Cognitive boundaries of cognitive process containers

Tank Warfare Challenges for Global Governance (Part #4)

---

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

---

Container metaphor: With "thinking" understood as but one of the valued cognitive modalities, it is fruitful to ask what other modalities could be readily understood as framed by the think tank metaphor. The question has particular validity in that it effectively relates to the extensive literature of cognitive psychology on the so-called container metaphor, most notably highlighted by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (Metaphors We Live By, 1980). Of particular relevance to this argument is the extensive review of that metaphor with respect to the European Union (Peter Drulak, Metaphors Europe Lives by: Language and Institutional Change of the European Union, European University Institute, 2004). That institute is ranked as one of the think tanks in the Global Go To Think Tank Report.

The question acquires further relevance through the argument regarding the ubiquity of containers by Alexander Klose (The Container Principle: how a box changes the way we think, 2015). The subtitle is a reminder of concerns that the internet context, which has emerged later even than "think tank", is in process of modifying the way in which people think (Nicholas G. Carr, The Shallows: how the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember, Atlantic, 1 July 2011; Hannah Collins, 12 Ways The Internet Is Changing How We Think, Ranker; Is the internet changing the way we think? Psychologies, 15 September 2010; How is the internet changing the way you think? Edge Foundation, 2010). What has dependence on "think tanks" done to the quality of strategic thinking?

Of further relevance to this argument is the distinction made between purportedly uncreative "thinking inside the box" and that appreciated as innovative thinking outside the box -- with the valuable ambiguity offered by "out-of-the-box thinking", namely that which is a product of the former, namely of box-constrained thinking. In placing the metaphorical focus on think tank, this offers the paradox that thinking "outside the box" is not something which is effectively cultivated (or appreciated) "within the box" -- preoccupied as it is by out-of-the-box insight production.

Is this a self-image which is deliberately cultivated by think tanks, complicit as they may be with a questionable peer review system? Are think tanks then primarily to be understood as producers of "contextually conditioned concepts"?

Thinking the unthinkable vs Feeling the unfeelable? Such questions are all the more relevant in that many think tanks are called upon to address issues of extremism and radicalisation. Paradoxically, however, the requirement is that this should be done without espousing any perspective which might be framed as "radical" or indicative of "extremism" -- despite claims to be able to "think the unthinkable". The ironies of this situation have been discussed separately (Radical Innovators Beware -- in the arts, sciences and philosophy, 2016).

In this curious modern period of hypersensitivity to subtleties of expression in relation to identity politics, could it be said that think tanks have trapped themselves within a metaphor which is the antithesis of the creativity which they would claim as their primary characteristic? The insight of policy scientist Geoffrey Vickers is appropriate: a trap is a function of the nature of the trapped (Freedom in a Rocking Boat: changing values in an unstable society, 1972).

Boundaries: Use of "tank" whatever the associations, implies a strong boundary -- even one "reinforced" to reduce impact from the external environment (as with any battle tank), or to prevent any uncontrolled escape to it (leakage).

In considering the possibility of bounded environments, as containers for other cognitive modalities, it is then appropriate to ask what form any boundary might take and the nature of the transfers across those boundaries. A case could be made for exploring the variety of boundaries in systemic terms in order to determine how some might be relevant to the operation of an alternative think tank -- if only under certain circumstances. The exploration could extend to a sense of the variety of containers of potential relevance to focusing different cognitive modalities.

The classic study of Gareth Morgan (Images of Organization, 1986) is suggestive with respect to both containers and their boundaries. He considers the perception of organizations as: machines, organisms, brains, cultures, political systems, psychic prisons, flux and transformation, and instruments of domination.

Some alternative metaphors to "tank" could then include:

• biological cells, especially given the process of osmosis through which they may communicate with the environment (Cognitive Osmosis in a Knowledge-based Civilization: interface challenge of inside-outside, insight-outsight, information-outformation, 2017)
  
  
• bubbles, especially given metaphoric reference to the manner in which people and organizations may function within bubbles, as argued with respect to filter bubbles and the extensive study by Peter Sloterdijk (Bubbles: Spheres Volume I: Microspherology, Semiotext(e), 2011). From a strategic perspective, there is the challenge that( as a comfort zone) a tank may be a zone of dangerous complacency (Pricking the Bubble of Global Complacent Complicity, 2017). Bubbles are a common feature in depicting statements in political strip cartoons.
  
  
• balloons, notably through the manner in which "trial balloon" is used by think tanks in making strategic proposals, and the criticism which use of that metaphor invites (Globallooning -- Strategic Inflation of Expectations and Inconsequential Drift, 2009).
  
  
• cocoons, especially in the light of the tendency to cocooning, referring to the increasing tendency to stay inside one's home, insulated from perceived danger, instead of going out -- clearly with implications for those operating within any cognitive environment felt to be "home"

In the quest for a more fruitful alternative, it is appropriate to note a degree of use of "school" (as in school of thought), "college" (as in invisible college), and "community" -- to which appreciative reference may be made by those functioning within a think tank. Unfortunately terms like "eco tank" are already appropriated for products. A degree of use of "environmental think tank" could be seen as complicit in the problematic use of "tank".

Arguably the quest for an appropriate environment potentially needs to be far more radical in its nature, as suggested by the design constraints for the experimental ITER toroidal nuclear fusion reactor (currently the focus of massive international investment). There the challenge is to contain the circulation of plasma under very high pressure and temperature -- such that, paradoxically, it does not come in contact with the walls of the toroidal container (whose integrity it would otherwise destroy). This offers a powerful metaphor for collective interdisciplinary cognitive processes, as discussed separately (Enactivating a Cognitive Fusion Reactor: Imaginal Transformation of Energy Resourcing (ITER-8), 2006). A "container for the uncontainable" would seem to be a requirement for those with a capacity to "think the unthinkable" -- especially if enhanced by the capacity to feel the unfeelable.

---

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