Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals
Interesting. I have a somewhat different take on the A.B.C.s, perhaps one
invented out of my own mad way of looking at the universe. I got a bit
more support for my ideas whilst re-reading a paper entitled "The Hume
Machine" on the web. One of the authors of that paper is Bruno Latour
(http://www.ensmp.fr/~latour/) and, while roaming his site, I found this, a
bibliographic entry of his that is not yet available in whole document form: (01)
""War of the Worlds -What about Peace?" to be published as a separate
pamphlet byPrickly Press, edited by Marshall Sahlins, Chicago, University
of Chicago Press (2002) (traduction anglaise d'une version remaniée de
English translation in a separate pamphlet of a revised and expanded
version of (81) traduite par translated by Charlotte Brigg]
If one takes seriously the notion of cosmopolitics developped by Isabelle
Stengers and the diplomatic work it entails, one is engaged in a rethinking
of the link between cultures and natures now in the plural- ; it is argued
here that the extension of nature can no longer count as the diplomatic way
of creating a common world ; alternatives are explored including the notion
of constructivisme, an unlikely candidate at first, but a good possibility
in the end." (02)
I don't see the A.B.C.s as a control trip at all. Never have, even though
Doug's slides seem to reflect production as the output of A work. I first
recognized A.B.C.s as yet another opportunity for applied constructivist
thinking. (03)
I'm personally leaning in the direction of assigning a "lot of blame"
(whatever that means) (e.g. causality with respect to the complex, urgent
problems of our time and our future) on humanity's abuses of its tribal
nature, religious thinking being just one candidate abuser among
many. Peter's calls (below) for dialog on *goals* is the right call to
make; otoh, Doug laid out some extremely important goals (I think) during
Unrev II already: clean water, food, climate, etc being attractor basins
for a plethora of valuable goals. (04)
What's needed, in my view, is to get humankind started on a constructivist
course, not, indeed, a trivial goal in itself. My view holds that we likely
will not make much progress in that direction so long as we focus on
specific issues; as a card-carrying member of the tribe whose mantra is
"Get The Big Picture First," I do have some ideas that I think could be the
seeds for finding a voice rooted in the Big Picture. (05)
My ideas reflect Doug's call (expressed here as my interpretation) for the
evolution of an OHS-driven paradigm shift in the way we work. My view is
that humankind, for whatever reason (Darwinian?) is rather *instructivist*
when a move to *constructivist* behaviors is (well, at least, may be)
called for. Now, it would be *instructivist* of me to state in plain words
right here just how to do that. I choose, instead, to make an attempt to
*facilitate* the start of a constructivist approach by building some
software that may (or may not -- I'm still roaming about in hypothesis
space) kick start the evolution of better software that might, just might
provoke the evolution in human behaviors that are the A.B.C.s about which,
I think, Doug speaks. (06)
Discourse in this forum, in my view, could easily seed the move towards a
better understanding of the differences between instructivist and
constructivist behaviors. (07)
My 0.02 EUROs for the day.
Jack (08)
At 09:14 PM 7/15/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>(Henry, I'm moving this back on to the list as I think we're
>hitting some interesting territory that perhaps needs discussion in
>the wider arena.)
>
>OK, but that would bring me to another point.
>
>In the ABC model, A = productive process, B = improvement
>process, C = improving improvement process.
>However, I would have thought that one way to ensure
>improvements all the way was to assert a 'short-circuit' between
>C and A and sugg"est that one could improve from C by making
>A highly flexible from the outset. If A is highly flexible then
>surely B must be even more inventively flexible but easier because of
>that. And from that
>it follows that C must itself be even more highly flexible in its
>provision
>of recommendations for flexibility back down the line or via
>the short-circuit but is easier because of that. So in introducing
>flexibility we've introduced what looks like an extra efficiency into
>the whole.
>But what happens is that that flexibility in essence flattens the
>hierarchy
>more into a huge system of interdependent variables without order of
>control.
>And this implies that variable control in the system might not be
>possible - the domains of factors might be too big (chaos theory). And
>these
>systems are so rarely properly closed.
>So it seems that there is a limit to the extent to which the
>ABC model is applicable and it is perhaps lower than one
>might like.
>Therefore, one might argue that the ABC model only applies in system
>where the production goals
>are very clearly defined, and where fundamental flexibility is known
>not to introduce a direct improvement in the whole.
>
>Now those thoughts can be spread across the dimension of time, not just
>production systems. The long haul goals aren't known. Some short haul
>goals are. So if we fix the short term ones that gets us to...? Another
>set of
>short term problems caused by fixing the last lot? How do we prevent
>that?
>By suggesting an ideal end state perhaps - the Heaven on Earth scenario.
>Does anyone agree what the HoE scenario should be? No, we've just
>said that no-one knows what that should be.
>So in the absence of defined end goals it looks as if we aren't dealing
>with a production system here.
>In which case, is the ABC model applicable to the whole at present?
>Doubtful, I think.
>Does it make sense to apply it in part to particular activities and not
>others?
>Doubtful too, because you can't track the influences.
>
>Doug is a holist (I hope I'm correct in asserting that - he seems to be
>to me) and
>so am I and, I think, many others on the BA lists.
>In which case, maybe we (unrevvers unite!) need to fire up
>some serious debate and research into what long term system goals
>humankind should
>have on the table now?
>
>--
>Peter
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Henry K van Eyken" <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
>To: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
>Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:43 PM
>Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple
>
>
> > Peter.
> >
> > I agree that in the long haul humankind hasn't got the foggiest of
>where it
> > is going. But degree of certainty is higher the nearer the future.
>Life
> > insurance rests on this. And going to school, getting married, buying
>a
> > computer, etc.
> >
> > Doug's idea IS to control things, but not just from the outset. His
>idea is
> > to have people - academics, presumably - manning outpost into the
>future, to
> > assess things and to feed back a stream of information to help us,
>sluggers
> > to optimize preparations for the future.
> >
> > Henry
> >
> > Peter Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, then we get into a real debate about whether consensus is
> > > healthy. For example, take
> > > A) The Dilbert Principle: People are idiots.
> > > B) Mob rule & Demagogic persuasion.
> > > C) The fact that basically humankind hasn't got a clue where it's
>going.
> > >
> > > Isn't the consensus approach just swapping one madness (pluralist
> > > cacophony)
> > > for another that's got no brakes (the runaway train to hell
>phenomenon)?
> > >
> > > I've read some books about innovation that talk a lot about how the
> > > truly great innovations come from someone spotting something in what
> > > had previously been considered non-signal (noise) as opposed to
> > > changing the signal.
> > >
> > > Doug's ideas make a lot of sense in processes that should be
>controlled
> > > from the outset.
> > > But to say that people should aways start from the same point and
> > > collaborate from the outset misses the point about creativity in
> > > many cases.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
> > > To: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That
>Simple
> > >
> > > > Peter.
> > > >
> > > > The point I was trying to make was that we should look for better
>ways
> > > of
> > > > arriving at opinions. Nothing wrong with having opinions and
> > > expressing them
> > > > and doing so having some impact, etc. But whatever opinions we, as
> > > > individuals, offer are more or less in isolation, i.e. partly
>footed
> > > on
> > > > solid ground, partly in thin air.
> > > >
> > > > Doug's approach is not to offer solutions to world problems, but
> > > instead to
> > > > offer a way of doing a better job of arriving at solutions.
> > > >
> > > > The last couple of days, I have have here, lying among papers
>around
> > > my
> > > > desk, The Economist of June 6, turned to page 3 of its special
> > > section, "A
> > > > survey of the global environment." It points to the contrast
>between
> > > the
> > > > opinions of economists and those of environmentalists, and how
>finally
> > > those
> > > > begin to converge - sort of. Had those people and their advisors
>been
> > > > working on the same document all along, instead of working on
>separate
> > > > documents, they could have come up with a consensus ("the same
> > > songbook")
> > > > much sooner - i.e. do a better job of arriving at a potential
>solution
> > > to
> > > > complex, urgent problems. That is Doug's theme, and one
>appropriate to
> > > this
> > > > list.
> > > >
> > > > Henry
> > > >
> > > > Peter Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Henry,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure I understand you.
> > > > > Surely the point of dialogue is to get all the views on
> > > > > the table, then discuss in the _hopes_ of reaching an
> > > > > agreement. To enforce agreement would be
> > > > > tyranny.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peace in plurality is surely better; mutual recognition of
> > > > > difference without antagonism.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" <vaneyken@sympatico.ca>
> > > > > To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:22 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple
> > > > >
> > > > > > John, Eric, Peter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I Found Eric's e-mail after responding to John.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting the difference between our responses; the
>different
> > > > > > foundations on which they are based. Our "global brain" is
>still
> > > not
> > > > > > functioning in unison as that label kind of implies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Henry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them,
>but
> > > > > > > on this on I have to disagree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their
> > > goals.
> > > > > > > It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example)
>to
> > > > > > > achieve their ends peaceably.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less
> > > > > > > brutal, despicable means.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive
> > > > > > > retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this
>planet
> > > > > > > would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held
>in
> > > > > > > check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter
> > > > > > > of innocents on their hands.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions.
>That
> > > > > > > puts even a large power at a disadvantage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out
>against
> > > > > > > the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater
> > > > > injustices
> > > > > > > at the very same time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop*
> > > > > > > standing for fair play and honor??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the
>Palestinian
> > > state
> > > > > > > was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the
> > > > > > > very same decree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by
> > > > > > > the Palestinians, and war ensued.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about
> > > hollering
> > > > > > > about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once
> > > > > > > given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form
>or
> > > > > > > another.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and
> > > > > > > there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This
>is
> > > > > > > the way of things when you deal with people who have no
>honor.
> > > > > > > They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they
> > > will
> > > > > > > do nothing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone
>who
> > > > > > > has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly
>nothing.
> > > > > > > To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into
>his
> > > > > > > hands, and to gain nothing in return.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The
> > > Isreali's
> > > > > > > have no right here. Israel has no right to exist."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Although there has been some softening of that position
> > > recently,
> > > > > > > it has only come about as a result of the realization that
>force
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > not rule the day.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully
> > > everything
> > > > > > > he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into
>the
> > > > > > > heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the
> > > > > religious
> > > > > > > fanatics have their way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some
> > > > > > > unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It
>sure
> > > > > > > would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would
> > > > > > > have gone there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the
> > > greatest
> > > > > > > human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind.
>To
> > > > > > > be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a
>dessert
> > > > > > > that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that
> > > defies
> > > > > > > sensibility, in my book.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that
> > > comes
> > > > > > > free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the
>name
> > > of
> > > > > > > good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious
> > > beliefs,
> > > > > > > and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, what is there to do?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The options are:
> > > > > > > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else.
> > > > > > > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to
> > > > > > > Israel.
> > > > > > > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the
> > > > > > > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks
>(force)
> > > > > > > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or
> > > > > > > a few hundred years.
> > > > > > > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly
>that
> > > > > > > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to
>make a
> > > > > > > difference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that
> > > > > > > list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense
> > > > > > > of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed
> > > > > > > around.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem
> > > > > > > of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few
> > > > > > > places I wouldn't mind dumping it....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > (09)