Communications
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/1528485163897289/?comment_id=1532973626781776&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D
Notes On a Small Scale ‘Pilot’ Planning Discourse Platform and Process
A first attempt at starting such a discussion on the current FB platform in the ‘Ecology of Systems Thinking’ group generated some lively exchanges but – like another effort by Gene Bellinger to start such a cooperative process on the Kumu platform, did not produce much in the way of constructive contributions, and ended up inconclusively with a number of interesting but distinctly ‘off-topic’ discussions. It is not clear whether this was due to the platform limitations or to other factors such as the interests or skills of participants (or their inability to escape the familiar and comfortable habits of free-ranging social media discussions that are not aimed at reaching a decision).
Factors
Platform Limitations
Intents Mismatch
(of free-ranging social media discussions that are not aimed at reaching a decision)
Thinking-Doing Gap
Thor Mann
Thor Mann I do have some suggestions. Following the huge LI discussion of STW people trying to come up with an answer to Ban Ki Moon's 2011 Davos call for 'revolutionary thinking and action to ensure an economic model for survival' I tried to sketch out what I learned from that exchange.
1 There are already countless initiatives for alternative ways to do things underway, or proposed.
2 To the extent they communicate with others and the public, they tend to advertise successes and articles of faith for their ideas, less on obstacles and errors.
3 There is widespread agreement that 'something should be done' but none about a common 'global' model, and considerable resistance against the various calls to join this or that cause. As a global community, we do not know enough about 'what works and what does not work to embark on a cooperative global course or action or model.
4 Therefore, it seems that the many partial (i.e. 'non-global' or 'local') initiatives and experiments should be encouraged and supported rather than merged into one overall model. This should be accepted as a 'global' policy. To draw not only on human desire for cooperation but also on the human desire (of many among us) to 'make a difference' in our communities.
5 For such initiatives, support (for example in the form of devoting humanitarian aid for recovery from natural or human-caused disasters to developing 'innovation zones' in areas where 'old' infrastructure and governance systems have been destroyed) should be contingent upon honest reporting of successes and failure into a global forum for evaluation.
6 There is a need for discussion and negotiation of global agreements and decisions (conventions to permit the various initiatives but ensuring that they don't get in each others' way or endanger the whole).
7 Such decisions should based on the merit of the best of available knowledge and information (much of which is 'distributed' and different according to local context conditions), rather than on majority voting (which is not applicable to populations extending across conventional governance borders, and explicitly allows disregard of the concerns of the losing minority).
8 There is currently no coherent set of procedures for such discourse and negotiation that includes explicit determination of the merit of discourse contributions.
9 There would be a need for both bringing 'existing' (documented and past knowledge and research as well as ad-hoc needed investigation to bear on such a better orchestrated discourse
10 There is currently no platform for a truly cooperative and coherent platform to support such a discourse.
11 There are currently no sufficient incentives for many citizens to participate in such public discourse -- overcoming the perceived 'cost' and effort of participating and the sense that their contributions 'do not really count'.
12 There would be a great need for educating a global public in the practice of participation on a better orchestrated discourse.
13 There is currently no effective set of 'sanctions' to ensure adherence to agreements, other than 'enforcement' measures implying coercion violence, by 'enforcement' powers which human history tells us are vulnerable to the temptation to abuse that power, and that arguably exacerbate problems and conflicts rather than solving them to mutual satisfaction. New tools for the control of power are needed.
These insights together, in my view, indicate at least a significant part of the immense agenda for a meaningful global effort to ensure a model for survival (I have left out the specific technological innovation needs as well as the part of 'education' that aim at engendering the change in 'awareness' and ethics needed to support such a movement: parts of item 4?).
The well-intended effort to develop a repository of human memory as an important support of the discourse is part of item 9 of that agenda. Given the many already existing repositories, I feel that the focus should be on the issue of how to channel their content on the specific aspects of the discourse, e.g. with information systems or search instruments organized by the discourse elements (issues) rather than knowledge domains.
I have been working on concept as well as the missing parts of the overall discourse support system, item 10, specifically on items 7, 8, looking at aspects of item 11 and 13 that could be improved by 'collateral' information from item 7 (merit of arguments). I have also sketched some thoughts on a discourse game as one possible tool for item 12, education. The important 'systems thinking' task in all this, in my view, is that of tying the various parts of the agenda into a mutually supporting whole network. The systems thinking efforts I currently see are not addressing the 'argumentative' aspect of the planning discourse; I have tried to bring the argumentative aspect into systems modeling and/ or vice versa. There is a danger in the well-intended temptation of bringing more AI tools to bear on the planning discourse (part of item 9) -- the need to rely on 'consistent' information to reach valid inference seems to be somewhat at odds with the essence of the 'contradictory' pros and cons of planning arguments.
For discussion, for what it's worth, and to clarify why I think the called for effort to join the work on item 9, Dmitry, should be embedded in a clearer picture of the overall agenda. I don't think The FB format can support that work; this thread so far is the best evidence. 7 hrs
Dmitry SokolovGroup Admin What is worried me the most (Thinking-doing gap) is a belief that a big number of small "sustainability" projects will lead to global sustainability. That is a violation of one of the fundamental ST principles: properties of elements are not defining properties of a system, or similar.
It's VERY STRANGE to hear from SYSTEMS THINKERS!!!
I would even say, it's unacceptable. 16 mins
Dmitry SokolovGroup Admin Peter, Dasaratha Rama, M Ichael, David, Neil, others?
Thanks for questions of M Ichael, we managed somehow to reinvent the "thinking-doing gap" nature of processes on EoST, above.
A lot of "sustainability projects" will not lead to Global Sustainability if not coordinated: "The properties, capabilities, and behavior of a system are derived from its parts, from interactions between those parts, and from interactions with other systems. (Hitchins 2009 p. 60)"
Could you please remind me what principles of ST are violated? 8 mins
Dmitry SokolovGroup Admin Another good question: "Global Sustainability" is our common future.
Do you think that GS project is just mine?
How is it possible that our systems thinking is so disconnected with our "systems doing"?
How are we going to implement Unity in Diversity principles if our actions are not coordinated? Just now
Chad Thomas Green We need a balance of unity and diversity, tightness and looseness, order and disorder, attractors and repellers, etc. How can we leverage this creative tension to tame wicked problems in the world?
Dmitry Sokolov Chad, I cannot comment on all dichotomic pairs at the moment just one of them:
Our diversity is natural. It is property of our personality.
Our unity is a vector, a direction or goal we are trying to achieve. Diversity of directions leads to scattering of our efforts.
The other pairs are defined by our personal abilities to follow the selected direction at keeping our personality "intact". Some people say that complete and total unification of efforts is not possible without "killing" your own desires and focusing on success of your mates and colleagues. And because your mates are focused on the same goal, you feel and behave united.
At STW on LinkedIn, Greg Stevenson said something like: "Too many Chiefs, too little Indians", or similar.
More on theory of collaboration: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../General_theory_of_collaborationGeneral theory of collaboration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peter Jones Excellent comments Dmitry!
If we take one view, using a command and control perspective, a chief issues an instruction, it is the Indians who carry out the instruction.
In an network economy, this has to be thrown away entirely. Because each network member is a chief in their own right. But they also have to relearn how to be Indians. There are times when things just need doing, and we need to roll our sleeves up, get our hands dirty and just do it!
Because otherwise it would be all instruction and actually zero progress.
Michael Josefowicz: As of today - April 13 2016 - there is only apparent failure. The complex adaptive system that is the community has been poking and probing to identify common intent and those actors who are passionate about realizing their own intents. Recently some triads have emerged. My observation as of today is that Esteban, Dmitry and Michael are a relatively stable triad. Recently that triad connected with Peter and Desaratha. There are many still invisible triads in the group. My prediction is that over time, triads will continue to form.
I am passionate in my role as mentor for research for the Nemetic Research Institute, a start up ngo based in Kolkata. I know Dmtiry is passionate about LiM and Esteban is passionate about the use of language. When Peter started a thread on the context in London, it got me moving about a paper for the Nemetics Journal. I don't know what will happen in the thread. I am quite confident that a paper on Knowledge Creation in the Transmedia Ecosystem will be in our first printed Nemetic Journal.
In general self organizing teams are pulled together by a clear deliverable at a specific time. The technology fits a proximate need. In design it's been said "Form follows Function" In this case "Function" is to produce something.
Peter Jones Dmitry, your PB Works quote got my interest because it was started by a comment from Chad, a respected contributor in my mind.
M Ichael, this might pique more people's interest if this were adopted as a regular tactic ...
Not sure I can say that an audience of 23,000 can be regarded as a failure in STW though ... Here I read in some bias from the author ... July 12 at 10:19am
Dmitry SokolovGroup Admin M Ichael, Peter, Michel, Steven, Rama, others,
what is faster and more energy efficient, to run across the field with your own ball, or to spread ourselves along the field and pass the ball across?
Coordination means all of us gathered on the same field and playing same game. I appreciate the fact of individual preferences. Some of us prefer basketball, others golf or water polo. Our history tells us that this kind of individualistic strategy at reacting on current challenges created the global problems we all experiencing. We can't solve the problems using the mindset that created them. WE have finally to appreciate a need of secondary consciousness developed in our societies, up to the global scale. And form a working group, based primarily on the same idea but not just on convenience and fun. Fun is good as far as the right things are being done.
... or may be Global Sustainability is just my idea. May be the world is fine. All the problems are in my head?
We just have to make our choice and show our intents. Actually our future actions will show the intents too. You don't have to join the GS project if you think you are doing just fine. 
:)
http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/.../Global...
I am calling to action all EoST members, best of the best thinkers of the world.
Hopefully, best doers too... :)
Why STW Failed:
http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/.../STW%20Failure... Just now
Links
Subcategories
Pages
From Systems Thinking To Systems Acting
Pages in Other Languages
Categories
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.