"Real" vs "Imaginary"

Framing the Interplay of Leadership and Misleadership (Part #5)

[Parts: First | Prev | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]

To the extent that "leadership" is naturally to be associated in Figure 9 with "real", and "misleadership" with "imaginary", there is relevance to the earlier argument concerning their relationship (Sustainability through the Dynamics of Strategic Dilemmas -- in the light of the coherence and visual form of the Mandelbrot set, 2005)

In each case, the question is whether the tensions between the value-charged strategic polarities can be fruitfully dissociated into "real" and "imaginary" components such that the dynamics engender a sustainable boundary vital to psycho-social coherence -- without collapsing the dramatically opposed perspectives that characterize the polarity.

In a strategic context, "real" is associated with factual data. But as is evident in practice, proponents of opposing initiatives have divergent interpretations of "real" and of the weight to be attached to different "facts", held to be "true". Each is then free to accuse the other of responding to "imaginary" interpretations -- and this tends to be very sharply stated in debate (caricaturing the opposition with terms such as "dreamers", "deluded", "unrealistic", etc) regarding what is "false". In a sense each sees the opposition as responding to an unreal "image" of reality. It is the dynamics of disagreements of this nature that need to be held with a framework of requisite complexity -- transcending relativism -- in order for governance to articulate strategies that are sustainable.

There is a certain irony to the tendency of strategic proponents to procrastinate by pleading for more "facts" (monitoring, research, etc) prior to action -- or by calling for more "imaginative" thinking to respond more effectively to new kinds of crises or the inadequacies of previous strategies.

The argument here is that the kind of sustainability that would be sustainable -- rather than being itself a victim of these dynamics -- is at a level of abstraction to which the M-set usefully points. As a framework, it in no way denies the existence of the dynamics between constituencies with different understandings of what is real and what is imaginary. Rather the recognition of the M-set depends on those dynamics -- just as the 2D polarities within a tensegrity are essential to the emergence and viability of the 3D structure resulting from their configuration.

In this light the question becomes how to recognize and distinguish the strategic elements contributing to recognition of such an M-set. The need is to offer clearer understanding of the role of "real" and "imaginary", recognizing that "real" to one group may be "imaginary" to another. This reinforces the point made with regard to transforming the axes between "real" and "imaginary", or between "positive" and "negative".

Considering once again how such distinctions would be made in the absence of the cartesian understanding of axes, it is worth reflecting again on the notation used in the thinking basic to the I Ching, namely the system of trigrams configured in the Ho Tu or Lo Shu arrangements of the Ba Gua mirror basic to the discipline of Feng Shui (as discussed in the earlier paper). There the focus is on "directions" rather than axes. But clearly two distinct digrams (rather than trigrams) would provide an adequately complex notation to distinguish "positive" and "negative" on a "real" axis, with a second two to distinguish "positive" and "negative" on an "imaginary" axis. In this connection, it should not be forgotten that it was the exposure of Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz to the I Ching that inspired his development of the binary coding system fundamental to computer operation.

The nature of the relationship between "real" and "imaginary" can be further considered in the light of the Chinese categories of "yang" and "yin" which are not fruitfully treated as "opposites". All relationships based on yin and yang are considered as relative. Mutual interaction must be considered, therefore, nothing can be defined as strictly yin or strictly yang. Yin and yang are symbolically represented by the Liang-I (two symbols). The Yang-I is represented by a continuous straight line and the Yin-I is represented by a broken line. The conditions to which they refer cannot be considered as permanent states. There is always dynamic movement which is encoded through combinations. The first group of these is called Szu-Hsaing. These four figures (digrams) are formed by combining the Yin-I and the Yang-I. The Szu-Hsaing represent the maximum number sets that can be formed by combining two differing elements in sets of two.

In contrast with the mathematics of the M-set, this Chinese system was designed to embody qualitative value contrasts (rather than purely quantitative value contrasts) and was notably used in the clarification of strategic options by the emperors of China. The I Ching was in fact required reading for the Chinese civil service for about 1,000 years. One might well ask what tools of comparable complexity and scope are currently used with respect to global governance.

Of particular interest is the polarity between "objective" approaches ("real") and "subjective" approaches ("imaginary"). This is notably evident in the "objective" attitude of mathematicians to complexity -- in comparison with the "subjective" attitudes associated with the psycho-social phenomena noted above. However it is the "real" nature of the 40 religious conflicts around the world -- driven by a sense of "positive" ("good") and "negative" ("evil") in this "imaginary" dimension -- that can be contrasted with the "unreality" of "bloodless" mathematics to those engaged in those bloody conflicts.

[Parts: First | Prev | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]