`Structure' refers to the actual components and the actual relations that realise a particular composite unity. While the organization is necessarily invariant (to conserve identity) structure is not. Structure is in continual change. Structure entails many more dimensions, more relations than organization. Organization can therefore be seen to be a subset of structure. The Organization is always realised through Structure. We all structurally change continuously in our co-drifting. Living is a structural drift and lasts as long as Organization and correspondence with the medium is conserved.

Science can only deal with structure-determined systems, with composite entities, i.e. with systems whose structures determine what will happen. [In proposing a generative mechanism as an explanation for the phenomenon to be explained science always proposes a structure-determined entity] [...] "It is constitutive for science that we can handle only structure-determined systems and that instructive interactions do not take place".

However, DRIFT will only go in the direction that the circumstances will allow. Drift will not go in any imaginable direction. The example here is to consider the path of a boat which has no rudder, oars, engine, or mast etc. being generated as a drift.. Even if we could specify and compute the structure of all the systems involved and were thereby able to predict the direction of the drift (which we cannot do) it would still be a drift, because the system flows in its own dynamic of structural changes.

[...] the observer assumes that existence takes place independently of what he does, that objects have independent and separate existence, and that these can be known directly through processes of perceiving and reasoning. The criteria for acceptability of the truth of statements refers to some independently existing source of validation (e.g. God, rationality etc.) . This way of explaining necessitates the observer to further assume a single reality , a Universe ( the Transcendental referent ) which is the source of validation for all explanations, and hence for the way we explain our praxis of living. Disagreements among competing observer explanations necessarily involve claims of privileged access to what is 'really real' and consequent mutual negation.

We may distinguish two types of unity or system , namely a Simple Unity or a Composite Unity. When we bring forth a Simple Unity we bring forth an entity characterised as separable from its domain of existence in terms of its properties. It is totally characterised by its properties which distinguish it from its background, [i.e. we don't analyse it or decompose it]

It is constitutive for Maturana that at the moment of experiencing we cannot tell a perception from an hallucination. From his analysis, the science of neurophysiology has failed to generate a mechanism which could explain our hearing/seeing objects external to us, independent of us. Maturana asks "How come we make mistakes in perception if it is the case that we directly see an objective reality?. He points out that at the moment of perceiving we never know that we are making a mistake - this awareness of a 'mistake' is always post-hoc. [...] Hence the differentiation of a perception from an illusion is a social distinction formed in consensus with others, (usually in conjunction with some authority who has an instrument). We believe the external source of authority.

[...] objects arise with language. Objects are entities specified in the coordinations of coordinations of consensual actions. "...the participants of a consensual domain of interactions operate in their consensual behaviour making consensual distinctions of their consensual distinctions , in a process that recursively makes a consensual action a consensual token for a consensual distinction that it obscures." (1986:p 55). What this means is that the object we bring forth obscures the operation of distinction it stands for. [...] languaging does not connote or denote independent objects, but is rather a system of orienting behaviour whose function is to generate a consensual domain of actions. It is to orient the listener within his own cognitive domain.

Maturana defines the living as autopoietic'. Autopoiesis is a very particular type of organization characterised be a recursive self-production where it is impossible to distinguish the product, producer or production. It is this recursive self-production which constitutes the so calledorganizational closure' of the living system.

Any operation that we may enact which results in the separation of an entity from a background, i.e. which simultaneously distinguishes a unity in its domain of existence. Thus we see that the existence of all phenomena is brought forth through making the appropriate operations of distinction. For example, I may bring forth a chair by making the operation of distinction of 'sitting-down'. To give another example, if we want to know how many people there are in a room we will make the operation of distinction of counting them.

By emphasising the interweaving of languaging and emotioning, Maturana unpacks further his notion that conversations are structural perturbations which have far- reaching effects on our bodyhoods. Our 'self' or 'identity' is defined by the totality of all the systems of social interactions in which we participate. In this sense our bodyhood is the time/space location of structural intersections of the many different systems which we constitute or participate in bringing forth through our actions.

Note that language does not take place in the brain but rather in the social dynamics. Languaging is a way of being together in a collective, it is a way of co-ontogenically drifting. [Without the brain there is no language, but language does not exist in the brain]

Maturana's theory also indicates that we must abandon causal concepts such as those of the "purpose" of symptoms: the "function" of disorders: the "resistance" of this complainant etc. All of these are attributions of an observer. As Kelly pointed out the notion of 'resistance' has more to do with the puzzlement of the therapist than with the obduracy of the client.

Forgers understand this principle very well because in trying to present a painting as a 'Renoir' what they do is to carefully maintain as invariant as possible (as resistant to scrutiny as possible) those critical relations ( brushstrokes, texturing etc.) among specified components (colours, oils, aged canvas etc.) which will identify it as that class of production called 'Renoir'. Experts attempt to distinguish fakes" and "the genuine article" by decomposing the artistic unity into its components and relations. The artist's "style" is that peculiar way in which he composed the constituent parts. The way he organised his painting. This Organization must remain invariant for the unity to conserve its class identity.

This structure-determinism does not entail predictability. We are determined but not pre-determined. Determinism means that the structural coherences between systems are satisfied.

Structural changes triggered here include changes in blood pressure, blood flow, hormone flow production, brain synapses undergoing different changes etc., all depending on what is said. These changes take place unavoidably as a process of structural change contingent to the interactions and hence as a drift because the course of structural change is being specified on a moment-to-moment basis in the interaction.

a) The path of objectivity without parentheses (= the way of the Transcendental Ontologies), and b) The path of objectivity in parentheses (= the way of the Constitutive Ontologies ).

To be orthogonal means to interact with the client system in such a way as to not become enmeshed in the existing organization of the system as yet one more constituting component. When this occurs you become part of the problem and hence cannot be part of a solution. Acting orthogonally means selectively interacting with peripheral structure, i.e. components which are not actively involved in the constitution of the organization.

So objects arise in languaging and at the same time obscure the operations of distinction for which they stand. Hence we are left with these entities which seem to exist independently of everything. This illusion of independent existence is achieved because the objects obscure the operations of distinction that constitute them. In this way objects are reified. "In the recursion of consensual distinctions of consensual distinctions we continually transform notions/concepts into objects".

Consensual behaviour is behaviour between two systems as a result of living together. These would not have appeared had they not lived together. The behaviour is contingent upon their ontogenies. These behaviours can be described as interactions in the medium. This consensual coordination of behaviour is what Maturana calls LINGUISTIC BEHAVIOUR. Examples of linguistic behaviour can be easily observed occurring between humans and their pets.

Much of the aesthetic and constructivist concerns here can be seen in the early writings of Vico whose 'verum-factum' principle - that what is true is what we ourselves have made or constructed

While the universum is the ultimate reference cited for the validity of any statement in the transcendental path, the Multiversa is entailed by the parenthetic path, and implies that a multiplicity of realities can be brought forth depending only on the distinctions of the observer.

Maturana used to use the phrase 'biological stickiness' to describe how any two systems, upon encountering one another, stayed or 'stuck' together. They fit together and remain together and continuously interact recurrently with each other. More recently he has used the more dangerous word 'love' to describe this happening of living. Love is a phenomenon which takes place a priori, without precedent, and without prior justification.[...] In other words love is an expression of a particular structural configuration in the two participants such that they stick together with no reason. Love is a primary constitutive condition and is fundamental if social phenomena are to arise.

1- Changes where the organizational invariance is conserved 2- Changes without conservation of organisation A living system will last as long as its organisation is conserved and as long as it can be realised in its domain of existence. The structure of a system specifies the following four domains: 1) Domain of changes of state; all possible structural changes which the system can encompass while at the same time conserving its organisation. 2) Domain of disintegrative changes; all structural changes a system can undergo but where the organisation is destroyed. 3) Domain of perturbations; all interactions which trigger changes of state. 4) Domain of disintegrative interactions; all perturbations which trigger destructive changes in the system ( loss of organisation).

In following the second path the observer assumes, quite differently, that the starting point must be the constitutive biological phenomena of being unable to distinguish perception from illusion in daily living. In the absence of being able to make statements about independently existing objects to which one has privileged access, this pathway focuses on the ontology of the observer, on what the observer does to bring forth objects in a domain of existence through consensual operations of distinction. The criteria for acceptability of statements shifts therefore to observer community agreements and away from objectivity. [...] Thus the observer is the source of all realities and existences and can bring forth many different legitimate domains of reality through the operational coherences of his praxis of living.

This clearly emerges from Maturana's theory concerning the ontology of the observer and underlying the fact that no objective reality exists independently of some observer. This view moves us to bracket or parenthesise all speaking and listening, all explanations, all descriptions, and to keep in the foreground the phenomenon of how objects come to obscure the operations of distinction of some observer who enacts these from a particular vantage point and with a particular intent.

When I use my pen to ink marks onto this piece of white paper, the action of writing or 'inking' is an operation of distinction whereby I bring forth the inked words on the page. So 'inking' as an action is the operation of distinction I can consensually enact and the inked words are the object I bring forth with my actions. The object is a consensual distinction which obscures the action it stands for.

An observer could describe these interactions in semantic terms, i.e. one could ascribe meanings to the elements in the coordination of behaviour e.g. "the cat is telling his owner that he wants to go out". However Maturana is keen to point out that there is no intrinsic meaning in the linguistic behaviour. What is happening is that the two systems (person + cat) trigger various structural changes in one another.

Being in love means making a space for one another so that each becomes part of the domain of existence of the other, and within their continuous recurrency of interactions they form a system in which they have a co-ontogeny. It is the recurrency of interaction within the medium that creates the conditions for co- ontogeny. If they fit, one with respect to the other, then they form a path of (structural) drift together. [...] Without love there would be no social phenomena. This is an important point since for Maturana many crucial human phenomena are social e.g. language, self- awareness, mind, self etc.

By sticking to structural descriptions Maturana aims to empty out all other types of symbolic explanations. The starkness of Maturana's position is ameliorated by Varela (1981) who, while agreeing with Maturana that notions of purpose, information or code cannot play any logical role in the description of autopoietic systems, points out that our human cognitive capabilities will remain unsatisfied unless such explanations are also complemented with carefully constructed symbolic explanations.

The coordination of action in relation to interactions in the medium is called Linguistic Behaviour or Linguistic Interaction. This always takes place when two living systems live together and have structural plasticity in the domain of their recurrent interactions. Structural plasticity is necessary, in that the systems must be able to change their structures when triggered by one another. " The plastic splendour of the nervous system does not lie in its production of 'engrams' or representations of things in the world; rather, it lies in its continuous transformation in line with transformations of the environment as a result of how each interaction affects it." ( Maturana and Varela,1987, p. 170).

Both the living system and the medium change in congruence with one another. They change their structure / shape so that they fit together in a drift. The concept of drift does not imply a chaotic situation because it is being determined on a moment- to-moment basis by the interactions. The path of drift is contingent upon the interactions. So unilateral steering is an illusion. This path of drift is a path without any choices. It is a path of conservation of (a) the organisation of the living system and (b) of congruence with the medium. This is the paradigm for survival.

An observer is any being who can be in language speaking with another ( or to himself) and making distinctions.

Not all conversations elicit emotions, as we know . Maturana outlines a (non- exhaustive) list of six classes of conversations which we can distinguish among human interactions. These are defined in terms of differences in the pattern of coordinations of actions and emotions which are variously invoked and are as follows: 1. Conversations of coordinations of present and future actions; 2 Conversations of complaint and apology for unkept agreements; 3 Conversations of desires and expectations; 4 Conversations of command and obedience; 5 Conversations of characterisations, attributions and valuing; 6 Conversations of complaint for unfulfilled expectations;

Given sufficient structural plasticity and the continuation of recurrent interactions then we may observe the coordination of behaviour - not only in relation to interactions in the medium but also in relation to these coordinations of actions. That is they coordinate their behaviour in relation to the coordination of behaviour. We observe consensual behaviour about consensual behaviour. We see linguistic behaviour about linguistic behaviour. This is what Maturana calls "Language".

Thus the Autonomy of the system is paramount. The system can only do what it does at any particular moment of doing. There are no other choices in the system. A system is always in its proper place and cannot be mistaken.

The notion of control arises in the context of productivity. Maturana talks about 3 main modes in which we can act and these 3 are distinguished largely in terms of differences of intent. Firstly, the Science mode - the intent here is explanations. Secondly, the Technology mode - the intent here is production. Thirdly, the Art mode - where the intent is Aesthetic.

Composite unities have Organization and Structure. Organization refers to the manner of composition that defines the unity. Organisation refers only to the relations between components that must always be present so that the composite unity will be a unity of a particular type. Organization refers to those relations which when present identify the unity as a particular type. Hence, the Organization of a system is necessarily invariant because if you change it you create something else. If the relations that constitute the unity changes, the identity of the unity changes.

This principle we may derive from Maturana's emphasis on structure-determinism, and on the circularity and recursiveness of all organizationally closed systems. This moves us away from simplistic linear cause-effect sequences and towards the generation and appreciation of complexity and autonomy. Thus the elaboration of the original complaint-complainants network of conversations is conducted by many family therapists using a method of 'circular questioning'.

It is important to note that no particular behaviour or movement or gesture or sound constitutes languaging. Rather, it is an ongoing process because it is defined in the history of the coordination of actions. Just a word or gesture does not constitute languaging. Furthermore, languaging is not an abstract phenomenon, we are not dealing with abstract entities. Languaging becomes part of our medium and so anything we say is not trivial since it becomes part of the domain in which our co-ontogenic structural drift takes place. That is, our co-drifts are contingent upon our languaging. Languaging interactions are as powerful as a physical interaction e.g. pushing someone hard.

(1) What type of System is it? How is it defined? (2) What is its Organisation and Structure ? (3) Am I interacting with it as a Simple or Composite unity? If I am in the domain in which the system is a simple unity, I interact with the system through its properties as a totality , as a simple unity. However, if I am dealing with a composite unity I can only interact through the properties of the components. (4) In what ways can I interact with the structure so that I may trigger some change which will either conserve the organisation or will destroy it?

Instead of certainty we need social coherence. This is for example what science is. Every ideology, game, club etc. is a domain of social coherences defined by the consensus criteria for acceptability of statements.

With the composite unity we do something more. Firstly, we distinguish a simple unity and then we decompose it and separate its components and relations. In the Universe we would claim that the composite unity composed itself, independently of us and what we do. We would assume that the components were either there or not there, and that its characteristics were intrinsic, inherent and eternal. However, in the multiverse it is we who separate out the components and when we do this, we find that the components we bring forth have a peculiar relationship with the simple unity that they integrate, i.e. we say that the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Maturana finds this expression somewhat obscure because it does not reveal what this "greater" is which is brought forth.

What makes us human is languaging. "Humanity arises in the social dynamics in which languaging takes place". This is difficult to prove but Maturana cites examples of feral children brought up by wolves so that what we find are wolves with the genetics of Homo Sapiens. They never learn to speak (although they may know a few words).

(1) Interactions in the medium only trigger structural changes of composite unities. (2) The structure of the system fully determines its interactions by specifying the variety of interactions it can undertake. (3) The structure of the system specifies what it will accept as an interaction and! what will be ignored. (4) A major implication of these ideas is that "information" does not exist, and that instructional interactions cannot take place. You cannot by acting externally on a system specify what happens in that system. (5) You can trigger certain changes and you may know what will happen when you do this triggering by knowing the structure of the system but you cannot specify what happens in the system because that is specified or determined in the structure of the system. [...] Since we are structure-determined entities, then whatever happens to us is determined by our structures and is never determined by whatever we encounter in our medium . It may be triggered by perturbations but not determined by them"

In other words, if we take seriously the fact that in the experiential domain this distinction is impossible, then it follows that we cannot rely - for the validation of our arguments - on any assumption that entails having a privileged or direct access to 'outside' objects. The external object cannot be the source of validation for what we say. Hence, Maturana sees the assumption of an objective reality as a "miss-take", i.e. erroneously taking as independent of us entities which we ourselves bring forth. The willingness to make this miss-take he finds to be based on a search for certainty. However he warns that "certainty blinds, the more certainty the less you see".

For Einstein, scientific theories were seen as the free creations of the human mind which we used to explain the world - but for Maturana, what needs explaining is precisely this "free creation of the human mind", i.e. the way in which the observer brings forth his world. Thus, central to Maturana's theory is the ontology of the observer. "Languaging takes place in the happening of living of the observer. To explain languaging, I must explain the living of the observer". Languaging is therefore Maturana's instrument for explanation and also his central problem.

Prior to human beings there were no objects, since objects arose with language. If we see a cat chasing and catching a mouse, then for Maturana the 'cat' is (not) eating the 'mouse'. Rather "it is flowing in the structural dynamics of its structural coupling/congruence in its domain of existence". The 'cat' does not exist as a 'cat' for the 'cat'. It cannot exist until somehow language arises for the cat.

When we get a recursion in the coordination of consensual behaviour, so that there is consensual coordination of behaviour of consensual coordination of behaviour then we have this new phenomenon which is language....."So, we can also say that language is a domain of recursive linguistic co-ordinations of actions, or a domain of second- order linguistic co-ordinations of actions. We human beings also co-ordinate our actions with each other in first-order linguistic domains , and we do so frequently with non-human animals." (1988;p 48).

'Structural Coupling' is a term ( like adaptation ) which is used to refer to the systems structural correspondence with its medium. A structure-determined system is coupled to its domain of existence (medium) as long as its organisation is conserved and also as long as it conserves its congruence with the medium. Survival therefore consists in the simultaneous twin conservation of class identity and adaptation. If one of these conditions is lost then at that moment so is the other one.

This is not to say that we cannot alter the direction of the drift for example by what we do in languaging since this (languaging) defines conditions in which the drift takes place. If we language one way ("you're beautiful") the drift goes this way rather than that way ("you look terrible"). The human dilemma is that we want to pretend to control our lives (and others' lives) as if we could specify the outcome of the drifting pattern.