Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Impossibility Pre-Requisite (Emergent Phenomenon)
Dear Susan,
Your point of view and discipline
(economics/business/academics)
probably is closer to the inter-face
of bubble & beyond than any of
the rest of us.
Do you remember M.C. Bateson's
Our Own Metaphor?
The think-tank group she described
with precision operated (it seems to me)
with two Game Rules (Biases):
1) to be continually aware and factor-in
the WAYS they were TALKING about
the subject (eco-logic at the end of the 60's)
and the impact of Ways-of-Talking.
2) to be maybe emerging-ly aware that
their rational outcomes, when applied,
generate a liability as well as asset--in
that conscious Purpose manufactures
its own attention deficit, say: the more
I focus on Getting R Done, the more
I necessarily neglect the rest of the
system-whole, no matter how lucid my
enlightenment and golden my intentions.
This kind of limiting/expanding
double-awareness (of the media and
of the Outcome of outcomes) is
uncanny and probably can't be
instutionalized without the restriction
that institutionalizingnecessarily brings.
In other words, it's probably impossible.
to build up this kind ofshared thinking
(edification) of combined
1) shared media-savvy &;
2) implementation-"liability"
--or maybe you can characterize it better
for me: how-it-is my best laid plans--oops,
oh, damnit-- will always also pave the roads
to hello! (emergency phenomenon I never
counted on) if only I might could split my vision
(say) to Factor Inn theun-factor-in-able where
angels fearto tread..
Impossible!
Yet: I think acknowledging the impossibility
of this kind of awareness ispre-requisite for
its possible emergence, know what I mean?
Seeming paradox and contra diction not with
standing.
xxxooo, Sam
Your point of view and discipline
(economics/business/academics)
probably is closer to the inter-face
of bubble & beyond than any of
the rest of us.
Do you remember M.C. Bateson's
Our Own Metaphor?
The think-tank group she described
with precision operated (it seems to me)
with two Game Rules (Biases):
1) to be continually aware and factor-in
the WAYS they were TALKING about
the subject (eco-logic at the end of the 60's)
and the impact of Ways-of-Talking.
2) to be maybe emerging-ly aware that
their rational outcomes, when applied,
generate a liability as well as asset--in
that conscious Purpose manufactures
its own attention deficit, say: the more
I focus on Getting R Done, the more
I necessarily neglect the rest of the
system-whole, no matter how lucid my
enlightenment and golden my intentions.
This kind of limiting/expanding
double-awareness (of the media and
of the Outcome of outcomes) is
uncanny and probably can't be
instutionalized without the restriction
that institutionalizingnecessarily brings.
In other words, it's probably impossible.
to build up this kind ofshared thinking
(edification) of combined
1) shared media-savvy &;
2) implementation-"liability"
--or maybe you can characterize it better
for me: how-it-is my best laid plans--oops,
oh, damnit-- will always also pave the roads
to hello! (emergency phenomenon I never
counted on) if only I might could split my vision
(say) to Factor Inn theun-factor-in-able where
angels fearto tread..
Impossible!
Yet: I think acknowledging the impossibility
of this kind of awareness ispre-requisite for
its possible emergence, know what I mean?
Seeming paradox and contra diction not with
standing.
xxxooo, Sam
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


No comments:
Post a Comment