Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals
Offlist or not, there certainly is an element of control. In a
constructivist environment, the "teacher" is really a facilitator of
learning, and there has to be some aspect of control going on between
facilitator and learner, as well as within and between learners. I agree
with your suspicion, and like the quote, Peter. Problem is, most
constructivist pundits tend to forget that the learning facilitator is
always a learner as well. (01)
Jack (02)
At 11:10 PM 7/15/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>Isn't applied constructivism controlling in some sense?
>
>"Constructivism emphasizes the careful study of the processes by which
>children create and develop their ideas. Its educational applications
>lie in creating curricula that match (but also challenge) children's
>understanding, fostering further growth and development of the mind. "
>From
>http://www.ic.polyu.edu.hk/posh97/Student/Learn/Learning_theories.html#c
>onstructivism
>
>--
>Peter
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jack Park" <jackpark@thinkalong.com>
>To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
>Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:59 PM
>Subject: 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:
>
>""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."
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Discourse in this forum, in my view, could easily seed the move towards
>a
>better understanding of the differences between instructivist and
>constructivist behaviors.
>
>My 0.02 EUROs for the day.
>Jack
>
>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....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > (03)