You are here

Home

Reflexivity in multi-loop thinking and higher order learning


Framing Cognitive Space for Higher Order Coherence (Part #8)

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

There seem to be a number of somewhat unrelated approaches to what might be characterized as reflexivity or self-reference (Hilary Lawson, Reflexivity: the post-modern predicament, 1986). Binary challenge ***

Multi-loop thinking and learning: Distinctions are variously made between:

  • Double-loop learning: understood, in contrast to single-loop learning, as s an educational concept and process through which people think more deeply about their own assumptions and beliefs -- a process named otherwise (Barry J. Zimmerman and Dale H. Schunk, Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement, 2001)
  • Triple-loop learning: a further development of double-loop learning through which values are explored, and the reason for being embedded in systems and processes focused on desired results:
  • Quadruple-thinking: argued as interrelating critical, creative, caring and hopeful modes of thinking:
    • M. Ali Dombayci: Models of Thinking Education and Quadruple Thinking International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 5, 2014, 4)
    • Hasan Bacanli, et al: Quadruple Thinking: creative thinking (Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 2011)
    • Understood as the essence of communication, it was defined by Max Warren: Quadruple-thinking is thinking out what I have to say, then thinking out how the other man will understand what I say, and then re-thinking what I have to say, so that, when I say it, he will think what I am thinking! . . . Quadruple-thinking involves mental pain and great spiritual sensitivity. (Crowded Canvas, 1974)
  • Quintuple thinking: As noted with respect to mirroring strategies by Hannah Nellis (The Effects of Whole Brain Teaching Strategies in the General Education Classroom, Pennsylvania State University, 2014: Five brain activities are now involved: seeing (motor cortex), saying (Broca's area), hearing (Wernicke's area), doing (motor cortex) and feeling (limbic system). Another name for this quintuple learning is "Teacher Heaven" (C. Biffle, Whole Brain Teaching, 2013, p. 79).

Bottom lines in accounting: In business and accounting, net income is a measure of the profitability of a venture. Other "bottom lines" are however proposed, as discussed separately (Spherical Accounting: using geometry to embody developmental integrity, 2004):

  • Double bottom line: Sustainable development and concerns about corporate social responsibility have over the past decades forced attention on the double (or dual) bottom line.
  • Triple bottom line: More recently, the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines for " triple-bottom-line reporting" broaden financial reporting into a three-dimensional model for economic, social and environmental reporting. This focuses corporations on the environmental value added (or destroyed) -- in addition to the economic and social values of the double bottom line.
  • Quadruple bottom line: This form of reporting embraces a further component -- governance. It represents the emergence of sustainability reporting through which reporting is aligned more closely with underlying management practices and measures of corporate performance. The trend to quadruple bottom line reporting has been accelerated by major company collapses that have focused attention on governance and social responsibility.
  • Quintuple bottom line: As noted above, there is an emerging consensus recognizing "governance" as the key factor in quadruple bottom line reporting. However another candidate is spirituality -- as reflected in the "spirit in business" movement, or as articulated by Sohail Inayatullah (Spirituality as the Fourth Bottom Line, 2003).

Helical models of innovation: A remarkable range of research and other initiatives have emerged under the banner of the Triple Helix model of innovation (Marina Ranga and Henry Etzkowitz, Triple Helix Systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society, Industry and Higher Education, 27, 2013; Loet Leydesdorff, The Triple Helix: an evolutionary model of innovations. Research Policy, 29, 2000):

Causal and feedback loops: The cybernetics of control systems has long highlighted the distinctive roles of positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops in control systems. This preoccupation has been extended to the "cybernetics of cybernetics", namely the recursive application of cybernetics to itself, or second-order cybernetics..This is distinguished from first-order cybernetics (namely of "observed systems") as being the cybernetics of "observing systems". It has implications for creativity (Cybernetics of cybernetics: complex adaptive systems? 2007; Relevance to change, learning and creativity, 2014; Magoroh Maruyama, Causal Loops, Interaction, and Creativity, International Review of Sociology, 13, 2003, 3).

Higher orders of feedback can also be envisaged, although the distinction between the "orders" of cybernetics is currently a matter of controversy, most recently addressed by Maurice Yolles and Gerhard Fink (Generic Agency Theory, Cybernetic Orders and New Paradigms, Kybernetes, 44, 2015, 2). A valuable interpretation of related distinctions is provided in the discussion of Cadell Last (Towards a Big Historical Understanding of the Symbolic-Imaginary, 2017):

  • externally observed objects are modelled with an observer's noumenal view and voice that is systematically excluded from the "objective" model of the world to create the effect that the "true natural world" in-itself is looking and speaking at the subject [eg science]
  • observer's noumenal view and voice of externally observed objects is included in the model thus creatively relativizing thc observer's "objective" world model to the subjective locus producing it in order to study its effects in the ideational field structuring the motion of subject-object [eg deconstruction]
  • observer of externally observed objects reflectivcly incorporates its own and subjective-multiplicities as a (virtual, cxtimatc) object of analysis structured by an a priori framc of desire that unconsciously filters orientation, intervention, and understanding of subject-object entanglement [eg psychoanalysis]
  • observer reflectively incorporates noumenal view and voice modcl(s) structured by a priori frames of desire as capable of overdetcrmining the virtually narrated images of externally observed objects ("the world") through transcendental reflection and creation [eg historical subjectivity]
  • observer identifies the virtual ideational field composed of a multiplicity of self-relating and desiring world views and voice models as a universal agency ("semiosphere"') in-itself with asymmetrical and irreversible reflective and creative autonomy structuring the motion of subject-object entanglement [eg history itself]

Viable system modelling: The viable system model (VSM) is a model of the organizational structure of any autonomous system capable of producing itself. A viable system is any system organized in such a way as to meet the demands of surviving in the changing environment through adaptation. A useful overview is provided by QualTechSys (15 January 2018) in the light of thinking with regard to the human brain by Stafford Beer (Brain of the Firm: the managerial cybernetics of organization, 1972). This was inspiration to develop the Viable System Model by leading him to identify the following inter-related systems governing the human body. A VSM is composed of five interacting subsystems which may be mapped onto aspects of organizational structure. In broad terms Systems 1–3 are concerned with the 'here and now' of the organization's operations, System 4 is concerned with the 'there and then' – strategical responses to the effects of external, environmental and future demands on the organization. System 5 is concerned with balancing the 'here and now' and the 'there and then' to give policy directives which maintain the organization as a viable entity:

  • System 1 (Complexity and Variety): This contains several primary activities. Each System 1 primary activity is itself a viable system due to the recursive nature of systems as described above. These are concerned with performing a function that implements at least part of the key transformation of the organization.
  • System 2 (?Multiple Processes): This represents the information channels and bodies that allow the primary activities in System 1 to communicate between each other and which allow System 3 to monitor and co-ordinate the activities within System 1. Represents the scheduling function of shared resources to be used by System 1. Equivalent to the Sympathetic Nervous System, maintaining the human body homeostasis and regulating the interactions of organs, ensuring the stability of the body
  • System 3 (Coordination and Conflict Management): This represents the structures and controls that are put into place to establish the rules, resources, rights and responsibilities of System 1 and to provide an interface with Systems 4/5, namely the big picture view of the processes inside of System 1. Equivalent to the Base Brain: overseeing muscles and organs, optimizing the internal operations
  • System 4 (Forward Planning, The External Eye): Composed of the bodies that are responsible for looking outwards to the environment to monitor how the organization needs to adapt to remain viable. Equivalent to the Mid Brain, namely the connection of the brain to the external environment through sensory systems. Responsible for projecting, anticipating, and future planning
  • System 5 (Policy, Identity):Responsible for policy decisions within the organization as a whole to balance demands from different parts of the organization and steer the organization as a whole. Equivalent to the human Higher Brain, namely the identity of the human being.

It can be understood as embodying many of the considerations above with respect to cybernetics (Andrew Pickering, The Science of the Unknowable: Stafford Beer's cybernetic informatics, Kybernetes,33, 2004, 3/4). Thus for Frank van Caspel (VSM as a Tool for Organizational Change? A Critical Examination, Nijmegen School of Management, 2011): *** 7 functions cubocta?

It is an appealing idea to use the Viable System Model as a tool to guide organizational change. In doing so, however, the risk of exceeding the VSM's 'jurisdiction' is quite real. This article consists of an analytical examination of the degree to which the VSM can meaningfully contribute to organizational change. A functional definition of organizational change is introduced, in the form of the 3D-model of organizational change. It defines organizational change as consisting of three dimensions: functional, social and infrastructural. Next, the VSM is described. It is (also) a functional model, specifying five necessary and sufficient functions for organizational viability. Having acquired both a definition of organizational change and knowledge of the VSM, its suitability to contribute to change in different phases is examined.It is concluded that because the VSM is purely functional, it can only be used for diagnosis of existing or proposed organizational infrastructures. It cannot contribute to the design of concrete organizational infrastructures. This is a direct criticism of those cases in which the VSM was used during post-diagnostic change phases, some of which will be discussed. Post-diagnostic usage cannot be guided using only the VSM, but must rely on knowledge external from it. Researchers should be aware of the functional nature of the VSM, and its associated limitations. This will help to prevent the misattribution of the success or failure of change efforts to the VSM, where in fact other sources have implicitly steered the process

Strategic decision-making: Aspects of the considerations above are evident in the reality of decision-making. One valuable articulation is that of Arthur Young (The Geometry of Meaning, 1976). The sense of a learning cycle is fundamental to that articulation in discussing the sufficiency of a fourfold pattern, Young relates this to the necessity of feedback (in the light of piloting a helicopter):

    1. To know the position of a body in space, we need one instantaneous observation...
    2. To know its velocity, which is computer from the difference in position of the body and the difference in time between the two observations, we need two such observations
    3. To know its acceleration, we need three observations
    4. To know that a body... is under control, and to distinguish it from one in which the controls are stuck, we need at least four observations...
    5. To know the destination, provided the operator does not change his mind or try to fool us, we need five observations
    6. To know the operator has changed his mind or is trying to fool us, we need six observations

      Note that the fifth observation is to establish a position... and the sixth a change of position. Thus categories five and six repeat the cycle, the fifth falling into the position category and the sixth into the velocity category... the sufficiency of four categories is demonstrated. (p. 18)

Young's 12-phase learning / action cycles. can be variously adapted (Typology of 12 complementary strategies essential to sustainable development, Typology of 12 complementary dialogue modes essential to sustainable dialogue). The particular merit of the approach is the explicit distinction between the 12 elements of the pattern offering insights into their cyclic relationship in practice.

Of related interest is the articulation of the OODA loop developed by John Boyd as a military strategist.

Catastrophic WH-questions: It would not be surprisng, in a civilization dominated by cubic environments, to discover that its conceptual and strategic challenges and dilemmas lend themselves to fruitful cubic configuration. This could follow from the potential interplay of two less obviously interrelated 7-fold sets, together with a third set of "dilemmas" (questionably "sevenfold"):

Any such configuration reframes the question of 4-fold through 7-fold patterning and how this might be recognized and held in a cubically informed context -- the cognitive space for daily reflection, otherwise recognized as "thinking inside the box", as variously advocated (Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, et al, Thinking Inside the Box: a closer look at democracy and human riights, International Studies Quarterly, 49, 2005; John Gerring, The Mechanismic Worldview: thinking inside the box, British Journal of Political Science, 38, 2008, 1). Such a cognitive box offers six "windows" on external catastrophes but leaves comprehenion of the seventh catastrophe mysterious -- as with the traditional "seventh seal".

Speculative clues are offered by the following:

Commensurate with the "irrational" nature of questions, catastrophes and dilemmas, especially in a strategic context, is the relation to the 7-fold offered by the unusual Szilassi polyhedron -- usefully symbolic of the cognitive challenge of the times. This has 7 faces (of 4 types), 14 vertices (of 7 types), and 21 edges (of 12 types) -- 42 features together suitably reminiscent of the widely cited Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).

The association of the Szilassi polyhedron with cube inversion is discussed separately (Time for Provocative Mnemonic Aids to Systemic Connectivity? 2018), notably in relation to the cuboctahedron. Its value with respect to configuration of questions can be similarly explored (Mapping of WH-questions with question-pairs onto the Szilassi polyhedron, 2014).

Multi-loop representation in 2D, 3D, and more? There is no lack of imagery representing multi-loop thinking, learning and decision-making in 2D -- in a manner typical of readily reproducible systems diagrams and mind-maps. As might be expected, many are subject to copyright, with all the irony this implies with respective to collective learning. Examples include the following :

Observe–Orient–Decide–Act cycle
of John Boyd		 Circular configuration of 12 "measure formulae" of physics correlated with the pattern of the zodiac
(combining representations by Arthur Young  from The Geometry of Meaning, p. 102 and 119)
Observe–Orient–Decide–Act cycle of John Boyd Zodiac tripliciities (Geometry of Meaning) Zodiac quadruplicities (Geometry of Meaning)
Reproduced from Wikipedia Reproduced from Rosetta stone of meaningful cycles? (2018) .

There are very few indications that the complexity of such relationships lend themselves to representation in 3D -- or may require it -- nor to the possibility that representations of higher dimensionality may be required.

The helical approaches described above can be usefully explored as embedded in polyhedra (Biomimetic embedding of N-tuple helices in spherical polyhedra, 2017; Contrasting the implications of "triple helix" -- cognitive and otherwise, 2017). Implications of a third dimension (or more) are evident in Arthur Young's use of the Rosetta Stone metaphor (Insights into Dynamics of any Psychosocial Rosetta Stone: standing wave understood dynamically rather than statically, 2018) For Arthur Young, the correspondence between the measure formulae of physics and learning cycles can be significantly presented mnemonically in terms of the signs of the zodiac. For him, this cyclic pattern then constitutes a form of Rosetta stone (Geometry of meaning: an alchemical Rosetta Stone? 2013). ***

There is a case for recognizing that the cybernetic "orders" above could be associated with distinct topological surfaces whether for representation, mapping or symbolic purposes:

(Cognitive Osmosis in a Knowledge-based Civilization: interface challenge of inside-outside, insight-outsight, information-outformation, 2017)

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

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here