Coherent representation of cognitive modalities

Strategic Challenge of Polysensorial Knowledge: bringing the "elephant" into "focus" (Part #9)

---

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

---

The centro-symmetric diagram above is of course distinct from the geometry of traditional geomantic compasses typically based on many concentric circles each holding different sets of cognitively significant symbols. It is however appropriate to be conscious of the variety of alternative methods of representing the kinds of complexity presented in the diagram above -- recognizing the role of applications like Microsoft PowerPoint (or its equivalents) in providing ways of organizing strategic thinking. It is appropriate to argue however that PowerPoint might be said to be the dominant western counterpart to the geomantic compass -- ironically even to the degree of also highlighting "points of power" that are otherwise undetectable.

Clearly, although convenient tools, the displays offered have poorly explored implications for strategic reinforcement -- notably through their widespread acceptance of "bullet points". A well-articulated criticism is that of Edward R. Tufte (The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: pitching out corrupts within; PowerPoint Does Rocket Science--and Better Techniques for Technical Reports; PowerPoint Is Evil: power corrupts, PowerPoint corrupts absolutely, Wired, September 2003).

The cognitive issue is what kinds of strategic potentials or biases are reinforced by the possibilities of such alternatives. Of particular interest are the questions raised with respect to polysensorial challenges when the above diagram is switched (as the software permits) from the Venn diagram format used above into the alternative configurations indicated below.

Representations of the senses (indicative) offered as standard alternatives to that above by Microsoft PowerPoint

There are constraints in PowerPoint in switching between such alternatives. The colour allocation is arbitrary in the above, as is the order. No effort has been made to reconcile the representations. Clearly the order may be variously interpreted as having certain (socio-political and philosophical) implications and reinforcing certain (possibly unacceptable) biases. For example:

• pyramid configuration: exemplifying dominance hierarchies. The use in Maslow's hierarchy of needs can be fruitfully challenged.
• target configuration: exemplifying linear goal-seeking behaviour, notably as characteristic of conventional military and business strategy, which may be questionable in relation to less exploitative, non-linear nvironmental considerations
• radial configuration: exemplifying centre-periphery relations typical of imperial, unipolar systems of organization
• cyclic configuration: exemplifying continuous cybernetic processes, possibly to be challenged by any need for a concrete focus
• Venn configuration: exemplifying multi-polar organization, typically challenged by unipolar approaches

The contrasting geometry of these configurations is reminiscent of the four (or five) socio-cultural/epistemological mindscape distinctions of Magoroh Maruyma (Mindscapes, social patterns and future development of scientific theory types. Cybernetica, 1980), notably as extensively explicated by David M. Boje (2006) and Michael Caley (Mindscapes: the epistemology of Magoroh Maruyama, 1994) by :

• H-mindscape (homogenistic, hierarchical, classificational): Parts are subordinated to the whole, with subcategories neatly grouped into supercategories. The strongest, or the majority, dominate at the expense of the weak (whether values, policies, problems, priorities, etc). Logic is deductive and axiomatic demanding sequential reasoning. Cause-effect relations may be deterministic or probabilistic.
• I-mindscape (heterogenistic, individualistic, random): Only individuals are real, even when aggregated into society. Emphasis on self-sufficiency, independence and individual values. Design favours the random, the capricious and the unexpected. Scheduling and planning are to be avoided. Non-random events are improbable. Each question has its own answer; there are no universal principles.
• S-mindscape (heterogenistic, interactive, homeostatic): Society consists of heterogeneous individuals who interact non-hierarchically to mutual advantages. Mutual dependency. Differences are desirable and contribute to the harmony of the whole. Maintenance of the natural equilibrium. Values are interrelated and cannot be rank-ordered. Avoidance of repetition. Causal loops. Categories not mutually exclusive. Objectivity is less useful than "cross-subjectivity" or multiple viewpoints. Meaning is context dependent.
• G-mindscape (heterogenistic, interactive, morphogenetic): Heterogeneous individuals interact non-hierarchically for mutual benefit, generating new patterns and harmony. Nature in continually changing requiring allowance for change. Values interact to generate new values and meanings. Values of deliberate (anticipatory) incompleteness. Causal loops. Multiple evolving meanings.

The relation of this approach to that of the Myers-Briggs MBTI typology is the subject of a detailed comment by David M. Boje (Mindscape Theory and the Myers-Briggs, 2006).

In addition to the initiative of Edward de Bono, it is appropriate to note other efforts to reconcile colour with cognitive and operational dispositions (Paul Evering, Creating Whole Organization Synergy; the Eidetic Reference Book, 2000; Max Lüscher, Lüscher Color Test, 1990).

Whilst clarifying any such distinctions is clearly of value, the emphasis in this exploration is on the greater value of indicating possibilities and alternatives and the facility for shifting between them in response to circumstances and personal preferences. It is excessive attachment to a particular colour coding, ordering or geometry that is most problematic when the need is for the interactive ability to choose -- to make design choices -- and learn thereby. The number of "senses", like the number of intelligences, may be collapsed to 4 or expanded to 8 (say) -- smell and taste may be cognitively conflated, for example, or "cognition" may be omitted from the set, whatever "subunderstanding" such omissions may be (later) held to imply.

However, as with the number of gears in a vehicle, these may vary according to the purpose of the vehicle and the preferences of the owner. More appropriate than the metaphor of a cognitive gearbox is perhaps that of a musical tuning system through which a particular number of notes are distinguished -- thereby enabling different forms of music. This approach bypasses the infighting regarding "correspondences" that is so characteristic of different schools of thought (Theories of Correspondences -- and potential equivalences between them in correlative thinking, 2007). It recognizes that a particular pattern of distinctions is not "written in stone" as an absolutely relevant strategic truth -- especially if an individual or a group lacks a given sense or has no experience of it.

Hence the advantage of the PowerPoint facility which however highlights the possibility of geometries and orders that it does not facilitate. In this respect it will be interesting to see whether future pressure from a Chinese cultural perspective will not oblige applications to offer facilities that would enable the complexities of the luopan to be portrayed as one alternative. Also of interest is the possibility of using three-dimensional polyhedral alternatives to embody requisite complexity, and switching between 2D and 3D representations, as highlighted elsewhere (In Quest of a Strategic Pattern Language: a new architecture of values, 2008; Polyhedral Pattern Language: software facilitation of emergence, representation and transformation of psycho-social organization, 2008).

Example of a traditonal Chinese geomantic compass (luopan) (reproduced from Luopan, Wikipedia)

---

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