Commentaries
March 19 1998
"...the I Ching was originally intended as a guide to governance. All the clues for self-organization are there. ...
For many of the New Agers, etc it is a question of personal transformation before social transformation. For others it is the reverse. The question for me is how the two perspectives are to be married.
It is interesting that somehow the body knows how to control: a blood system, a nervous system, a hormonal system, etc etc. It all interrelates well -- except when we are "dis-eased". But who of us could apply that level of insight to the organization of a community -- let alone "global self-organization"? So we must "know" in some way, but without "knowing" in another. We have all the clues, since we do it every instant of the day, yet we are really challenged in using such "systemic" insights in the organization of society or even in our response to the natural environment.
(I believe in) the need to provide a different context for the discussion/dialogue. I am not beating the tub for the I Ching, merely pointing out that it is one sophisticated attempt to respond to this challenge. It is certainly better than "boids" [computer automata] as they are currently presented. (That is an in) interesting fantasy -- a dialogue between Santa Fe complexifiers and I Ching people!"
March 20 1998 On Gaia-PC discussion list
>Since you wrote this (in the 1970s), have you written or thought about the "positive vision of social >change"? Would you state it publicly?
Interesting challenge. My learning since then has, amongst other things, focused on the
trap of "postive" vs "negative". This duality has become a new framing
of "good" vs "bad". Since one person's "good" in a complex
society tends to be another person's "bad", I do not find this helpful in global
settings (however well it works in
local settings when the "bad" can be ejected). What do the "positive"
people do with the "negative" people? What does the environment have to tell us
about sinks at the "bottom" of cycles?
Not so long ago, and in S E Asia today, "clearing the land" was a "positive" action. Draining swamps and killing off wild animals have also been framed in this way. The learning is that "positive" is not necessarily "good" and wolves and swamps are not necessarily "bad". Environmentalists have contributed most to this learning.
What might we be labelling "positive" today that will come to be seen as equally dubious -- or are so seen by those with opposing strategies they perceive as "positive"? What are we labelling "negative" that will be seen to be valuable?
The issue for me is how we manage "positive" and "negative" appropriately. I am much struck by the possibility that getting society to work appropriately may be like getting an electrical device to work. If I were to strip all the "negative" wiring out of my house, so that I only had the "positive" wire to carry the current -- the device would not work. No light, no motor.
To be frank I think that the increasing focus on being "positive" is like a
peculiarly dangerous disease. This disease was the direct cause of the Challenger space
shuttle disaster (no negative upward reporting -- only positive upbeat reporting has
become the career enhancing move). Ironically this disease is preceived as a remedy for
society's ills -- simply be positive.
But I do recognize that if one were to advertise a word-processing macro to "positivize" documents (removing all negatives) -- one could make a lot of money! And we are not too far from that -- a lot of self-censorship is practiced to positivize documents. How would it be in a society in which nobody was permitted to say "no"?
But joking aside, I think the challenge is to move beyond such dualities -- as much in the environment suggests. Anybody who thinks that the fish and the fishing eagle are in a "win-win" relationship should have a chat to the fish! It is how we win, when we do, and how we lose, when we do, that needs to be set in a more complex context. I am amused that the Olympic Games is the most powerful device that society has developed for creating (and ignoring) large numbers of losers while focusing on a very small number of winners!
If the above arguments seem to be a cop out, I have argued my case -- and the opportunities -- in two series of documents.
One relates to transformative approaches: http://www.uia.org/transfor/01over.htm .
The other to strategy : http://www.uia.org/strategy/stratcon.htm .
The dilemma however is complex arguments do not meet the need -- however much the complexity theory gurus believe. Voters want simple options now -- and they are likely to get them from the most irresponsible. "Negative" is a convenient stick with which to beat one's opponents -- and "positive" is great for glorifying that of which one approves.
For me the way beyond this dilemma is through metaphor. My favourite is crop rotation -- important to sustainability and understandable to farmers around the world. In these terms, it is a mistake to pursue (grow) any policy too long on the same terrain (field), it breeds ("bad"?) things that need correction. A distinct policy is then required. Maybe 4 or 5 such distinct policies will be required to complete a policy (crop rotation) cycle! In principle this has something to do with democracry and democratic parties -- but try getting one party to admit that it should cease its "positive" policies for another which labels them as "negative!
As I have argued elsewhere, dialogue amongst environmentalists is most significant for its inability to learn from the environment they admire (see: Through metaphor to a sustainable ecology of development policies http://www.uia.org/uiadocs/polforum.htm )
Maybe poets -- potentially at least -- understand best how to navigate the relationship between positive and negative. See: Poetry-making and Policy-making: arranging a marriage between Beauty and the Beast http://www.uia.org/uiadocs/poetpol0.htm !
March 23 1998
Replying to the remark,
>"A consensus, which I fully support, seems to have emerged among us that Gaia itself, along with the (currently >cancerous and maladaptive) subsystem of Gaia we variously call "humanity," "society," "glomart," or "the world" >are all self-organizing, complex adaptive systems.
"My struggle is with this "consensus" business. What does it mean? We can have a somewhat meaningful interchange using the above words as tokens, but that does not mean that we can act operationally out of some sense that we are all agreed. In fact, it is how we disagree about such tokens that is the seed of the future. If I do not understand how I am a "global self-organizing system" and how I do it, then how can I claim to understand how equiavlent understanding in the outside world."
March 23 1998 Gaia-PC discussions on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)
"There are sensitive issues behind the obvious merits of NGO "coordination", "integration" and "cooperation". These challenges have been around a long time and will continue to emerge.
One approach to them is to gather to clarify obvious possibilities (shared facilities,
meetings, offices, programmes, values, etc) and this may be your prime intent. My
experience on this front is summarized in some articles listed at
http://www.uia.org/uiadocs/aadocnd1.htm
Some are very recent, in relation to the electronic environment. some are undated but were produced in the late 1970s and summarize the practical challenges.
My own thinking is that what hinders progress on these obvious fronts are a range of
issues which no one has endeavoured to document. These are not the common issues of money
etc. Rather they are the issues around ego, territory, cultural and ideological style,
personalities and working preferences which do not get told in a spirit of
learning (what is the untold story of Rio 92, and other such events, from an NGO
perspective? what organiza- tional detritous was navigated by Chip Lindner? who still
remembers? does it matter?). The multinationals have had to confront them in their
cultural manifestation. But more important for NGOs is the psychodynamic issues.
The tragedy for me is that if you bring together the really dedicated effective people on social issues, they have strong views about each other and why working together is a virtually insurmountable challenge. Forget about the issues and the organizational challenges, these are what are really holding NGOs back!
You probably do not want to spend time on these. How to do so whilst remaining "positive"? How to deal with:
- the need of some people for special
recognition (probably deserved),
- the often legitimate need to protect
territory and resources,
- real differences in working methods,
- needs to dominate and not be dominated,
- weariness with particular patterns of
behaviour,
- preferences for particular
"models", group dynamics and favourite processes
- beliefs in some brand of "common
ground" that may deny the sensitivity of others (at least in their eyes),
- preferences for declarations, demonstrations,
or other particular forms of activity
- etc?
These issues may well be neglected in pursuit of some concrete, positive results. If
this is the consensus, then I would say "go for it". I am more concerned with
the other learnings that are so readily neglected with the consequence that a lot of
painful history simply gets repeated -- whilst a lot of good efforts undermine each other.
And maybe that is fine too -- it may be the best means of learning. But in my case, I have
a need to move on. A lot of my current writing is my effort to do so (see from http://www.uia.org/uiadocs/aadocdia.htm
)
So I am not sure where this leaves my answer to your request and need. Perhaps a reaction to the above might focus any furether dialogue between us.
I am sure we would be happy to cooperate formally in the light of what cooperation ought to have been, but if some of these other issues do not get dealt with sometime then it is merely what the French call "un exercice de style". Hope this is helpful.