Nature of the Problem: Action

Development beyond Science to Wisdom (Part #4)

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

As will emerge below, it would be presumptuous to assume that the nature of the problem can be adequately formulated from any one perspective (as both Ashby's Law and Gödel's Theorems would suggest). For this reason, in searching for a '4th order' approach, it is necessary to proceed by indirection accepting the paradox to which such a search is subject.

Without identifying 'the problem', its nature can be sensed from antinomies such as the following:

• Process versus structure: approaches which emphasise specially designed structures are found to be too constraining and are often somewhat sterile; those emphasising process tend to be diffuse and unable to focus
• 'Action now', versus 'Next year will be better': advocates of many approaches excuse their lack of resu Its by statements such as 'these things take time', and of course they often do; on the other hand the frustration of the 'action now >' school is often justified.
• 'Experts know best' versus 'Grass-roots action' : there is increasing concern that the experts do not in fact know best - particularly when they disagree violently amongst themselves; but on the other hand they are aware of dimensions of a problem situation to which the non-specialists have not necessarily been exposed.
• 'Brick signing' versus 'Building the cathedral' in whatever action is undertaken there are those who are strongly influenced by the desire to ensure that their particular contribution is recognised and this is indeed necessary in the existing reward system; and yet it is the programme as a whole, blending the efforts of many, which needs to be brought to fruition and is usually placed in jeopardy by such concrete recognition of human development. Could cathedrals have been built if each brick was signed ? - And yet that is the principle on which the knowledge system is based.
• 'Detached operators' versus 'Self-reflexive participants': it is widely assumed that those acting on problems are in some way white-coated and hygienically detached from them, as in a laboratory experiment ("If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem") and indeed some measure of detachment is necessary to acquire the freedom to act; and yet those acting are part of society and need to be aware of the manner in which their actions contribute to the problem they claim they are attempting to solve and how they block appropriate understanding of its solution ( 'If you do not recognize how you are part of the problem, you cannot understand the nature of the solution required' ).

One might cite other such dimensions by which we are torn in our approach to problems. But the point to be made is that the structures and process via which we approach problem clarification and solution model very effectively the factors which render us unable to bring the problems into focus and deal with them. Many problem action debates can be caricatured by the situation in a meeting room, smoke-filled to the point of reduced visibility and tear-filled eyes, in which the societal problem under discussion is 'air pollution''. And yet the process is so designed that no one will open a window (if the technology permits), suggest that it should be opened, or recognise how the situation models the 'real' problem which is the topic of the debate.

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