Disparate Strategic Possibilities Dangerously Neglected

Recognizing controversial challenges to conventional silo thinking in times of crisis

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

A preceding argument suggested that a disparate array of neglected strategic preoccupation may in all probability invite consideration under catastrophic circumstances (Contrarian Analysis as a Means of Avoiding Intelligence Failure, 2023). According to that argument, collective intelligence is organized in a manner subject to a high degree of confirmation bias -- whether inadvertent or deliberate. This is necessarily a consequence of the cognitive comfort zone cultivated globally  by mainstream discourse -- appropriately framed metaphorically as a "bubble", even a "filter bubble". It would seem that intelligence is much handicapped in its ability to "prick" that bubble creatively (Pricking the Bubble of Global Complacent Complicity, 2017). Society is tragically dependent on Hamas-style events to do so.

However the radically divisive discourse evoked by such events is indicative of how dangerously primitive is the dialogue space from which it might be assumed that relevant insights might emerge. The possibility of such insight could be explored in terms of how existentially challenging such questions need to be -- to be of strategic relevance at this time -- thereby challenging any focus on an illusory "safe space" of more limited scope.

Of some relevance is the early experiment conducted by systems specialists, Stafford Beer and Gordon Pask, on a gathering of systems researchers of the Society for General Systems Research. Each participant was invited to formulate a question which they believed would divide the gathering 50-50. Each then answered that array of questions before forumulating another. Both sets of results were analyzed to form two maps: one of interlinked disparate issues  and another of interrelated participants more or less closely associated by their views on particular issues (Metaconferencing: discovering people / viewpoint networks in conferences, 1980).

As noted previously, the challenge to collective reflection on the future, in the gatherings variously proposed, is the identification of an array of appropriately "deadly questions" capable of reframing current discourse modalities (World Futures Conference as Catastrophic Question, 2013). These may well be articulated by voices faintly heard -- if at all -- as suggested with respect to climate change (Hearing the Variety of Voices in Climate Change Discourse, 2019). Ignoring them, it is little wonder that the mainstream "voice" does not evoke the expected response and support.

From a hypothetical future perspective, the concern might be framed as to the nature of the strategic possibilities which will then be regretted as not having been "on the table" at the present time. Given their controversial nature as a trigger for new insight, the difficulty is how best to frame them to enable their fruitful consideration at this time. A major effort in this respect has been the initiative of the Edge Foundation with its annual question to specialists over many years -- terminated with What is the Last Question (2018).

Of similar relevance is the Global Ideas Bank originally instigated by the Institute for Social Inventions. Another approach is the insights which remain to be derived from recent "revolutions" and their role in engendering new paradigms (Leonid Grinin, et al., 20th Century revolutions: characteristics, types, and waves, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9, 2022, 124; R Alexander Bentley, et al., Machine learning for rediscovering revolutionary ideas of the past, Adaptive Behavior, 30, 2022, 3) 30, Issue 3). These contrast with available resources on technical innovations (Innovation Database, SpringWise).

One appropriately provocative challenge to the global strategic comfort zone is the consideration of "negative strategies", namely the promotion of those which are the antithesis of what is otherwise considered reasonable (Liberating Provocations: use of negative and paradoxical strategies, 2005). It is the consequent shock effect which offers the possibility of evoking more appropriate engagement.

The following selection of disparate strategies is presented as an indication of speculative possibilities for consideration. References indicated are typically to web resources in which a possibility is framed in the light of further references -- more of which could be integrated into the checklists below. Missing in the current knowledge-based society is the context in which challenging possibilities are held and juxtaposed -- however controversial -- in order to evoke reflection and debate.

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]