The English word ‘organization’ can basically be understood in two ways. In the first way it refers to the “action of organizing”1 and in the second way it refers to an institute.2 The word stems through ‘organism’ from the word ‘organ’ which etymologically can be traced back to the Greek ‘órganon’,3 referring to an instrument or tool.4 Ultimately the word shares its etymological root with ‘work’ in the Indo-European ‘worg’.5 The aforementioned original Greek meaning of ‘instrument’ is still alive in the present English root word ‘organ’,6 and an organization then can be understood as an instrumentalisation.
Now an instrument is understood as “anything that serves or contributes to the accomplishment of a purpose or end; a means”.7 So an organization serves a purpose, is instrumental in reaching a goal. Now a goal implies the existence of an actuality which to the goal is related by a particular change or a transformation. The addition of ‘particular’ is important, because the actual is always changing into new and different actuals, however those latter will not always correspond to the regarded goal, and thus the change must be particular. Now this goal comes to being through the envisioning of a particular possibility which is deemed better than the regarded actual and which is thus intended to be brought about. And for this bringing about a particular transformation process must take place. Now to initiate and direct this particular transformation process an instrument is applied. In a very concrete example a sculpturer may see an actual rock and envision its betterment as a statue, after which he initiates and directs the change of the rock into the statue by using a hammer and a chisel as instruments. And such an instrument an organization can be as well. An organization may be the directed instrument transforming an actuality into an envisioned goal.
Above an organization is mentioned as a “directed instrument” and not as a ‘directing instrument’. It is important to distinct between the director and the directed. A director is always a coordinated, individualized consciousness, a human,8 while the directed is not necessarily, and in the case of an organization never is such. An organization comes to being when a director envisions a particular possibility which is deemed better than the actual and which is thus intended to be brought about through the instituting of an organization. At the instituting of an organization the envisioned goal is established by the formulation of the articles of association. It is in these articles that the envisioned direction is given a relative permanency. The by the director instituting of an organization for the reaching of an envisioned goal then may also be compared to the by a bowman shooting of an arrow towards a target. Once the arrow is directed and loosed it follows its course independent from the bowman, who cannot alter its direction anymore. Similarly; once an organization is directed by the formulation of the articles of association and thus instituted it follows its course independent from the director.
Now it may be objected that after being instituted an organization is still led by humans, but this is basically and generally not true. Humans working in an organization do not lead the organization, but the organization leads them. The actions of organization members are mainly directed by the organization articles and not by themselves.
It can be understood that in the light of right action9 the above situation can be quite problematic. Right action stems from an enlightened consciousness,10 which at least presupposes the presence of coordinated, individual consciousness. Such a presence does indeed not necessarily lead to right action, but it is nevertheless conditional. And such a presence an organization does not have. An organization subordinates coordinated individual consciousness to its articles and is like a hammer and a chisel that have taken control over the sculpturer instead of the other way around. It can be said that when an organization is instituted itself has become the goal instead of the goal for which it initially was instituted. Organization members work for the fulfilling of the articles of association instead of the reaching of the initial goal. This goes especially for older and crystalized organizations where the original founder is not present anymore.
An alternative for the above can be a full hierarchical arrangement of individual conciousnesses where responsibilities for choices are not edged in stone as articles but are delegated to the regarded appropriate consciousnesses. In this model the more evolved and enlightened consciousnesses will stand on top of the hierarchical ladder with the less evolved and enlightened consciousnesses below,11, 12 and all will be given their to their consciousness fitting responsibilities. In this way the ‘organision’, a neologism used to distinct the present model from that of organizations, becomes an externalization of the nature and relations of subjectivities. It shall be clear however that this alternative model can only work with the right assessment of consciousnesses and that nepotism can have no place in it. And for the avoidance of such nepotism organization articles indeed may serve a purpose. But only as long as the enlightened vision for the right assessment of consciousnesses lacks.