The Future of Comprehension: conceptual birdcages and functional basket-weaving

-

Paper written on the occasion of the First Global Conference on the Future, Toronto, 1980. (Theme: Thinking Globally/Acting Locally) Printed in Transnational Associations, 1982, 6, pp 400-404 

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

Introduction

Abstract: The existing range of conceptual, organizational, information and other structures have demonstrated their inability to generate effective remedies to the current deteriorating condition of society. Risks can therefore be usefully taken in directing attention, beyond the simplistic modes of comprehension which facilitate such failure, towards the range of comprehensible patterns which offer new modes of conceptual and group organization to harness the vast resources of unutilized human potential. The nature and operational design of the associated 'conceptual gearboxes' is considered in the light of R Buckminster Fuller's work on synergetics and concept 'packing'. The necessarily spherical nested patterns between which flexible transformations are required ('changing gear') act as the attention focusing containers ('birdcages') basic to appropriate synthesis and synergy. An equivalent 'woven' pattern of counter-balancing functional elements is required for the 'tensegrity organizations' then possible

The patterns discussed are direct challenges to individual and collective comprehension. For them to be communicable and collectively memorable as stable patterns, it seems necessary to employ symbol sets at least partly energized by the unconscious. Using traditional sets could bypass valid local resistance to the alienating artificial category schemes of global thinking. 

This paper is a direct response to the conference theme: 'Thinking globally: acting locally'. It takes for granted the multiplicity and complex interrelatedness of the current problems of society, whether global or local (1). The inability of the increasingly large number of organizations (2) to contain their problems will also not be examined. This is confirmed by the track record of organizations, whether governmental or otherwise, acting singly, in groups, or as networks - and their decreasing credibility, despite occasional apparent successes (3). Aside from the inability to initiate effective collective action. the associated failure in providing an ,information system matching the complexity of the problem and organization networks will also be considered as contextual to this paper (4), as will the lack of consensus on values (5).

As Margaret Mead is reported to have declared on a memorable occasion 'We know all we need to know'. The problem is that 'we' do not know how to fit it together into a meaningfully communicable pattern which could catalyze appropriate action. In fact there is no 'we' with a shared awareness permitting coherent action (3). But as is noted on the cover of The (Updated) Last Whole Earth Catalog (1974): 'We can't put it together; it is together'.

So therefore we could usefully focus attention on our difficulty in seeing things as parts of a whole. Or, maybe at one level of our awareness we do see the whole, but we are unable to re-member or communicate this experience (as will be explored below). Or, maybe we each see it individually, but are unable to match our perceptions. In any case the consequence is that the more society increases in complexity (whether 'really' or only 'apparently'), the more we can only act by focusing on simpler issues for a shorter time span.

Beyond the 1 st order, reactive responses, there have been a variety of 'higher order' responses to this situation which can be grouped as follows (6):

•  2nd order: interdisciplinarity, world modelling, situation rooms, information systems, etc.
•  3rd order: think-tank networks, networks of the wise, information networks, action networks, etc.

None of these can be said to be offering any possibility of breakthrough as the reality of the arms race would seem to confirm. At best they enable us to just scrape through the existing crises. At worst they create the illusion that they would be adequate to any (provided of course that the appropriate funds were forthcoming and everyone could be marshalled into desired patterns of behaviour).

Is it not time we explored beyond such self-perpetuating myths and illusions ?

Our act is falling apart and the diversity of views on how it can be got together is symptomatic of our condition. It is no longer a case of 'You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem' (Eldridge Cleaver), but rather 'If you do not understand how you are part of the problem, you cannot understand the nature of the solution required'.

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