Any organizational choice, or so our Spencer-Brown form tells us, is bound to find a value for the variable of communication.

Communication means that independent identities (human beings, organizational units, network nodes...) seek and structure an interdependence between them (and others), which is accounting for their independence. There are several notions of communication we may be able to work with. The first one, of course, is Shannon's probabilistic notion relying on an understanding of communication, which looks for redundancy to be observed, and for variety to be checked on, for any one information somehow produced by a process understood as a relation between a source (and a possible "sender") and a destination (and a possible "receiver"). The second notion extends on the Shannonian one by introducing semantic aspects into it and by doing this, interestingly enough, via an understanding of communication that both produces, and has to deal with, confusion and disinformation. Paul Watzlawicks became famous with and for such an understanding of communication. See above all other books he has written his stunning book "How Real is Real? Confusion, Disinformation, Communication" (New York 1976, German transl. 1976). But Umberto Eco, for instance, as well started to look at communication by starting to look at the possibilitiy of, and handling of, lies (La struttura assente, Milano 1968). And conversation analysis ever since Harvey Sacks' wonderful "Lectures on Coversation" (Oxford 1992) never did anything else but to look for procedural rules that allowed for con games (confidence games) to be conceived of and launched, as well as to be unravelled.

That is why we conceive, in our form of organizational choice, of a re-entry mechanism of "gaming", which at the same time describes what communication may be up to, and how the purpose and dynamics of communication get framed by the organization (or process of organizing) they are considered to be a part of. Gaming, here, means both playing (and playing around) and preying (catching, killing). The English language allows for this double sense of the word, and tops it by having to meanings of the adjective "game" as well, which are "brave" and "crippled", respectively.

Thus, communication in organizations (and possibly elsewhere), when it comes to organizational choice, means both playing and falling prey to somebody or something and making prey of somebody or something.

Communication varies, as processes of organizing vary, yet the distinction between communication, on one hand, and organization, on the other, being re-entered into the form via that kind of gaming is a constant of the form we are inquiring in.

System One will have to account for it. Indeed, it already accounts for it by focusing on the single user of the system to be the subject of his and her choices. Looking at the information presented to him and her by the search algorithmes and semantic webs of the computer, the user is always in the position to make up his and her mind with respect to the game he and she are, and want to be, or beware of being, a part of. Any one organizational choice, with System One, is a choice respectful for its social, material, and temporal selections of matters to be pursued, and matters to be avoided. It's like in real life. That makes it so useful.