Looking back over the centuries at how knowledge has been framed, in hopes we can figure out how to frame it better, or at least more holistically, going forward. To me, complexity seems to enter in to the 'sweet spot'; between science & philosophy. Thoughts?
5 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 21 previous comments
- First, let me addto this conversation. He's great at trolling through streams to connect bits.
Then let me connect another relevant piece (see link in comments): http://lnkd.in/db-Qhb (esp. re: culture)
Lastly, let me add a few more thoughts. Science looks for the 'proof' -- the repeatability, the reliability. These are things on the right side of the design thinking model (algorithm and binary code). Having them is incomplete. Why? Because reality, all reality (even the reality we try to make up), is also governed by the mystery and the heuristic. The mystery includes those things that operate at the quantum level, the string level. Assuming that we can know about and control that level is foolishness. But we do know that by embracing it, we can influence it. If we attempt to suggest it doesn't exist or that it's 'beyond' us, is in essence ignoring it.
The culture topic falls far more on the left side of the model. It requires that we really get cozy with the left side of the model (but will find things to fit on the right side along the way). As the piece above suggests Zappos focuses there first, and they suggest that Tribal Leadership does a good job of capturing some of what's going on -- I think there's more.
For the purpose of 'grounding' for the left side there are all sorts of references that are applicable (including the I Ching). Others that come to mind include in particular: "What the Bleep!? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FKO3JO/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=iknovate-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=B000FKO3JO -- this one not only for the content but the format of the delivery mechanism: 9 hours of materials that can randomly be served up in different ways each time you watch it -- it provides a mindset for quantum thinking -- and "The Biology of Belief" by Bruce Lipton http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1401923127/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=iknovate-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=1401923127 And I've just added this Bruce Lipton video series to my list for watching "The Biology of Perception" Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 1 of 7Nov 15, 2011
- Because of comments he's made on related Yammer conversations, I'm addingto this conversation, as well.Nov 15, 2011
- As you watch the Bruce Liption video segments, see if you can draw an analogy between the parts/pieces and a culture. Particularly in video segment 3 (although there are interesting clues all along), Bruce suggests that there is a critical point of focus -- the membrane of the cell as it converts external signals into internal signals. Consider what that might mean for a culture and what the differences will be between a healthy culture and an unhealthy culture.
And here's where we tie your interests back in (the crossover point): "Although ANT shares
this distrust for such vague all encompassing sociological terms it aims at
describing also the very nature of societies. But to do so it does not limit
itself to human individual actors but extend the word actor
non-human, non individual entities. Whereas social network adds information
on the relations of humans in a social and natural world which is left
untouched by the analysis, ANT aims at accounting for the very essence of
societies and natures. It does not wish to add social networks to social
theory but to rebuild social theory out of networks. It is as much an
ontology or a metaphysics, as a sociology (Mol and Law, 1994)." Source: http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9801/msg00019.html
In effect, sociology -- the most commonly leveraged source of study/reference for cultures -- is entirely insufficient to understand same.Nov 15, 2011
- Wanted to share a question posted elsewhere from
"I've been looking at how knowledge has been framed over the centuries, in hopes we can figure out how to frame it better, or at least more holistically. To me, complexity seems to enter in to the 'sweet spot'; between two ways of describing things, at the core: a cause & effect approach, vs. more intuitive patterns. Thoughts?"
Given that I see complexity as the perfect paradox, as well as the design thinking model that I use, "Intuitive" certainly fits on the left and "Cause & Effect" on the right of the grand paradox.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vx2ykbywK9s/TsMmq9IQ6LI/AAAAAAAAAFw/oph62rZfZfg/w575-h435-k/DT%2BModel.jpgNov 15, 2011
- Here's something interesting from Bruce Lipton 5 of 7 Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 5 of 7
My thought is that this is Reeee-ally relevant to just how much weight we place on emergent behaviors (that is, I'm suspecting that things aren't as emergent as we think they are -- they only appear that way because we can't see the cause and effect).
Let me set a bit of a background. Lipton is showing how genes don't control anything -- they're simply patterns/instructions for creating proteins. Proteins are the inanimate machine parts for causing cell behaviors. If a new protein is needed the DNA must be referenced (like a software code library). Genes contribute to the production of proteins. One particular slide says: "When a gene product is needed, a signal from its environment, not an emergent property of the gene itself, activates expression of that gene."
Lipton goes on to say, "The genes are selected in response to the environment that you're in." Unless you would consider the environment part of an algorithm, this sounds a bit like a heuristic operating environment. Save you'd like to suggest that it's a heuristic-algorithmic operating environment -- which is reasonable since from my perspective, all things at an optimal design are operating as a mystery-heuristic-algorithmic-binarycode environment -- all at once, simultaneously. The biggest distinction across different situations is the distribution of 'weights' across the model (some decidedly more weighted toward one section/side of the model).
To determine why certain behaviors ensue, we have to look for the signals in the environment which elicit perceptions and then behaviors. But the signals themselves are also moderated by perceptions, so behaviors are driven by perceptions -- whether or not they're accurate. Our perceptions are shaped by our beliefs and once we get to beliefs, we've now moved all the way to the 'mystery' side of the model.
Do you see the potential, even at all levels? Design operates in response to constraints/circumstances (the environment). We 'design' our lives on a daily basis by responding to constraints/circumstances across the full model: we engage our beliefs and based on our previous experiences we may either move forward based on intuition (which of itself is an act of pattern matching), try something new to see the results, evaluate the variables and apply a corresponding algorithm (when these conditions are present, I do...), or operate totally predictably (in response to...I always...).
But then of course this is a highly simplified version of the reality. In reality, there is some portion of us that engages one element, another portion that engages another, etc. etc. In the end, we engage them all, simultaneously.Nov 16, 2011
- "I'm suspecting that things aren't as emergent as we think they are -- they only appear that way because we can't see the cause and effect" -brilliant insight. I've kept telling everyone for a while now - "perception is eighty percent of success".Mar 12, 2012