Questions and Answers – some links as POSTSCRIPT for:
IGNORANCE or COMPASSION? http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv07n05page6.html
I have collected
over the years some questions and will try some answers so that the deeper and
pragmatic aspects become more obvious.
This collection
starts with some lines for final chapter for the article above but will be
expanded and improved as I see responses and questions a good way to get
started or get the broader purpose, meaning and orientation for the design
presented over the years.
ADD Q and A s from the old FAW times early 90ies..….. [ADD HERE]]
OBSERVATIONS:
The author has
presented over the years in many worlds to many different communities. The
response is very often “This is not out field”. As so aptly recalled as an
anecdote by Ivan Havel in the Wholeness Seminar[i].
So we have to own such a “field” or end in a postmodern Cyberculture. When
presenting about the Problems of Philosophy in 1998 I made a big step in my
focus on what is behind all this discussion on Space and Cognition. Namely the
Concepts and Percepts Kant so nicely has put into the context of “empty” and
“blind”:
“Concepts without precepts are empty; precepts without
concepts are blind.”
Immanuel Kant
|
|
Subtitle of Fig 1:
Although the perspectives of the world's people vary in space and time, every
human concern falls somewhere on the space time graph. The majority of the
world's people are concerned with matters that effect only family or friends
over a short period of time. Others look far ahead in time or over a large
area - a city or a nation. Only few people have a perspective that extends
far into the future. Source: Limits to Growth, Donella H. Meadows,
Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers & William W. Behrens III, Potomac
Associates, |
|
Interactive
relations among hierarchically ordered subsystems of an organism,
Inscribed Domains, P. Weiss. In: Beyond reductionism, Alpbach 1968, pls. see
more: IFSR - ISSS Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition
Research |
|
The Club of Rome
presented an interesting figure in 1972. It shows where the focus of Human
typically needs to be in daily Life, and where the focus of the Club of Rome
report was. No wonder they did not find the same wording and meanings. Paul
Weiss had a similar embodied imagination, he showed that we need to bridge
scales in general System Theory, and Hellmuth Plessner showed that we humans as
model-making “animals” can assume and share the other and ex-centric (not from
one perspective only) positionality[ii].
In my
presentations I often show at the end these figures. It might help to get that
I am not opting for the next schematic-turn, but show that commons can be seen
in different formats and that the old thinking of traditional cultures is
needed to share commons. I leave the next 2 figures not explored – but like to
make a recommendation. Check out this work of Marilyn Wilhelm: As she works on
a New Curriculum
– which I feel can provide the fundament for meanings between cultures. This
paper needs to base on such work to address modern times challenges.
As I see it: It
is not enough to complain and get dumbed down, wee have to make sure to be able
to share Global Commons or multiple Global Covenants across scales and share
their “overlap” and relations. See the author citing Elinor Ostrom
repeatedly[iii].
The dualistic trap has to be overcome by embodiment of the given and not given (Schwartzkopf)
and the visible and invisible (Merleau-Ponty) to really go beyond the ages of
ideological fighting over “terrains”, “turns” and “turfs”, even “paradigms” by
creating “meta-paradigms”. Maybe we can learn to create and share
expanded forms of concepts and presentations (see: SuperSigns and
Superstructures) to be more concrete and learn to see issues and
items in context and start structured deliberation and design processes? This
article is a report from the road …. See the 21stCenturyAgora collection of social
system design and Peace-making ways and means.