Design considerations

Reimagining Principles Enabling an Existential Ecostery (Part #2)

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

Cognitive dynamic: Of greater potential is the manner in which the dynamics of the configuration of qualities may sustain insight and identity of a higher order -- whatever that may then mean. These dynamics might be envisaged, for mnemonic purposes, as reminiscent of:

• the reconfiguration now commonplace in complex transformer toys
• variously thinking "out-of-the-box", rather than locked into a simple "in-the-box" configuration
• the transformation characteristic of the vector equilibrium (as demonstrated by R. Buckminster Fuller and argued in his study of synergetics)
• use of a configuration of magnets to ensure that plasma does not contact its container in nuclear fusion
• recent progress in acoustic levitation achieved through the non-linear effects of intense sound waves

Traditionally understood as the "circulation of the light, these are all variously suggestive of phases in the movement of attention which some disciplines of meditation consider essential, as separately discussed (Circulation of the Light: essential metaphor of global sustainability? 2010).

Transcendent order? The nature of the order emerging from such a dynamic can be variously implied through expressions like "meta-narrative", or Gregory Bateson's "meta-pattern" of connectivity about which he states:

Break the pattern which connects the items of learning and you necessarily destroy all quality. (Mind and Nature; a necessary unity, 1979, p. 8)

It resists overdefinition and assertion -- or rather invites them only in order to deny their adequacy, as suggested from a Taoist perspective by Chuang Tzu:

The wise man therefore... sees that on both sides of every argument there is both right and wrong. He also sees that in the end they are reducible to the same thing, once they are related to the pivot of Tao. When the wise man grasps this pivot, he is the center of the circle, and there he stands while "Yes" and "No" pursue each other around the circumference. (The Way of Chuang Tzu, interpreted by Thomas Merton, 1970)

This raises the question of the value of endeavouring articulation of any permanence, as highlighted by Buddhist understandings of impermanence (Joan Stambaugh, Impermanence is Buddha-nature, 1990). What is implied by ascribing meaning and "inscribing" insight -- writing -- especially with any emphasis on persuasion to a particular worldview? What is achieved in thereby questioning other worldviews? Do such dilemmas call for another kind of contextual dynamic within which they are embedded?

Constraints on communicability: Any such framing immediately makes evident the constraints on communicability -- even in an internet era of global communication. The combination of information overload and other priorities renders highly problematic any "global" communication endeavour (Future Generation through Global Conversation: in quest of collective well-being through conversation in the present moment, 1997). This is exemplified by efforts of highly competitive advertising to capture and focus seconds of attention time. To these must be added the variety of cognitive biases and stylistic preferences which are a challenge to the communicability of any message, as separately discussed (Systems of Categories Distinguishing Cultural Biases, 1993). Furthermore, there is always greater expertise available elsewhere that cannot be brought to bear in a timely, cost-effective manner -- especially if lengthy learning is required for transfer of "know how".

Especially intriguing is the framing of communication potential through the language of a "business model" -- with the implication of a particular kind of busyness, effectively a "busyness model" constraining the application of considered attention to anything. The situation is exacerbated by conceptual gerrymandering (Definitional Boundary Games and De-signing the 21st Century, 1995).

Grasping for closure: In a world in which openness is purportedly much valued, there is nevertheless a curious emphasis on achieving "closure" -- on encompassing whatever is in some way encountered (Hilary Lawson, Closure: a story of everything, 2001). This is only too evident in the articulation of "models" in the scientific explanation of phenomena, as a means of framing any form of development or change, or in the elaboration of strategic endeavours -- as with "business models". Aspiration to a Theory of Everything is an extreme example of preoccupation with closure (John Barrow, Theories of Everything: the quest for ultimate explanation, 1992). As argued by Nicholas Rescher, its implications are questionable (The Price of an Ultimate Theory, 2000).

Given the variety of extant models -- many abandoned -- a provocative comparison may be made with the many elegant shells to be found on a beach, as old "monuments" to closure (Enstoning in Memorials and Monuments, 2012). Are old declarations and sets of principles to be seen in this light -- perhaps as a form of graffiti on the wall of time? In both cases, although previously "inhabited", those who lived within them have "moved on" in some way. So framed, what is the case for the elaboration of a new "model", or a new set of principles?

Is there a strange illusion to grasping for truth in this way? Can it be usefully compared to the traditional strategy for catching a monkey by placing food inside a jar such that, when grasped through the neck of the jar, the clenched fist cannot be withdrawn (The Monkey's Fist: An Ancient Parable for Modern Times). With respect to a Theory of Everything, the question might be asked as to what is to be done, and by whom, having "grasped" it? Similarly with respect to the "omega" framed by Gregory Chaitin (Metamaths: the quest for omega, 2007) -- what is to be done having "got it"?

What is the attractor for which grasping seems appropriate? Can the condition be framed even more provocatively in the light of sexuality, as separately suggested (Beyond Harassment of Reality and Grasping Future Possibilities: learnings from sexual harassment as a metaphor, 1996)? Grasping is clearly intimately related to a quest for closure. This does however highlight the dimensionality of what it is sought to enclose in relation to that of the grasping faculty. There is the further issue of whether the preoccupation is with grasping what amounts to the superficial "packaging" of the attractor, thereby restricting ability to engage with the contents of the package (of higher dimensionality). The issue is reminiscent of the Grail quest (In Quest of Sustainability as Holy Grail of Global Governance, 2011).

Both examples are indicative of the transformative potential of engaging with higher dimensionality, as suggested by the arguments of Ron Atkin (Multidimensional Man; can man live in 3-dimensional space? 1981), and separately summarized (Comprehension: Social organization determined by incommunicability of insights).

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