Japanese firms, two things were necessary:
 
\begin{enumerate}
\item Source inspection --- looking at errors before they become
defects and either automatically adjust the error condition
(autopoiesis) to prevent defect production, or stop the system,
because it is cheaper, than produce defects 
\item Apply poka-yoke devices what give immediate feedback where we
can get the root cause of the problem and prevent production of a
defect. Company like Toyota Motors eliminates the need for
statistical quality control, and as many others, has almost zero
defect production. It is really difficult to comprehend the idea of
``zero defects''. When the author asked Shingo how much time is needed to
teach workers zero defect production, his answer was --- three days.
\end{enumerate}
 
World is abundant with teachers. Without postmodern paradigm, there
is scarcity of pupils. Total quality management points out learner
instead of teacher, free worker instead of manager. 
 
His next enormous contribution is the Single Minute Exchange Dial
(SMED) system that enables revolution in manufacturing and can be
generalized as his discovery in quality policy. Again Shingo
teaches us that the real problems are our mental barrier.
Separating the inside exchange of die (IED) from the outside
exchange of die (OED) he reduced setups from hours to minutes and
seconds. With Just in Time (JIT) and SMED he and his collaborators
in Toyota Motors did speed up the production flow by 1000\% in
comparison with American and European firms. Shingo is the best
example of autopoietic paradigm in quality and productivity. Goethe
in last century said that we can do nothing but love those better
than ourselves. Due to the first and second law (X and Y) the
results are order of magnitude worse. 
 
It seems that we like to be near equilibrium and behave according
to the natural law of least resistance. If this is true, then
experiences of R. Fritz \cite{Fritz84} could be a challenge.
 
Contemporary organizations failed to incorporate human factor and
the result is the lack of OD. P. H. Mirvis, M. Beer and T. Mills
\cite{Lauc92} had chance to promote OD but without SO some of them abandoned it.
Without power of vision we stay near equilibrium. R. Merton, P.
Blau, and W. Bennis with criticism of bureaucracy; R. Likert with
model of a System 5 organization and linking pin model; C. Argyris
with integration of individual and organizational  needs; Blake and
Mouton with managerial grid; M. Maccoby with gamesman; M. Porter
with competitive advantage; A. Toffler with third wave; Ouchi with
theory Z; J. Naisbit with megatrends; are all verified in Peter and
Waterman studies of excellent companies and in K. Blanchard and N.
V. Peale  studies \cite{Blanchard88} about power of ethical management.
In theory and practice there is a gap between efficiency and
humanness, and without autopoietic approach it can not be overcome.
M. Zeleny as author and editor of Human Management Systems opens 
sky with autopoietic approach.
All these and many other authors with their propositions should
promote a vision of harmony and ordering between man and nature,
emotional and intellectual aspects,  human and physical capital,
means and ends in organizations. 
Human development and organizational development can not be
resolved without understanding of economic development. 

\section{Economic Development}
 
Economy probably has a duty to keep us as far as possible from
equilibrium. In economic development the function of law of value
in Smith-Ricardo-Marx-Debreu tradition is the central point. Within
controversy of labor versus capital we will not be far from
equilibrium. 
 
A. Marshall was the first who recognized that knowledge is the most
powerful factor of production (quoted T. W.
Schultz \cite{Schultz61}) but it is still ignored in contemporary theories and
practice in investment. 
In theory, economists try to reach Pareto optimum without necessary
understanding of nature, human being, and technology. Without
better knowledge about potential of resources (rate of return of
human and physical capital) it is impossible to achieve optimal
allocation.
 
Arrow was near autopoietic paradigm when he concluded: ``the use of
knowledge in productive activities obeys the law of increasing
returns'' (Arrow \cite{Arrow85} p. 164). With remarks that neither the demand for nor the
supply of knowledge satisfies the condition of a competitive
economy (p. 192), he remained within Newtonian paradigm.  
A. Lewis was thought by his mother to believe that anything that
the developed can do, the developing can do too. He wrote in 1955
a thirty-five page chapter  on ``Knowledge'' \cite{Pioneer} and did not agree with
enormous literature initiated by G. Becker about human capital,
that did not differentiate private and social rate of return in
manpower.  
 
T. W. Shultz even published the book Investing in People, but his
theoretical background is too narrow to overcome Newtonian paradigm
of equilibrium. Economy of human capital is very near equilibrium
and it could be explained with Skinner operant conditioning. 
 
Author has a very sad experience related with private versus social
rate of return, and investment in human capital versus investment
in physical capital through 25 years. Owing to autopoietic theory
there is a possibility for the opening of a new approach to the
relationship between production and consumption. If we look back in
the history of the theory of OD we can recognize the attempts to
understand the organization as a coalition  of individuals where
some of them are self organized into subcoalitions (Barnard, 1938,
Simon, 1947, Cyert and March, 1959. \cite{Lauc92}).
 
This was a research of bargaining, neglecting differentiation
between above and beneath average in production, distribution, and
consumption. 
It was easier for this author to recognize the importance of it
because there are lower positive correlations between production
and distribution in former Yugoslavia and they could be even
negative.  

Here we have four basic categories: 
 
\begin{enumerate}
\item Above average workers and managers who receive above average
moral and/or
   material rewards (type A) 
\item Persons whose output is above average and who receive below
average rewards for
   it (type B) 
\item Persons whose output is below average and who receive above
average rewards for
   it (type C) 
\item Workers who are below average in productivity and their rewards
are below average
   too (type D). 
\end{enumerate}

Hypothesis is that types ``A'' and ``D'' are according to the law of
value, while ``B'' and ``C'' are diminishing correlation. A perfect
correlation is impossible because production is a complex problem
and only in long run there is a perfect mapping and ordering
between production, distribution, and consumption. If there are
same probabilities for all categories then the correlation is zero.
If $p(B) + p(C) > p(A) + p(D)$ we have negative correlation. It could
seem impossible in market economy, but in postsocialist economy it
is the cause of their troubles. The root is the ideology of
egalitarianism, in fact law of envy, almost perfect
self-organization of ``C'' type of individuals.
 All human beings on such logistic curve as best simulation of real
behavior could be differentiated beneath and above it. 
The main proposition of this article is that the type ''C`` and human
beings who are above curve are much better self-organized. It is
differentia specifica of self-organization theory for social
systems in comparison with natural systems. It is the law of
necessity (causa prima efficiens) that forces ''C`` type to
self-organize and without it they can not survive.  

The type ``D'' is the most similar to Prigogine dissipative structures
in inorganic nature, where input energy and the state far
from equilibrium defines the behavior of hypnons. They reach the so
called bifurcation point where they choose either ``B'' or ``C'' type
of behavior. If they work and live according to social norms they
could reach ``A'' phase that could be in some way autopoiesis in
Maturana-Luhmann-Zeleny sense. Although there is an autopoiesis on
biological level, on social level it is very important to define
precisely the necessary and sufficient conditions. It could be the
opportunity for reconciliation of causality and finality,
materialism and idealism, science and philosophy, work and love,
man and nature. 
 
It would be a short cut if the economy were our final point. Its
role is to force us to go far from equilibrium, to go in conflict
or competition on the market fighting for consumers. Without understanding
of CD we will postpone our future. There is no synthesis
between efficiency and humanness, ends and means without understanding
that exchange of material goods and services is much
easier than fair exchange of nonmaterial products and services. To
be healthy, happy, and free it requires further effort.  
 
The cultural renegation is required to resolve recognized problem,
because it can not be resolved within economy.  
  
\section{Cultural Development}
   
Until we do not invest much more in developing motivation (toward
self-actualization), knowledge (in technical, economical and
humanistic fields), and self-organization  within and between
organizations, we will perpetuate low quality of life. In cultural
development we have to recognize moral problems  (from Kant to
Cohlberg and Rawls), legitimacy (from informal social norms to
international law), politology (capitalist versus communist, left
and right wings in political parties), ideology (from religion and
philosophy to science of science) and art as final expression of
human being (sense of life, work, love and death as the greatest
challenge). 
 
The bridge between economy, as eternal law of causality, and
religion, philosophy, science, and art as eternal law of finality,
could be built through G. Homans theory of social exchange \cite{Homans61}.
Although the theory is conditioned by Skinner theory of operant
behavior, his research and interpretation of social experiments of
others are very important for the development of postmodernity in
social science. It is not pure chance that even in sociobiology
Wilson tried to synthesize Maslow and Homans. This author will try
to do it inspired with autopoietic paradigm. 

The Homans' propositions are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all actions taken by persons, the more often a particular
action of a person is rewarded, the more likely the person is to
perform that action.    
\item If in the past the occurrence of a particular stimulus, or set
of stimuli, has been the occasion on which a person's action has
been rewarded, then the more similar the present stimuli are to the
past ones, the more likely the person is to perform the action, or
some similar action, now.
\item The more valuable to a person is the result of his action, the
more likely the action will be performed.
\item The more often in the recent past a person has received a
particular reward, the less valuable any further unit of that reward
becomes for him. 
\end{enumerate}

His final synthesis is:
$$profit = reward - cost$$
and his best conclusion is that servus servorum has the greatest
profit. 

From this conclusion, and sociobiological research about altruistic
behavior we can deduct the relationship  between efficiency
(economy) and  democracy (politics). Without understanding of
autopoiesis it is small probability to reach it. There are enormous
barriers in behavior of human being above and beneath logistic
curve. Familiarity is more probable above curve and revenge beneath
curve. In a short run causality is stronger than finality. With
deeper understanding of transformations within human  being
(between emotion, cognition, communication, and doing) and between
them (Homans' and author's proposals) combining with technological
and economic knowledge we are more and more capable for creative
and free (efficient and fair) solutions. 

 
\section{Theories of Self-organization and Autopoiesis as Bridge between Causality
and Finality}
 
Theories of self-organization and autopoiesis are helpful to harmonize all
elements  and their relations through their mapping and ordering with help of
suggested criteria.
There is no reason for low efficiency and  fairness on this level of human,
organizational, economic, and cultural development. Roots are either lack of
morality (too much selfishness) or lack of knowledge (too much ignorance). The
important question is a degree of correlation between these variables. Author's
research \cite{Legradic77} suggests a high positive relationship between them that could be the
framework for a better policy.
 
Causa prima materialis enables the analysis of all the relevant components
(statistical units) and  variables  explaining objective function either simple
or complex. In human development, this is the primary level of motivation
transformed in level of relevant knowledge for decision making and decision
implementing. We can classify all sorts of knowledge in three branches:
technical, economical and psychosocial knowledge.

There is a reverse relationship between intensity of thus classified knowledge
and  intensity of such classified problems in any organizational unit. Because
of that, postmodern paradigm has enormous chance of developing and application.
Besides that, it is of enormous importance to apply social psychology,
especially group dynamics (G. Homans -- 1 through 4) and rules of social
exchange (laws X, Y, Z).
 
In the domain of organization there is a problem of transformation of
material, energy, and information to a high quality product with  zero
defects and recycled waste in the most efficient way (for example just in
time, SMED, Canban, CIM, etc.).
 
On economic level the most important problem is an optimal allocation of
resources. Moreover, if G. Becker and his followers have good conclusion
\cite{Becker71}, we
should invest 50\% in human capital. There is no organization where such
allocation is applied, although the most developed nations and organizations
invest more and more in human capital.
In the sphere of culture there is a problem of contents (need for good  versus
evil, need for truth versus fiction, need for beauty versus ugly, kitsch). In
constricted sense it is saturated with feeling, thinking and free interaction
and (non)verbal communication. In a broader view it is a collection of all
relevant components and relations that are ``raw materials'' for autopoiesis.
  
The final question is about causa prima formalis. It means to precisely define
answers to next questions: who, why, to whom, what, how, when, where, how much,
at which cost, by whom, with what, and with which price. These twelve questions
define different combinations, and with an objective function, constraints,
data base, and deterministic or heuristic algorithm, it is possible to optimize
a solution that can be combined with self-empowerment in short and/or long run.
 
In the field of human development in final sense Heraklit defined that men are
mortal gods and gods are immortal men. Charismatic  persons (they think as
they feel, talk as they think, do as they say) are near self-organization and
autopoiesis, but too strong for their  social environment. With sincere
feedback of members of groups they are more capable to modify behavior than
the others in the group. For self-organization  everybody is mature who is
ready to overcome need for power and prestige in Maslow's sense, who has
normal and average capabilities for learning, and who is ready to confront in
an efficient and fair way the challenges of the environment, especially market
requirements of quality and productivity and political requirement of
universal human rights.
  
In the domain of organization the chance for self-organization and autopoiesis
is the greatest in conditions of high technology but is possible anywhere. Flow
of material, layout, optimization of design through CAD, optimization of
process through CAM and complete optimization through CIM is well known, but
without knowledge about autopoiesis, as is obvious, it is expensive and less
efficient and human. We must not forget that only operation adds surplus value
while transport, control, and inventory reduce profits.
  
Postmodern paradigm has the greatest possibilities in economy. If we agree that
economy is optimal allocation in resources, the main problem is the rate of
return from man and machine. Chicago school has developed a theory about
similar rate of return,  while our research has shown that investment in human
being is 15--25 times greater than investment in physical assets. Although
there are firms (Intel, Motorola, IBM, etc.) and states (Japan) where
investments in human power are greater than elsewhere, nowhere are they even
close to the theory of Chicago school.
When author asked M. Friedman where is his theory of freedom the best applied,
his answer was -- Hong Kong. Will Hong Kong fight main China, will freedom be
stronger than power? If citizens of Hong Kong fully apply autopoiesis and
postmodern paradigm they  could not only survive but introduce freedom in
communist China. I am too far to know will it be, but it is a challenge for all
of us. In allopoietic society there is a lack of self-organization. Human
beings are not subjects. Postsocialist countries are the best demonstration of
lack of human development.
It  is not important what the cause is -- lack of motivation for development
or lack of knowledge, capital or market. Postmodern  theory opens new
perspectives.
Research has shown that more  capable persons and firms impute themselves for
their failure while less capable accuses others. Postmodern economy enables
relationship between producer and consumer in a new way (Toffler's conproducers).
  
On cultural level (policy of firm or state) there are constraints on one side
and limitless opportunities on the other side. With more ethics (Blanchard,
Peale), knowledge and beauty embodied in products and services there is more
profit, democracy and freedom. Causa formalis enables greatest surplus value
because it is under control every detail of human, technical, economical and
social process.
Whatever pollutes efficiency and fairness is recycled as soon as possible. 
 
Self-organization and autopoiesis will be developed and applied easier and
better with higher level of motivation, knowledge, group dynamic, level  of
technology and organizational culture. If these factors are at a lower level,
it will be determined more by law of causality and less by law of finality,
more by need for survival and less by need for freedom.
 
Self-organization is a stochastic process and it is necessary to monitor  from
emotion to quality control, but not in a Big-brother, Orwellian way (1984).
 
We have to know that Peter principle and Murphy law are unavoidable as is a
second law of thermodynamic. Owing to described discoveries we can fight
through design  of irreversibility. As there are managers who do not know that
they know, there are managers who develop and apply postmodern approach
unaware of it. Theory and methodology of autopoiesis will help them to
multiply effects.
Through self-organization we will in a more natural way achieve the third wave
of A. Toffler \cite{Toffler80} and all other great ideas of great thinkers. Without
understanding of postmodern age we will have a gap between theory and practice, ends and
means, causality and finality.
 
It depends upon us.

\begin{thebibliography}{00}
\bibitem{Ackoff62} Ackoff, R. (1962), Scientific Method Optimizing Applied Research Decision,
J. Wiley.
\bibitem{Arrow85} Arrow, K. J. (1985), Production and Capital vol 5., Collected Papers of
K. J. Arrow, The Belknap Press of Hardware University, Cambridge.
\bibitem{Arrow74} Arrow, K.J. (1974) The Limits of Organization, W. W. Norton, New York
\bibitem{Autopoiesis} Autopoiesis: A Theory of Living Organization (1981), Milan Zeleny (ed),
North Holland, New York, Oxford.
\bibitem{AutopoieticLaw} Autopoietic Law: A new Approach to Law and Society (1988), Gunther Teubner (ed),
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
\bibitem{Becker71} Becker, G. (1971), Economic Theory, A Knopf, New York.
\bibitem{Blanchard88} Blanchard, K., Peale, N. (1988) The Power of Ethical Management,
W morrow And Comp., New York.
\bibitem{Boulding56} Boulding, K. (1956), General System Theory- Skeleton of Science, Management
Science, April 1956.
\bibitem{Cyert63} Cyert, R. M.,\& March, J.G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
\bibitem{DeBono71} De Bono, E. (1971) Lateral Thinking for Management, McGraw Hill.
\bibitem{Debrau59} Debreu, H.E. (1959) Theory of Value, New York: J.Wiley
\bibitem{Drucker89} Drucker,P. (1989) The New Realities, Mandarin Paperbooks, London.
\bibitem{Faber85} Faber, M., Proops, J. L. R. (1985) Interdisciplinary Research Between Economists and Physical Scientists: Retrospect and Prospect, KYKLOS, Vol 38, Page 599-616.
\bibitem{Forester71} Forrester, J. (1971) World Dynamic. Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge
\bibitem{Friedman69} Friedman, M. (1969) Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago.
\bibitem{Fritz84} Fritz, R. (1984) The Path of Least Resistance, Stillpoint Public. comp, Salem.
\bibitem{Fromm62} Fromm, E. (1962) The Art of Loving, Harper and Row Publ., New York.
\bibitem{Habermas88} Habermas, J. (1988) Filozofski diskurs moderne, Globus, Zagreb.
\bibitem{Haken83} Haken, H. (1983) Synergetics, an Introduction. Springer.
\bibitem{Hegel65} Hegel, J.W.F. (1965) Encyclopedia of Philosophical Science (in croatian), Sarajevo.
\bibitem{Hickman88} Hickman, S., Silva, M. (1988) The Future 500, Unwin Human lim., London.
\bibitem{Homans61} Homans, G. (1961) Social Behavior - It's Elementary Forms, New York.
\bibitem{Kelley74} Kelley, C. (1974) Education in Feeling and Purpose, Radix Inst. Ojai, Ca.
\bibitem{Lauc92} Lauc, A. (1992) Razvitak Hrvatske od kaosa do autopoiesisa (in Croatian), Ekonomski vjesnik, Osijek.
\bibitem{Legradic77} Legradic, R. Lauc, A. (1977) Dijalekticka teorija i praksa drustva, Osijek.
\bibitem{Luhmann84} Luhmann, N. (1984) Teorija sistema, Globus, Zagreb.
\bibitem{Maslow82} Maslow, A. (1982) Motivation and Personality (in croatian), Prosveta, Beograd.
\bibitem{Maturana80} Maturana, H., Varela, F. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition, D Reidel Publ. co, Boston.
\bibitem{Pioneer} Pioneer in Development (1984) Mayer, G., Seers, D.(ed), Oxford University Press,Oxford.
\bibitem{Plutchik62} Plutchik, R. (1962) The Emotions, Facts, Theories and a New Model
\bibitem{Prigogine84} Prigogine, I., Stengers, I. (1984), Order Out of Chaos, New Science Library,
London.
\bibitem{Pusic89} Pusic, E. (1989) Drustvena regulacija, Globus, Zagreb.
\bibitem{Rogers72} Rogers, C. (1972) On Becoming a Person
\bibitem{Schultz61} Schultz, T. (1961) Investment in Human Capital, American Economic Review 51 March 1961, pages 1-16.
\bibitem{Shingo86} Shingo, S. (1986) Zero Quality Control: Source Inspection and the Poka-yoke System, Productivity Press, Cambridge, Mass.
\bibitem{Shingo86a} Shingo, S. (1986) A Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED system,
Productivity Press, Cambridge, Mass.
\bibitem{Simon65} Simon, H. A. (1965) The New Science of Management Decision,
New York: Harper Row. 
\bibitem{Toffler80} Toffler, A. (1980) The Third Wave, (in croatian), Beograd.
\bibitem{Toffler85} Toffler, A. (1985) The Adaptive Corporation, London: Pan Books
\bibitem{Vanek70} Vanek, J. (1970) The General Theory of Labor Managed Market Economic,
Cornell University Press.
\bibitem{Yew-Kwang88} Yew-Kwang Ng. (1988) Economic Efficiency Versus Egalitarian Rights,
KYKLOS, Vol 41, Fasc 2, 215-237
\bibitem{Zeleznikar90} \v{Z}eleznikar, A.P. (1990) On the Way to Information, The Slovene
Society Informatika, Ljubljana.
\end{thebibliography}
\section*{A Dictionary of Abbreviations}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[A] Above average workers and managers who receive above average moral and/or material rewards
\item[B] Persons whose output is above average and who receive below average rewards for it
\item[CD] Cultural development
\item[C] Persons whose output is below average and who receive above average rewards for it
\item[D] Workers who are below average in productivity and their rewards are below average too
\item[ED] Economic development
\item[HD] Human development
\item[IED] inside exchange of die
\item[JIT] Just in Time
\item[OD] Organizational development
\item[OED] outside exchange of die
\item[PMO] postmodern organization
\item[SMED] Single Minute Exchange Dial
\item[X] The law of the transfer of information
\item[Y] The law of the relative deprivation
\item[Z] The law of reciprocal behavior
\end{enumerate}
\end{document}

