Re: Creating The Future

["Bala Pillai (Sydney)" <bala@apic.net>]

Dear Howard & Friends,

----- Original Message -----
>From: Mason, Howard G.

>As picturesque as concentric ripples may be as a metaphor for levels of
cause-effect, we are still using linear >thinking for what may be non-linear
reality.

I agree that concentric ripples are not good enough a metaphor, for the
omnidimensional time-space-mindscape cause-effect chain that we contend
with.

What is a better naturally occuring metaphor?

Why a naturally occuring metaphor? Because we are living in times where we
*even* have to convince folks that water is better than Coca-Cola. Where
rhetoric rules.

We are living in times where communication to television-plastered audiences
is a high priority. Where countering the rhetoric-drowned audiences with
self-evident reasoning is the priority.

And what is more self-evident, less distortable than natural occurences?

>I would be interested in discussing how non-linear, complexity models--such
as networks and living systems--might >better serve us as models and
metaphors. For instance, does the social capital model of connecting more
and more >diverse members offer promise in our work?

Yes, I would love to see this to. But I must emphasis the need to have a
metaphorical synonym to "living systems". The closest, and I'm not satisfied
with it, is "ecosystem" or "ecovariety".

The big mindset block an emerging number of us in Asia are trying to unravel
is the acute dualism and its massive flow-on effects, that was caused by the
influx of pseudo-Semitic (not the Gnostics or Sufis for example) traditions
into root Asian yin-yang mindsets.

What do I mean? Some examples.

Light is more complementary to darkness than it is opposite to darkness.
What use is Edison's invention, the lightbulb, if not for darkness?

A plug is more complementary to a socket than it is the opposite.

A female is more complementary to a male than she is the opposite.

Mountains are more complementary to valleys than they are the opposite.

A frog is *not* ugly. Did anyone ask the frog before the "frog turns into
princess" propaganda?

"Good" and "Bad", "God" and "Devil" are surface labels that distort
perception of the complementariness, the
clicking-together-like-a-jig-saw-puzzle-of-unlike-pieces ecovariety
components in Nature.

"Good" and "Bad" are two sides of the same coin.

>And why not say that nature has some very small number of very basic, but
not so obvious, first principles that can >account for almost
everything--but not with the precision that some of us have grown accustomed
to in linear, >scientific models.

That's a good start. But you would be absolutely surprised how
microscopically minute levels of detail and precision Nature goes into. And
how our dualistic perception blinds us from seeing much of them.

It is just that we do not accord common sense (as continuosly affirmed by
being with Nature) and the synthesis to counter the tunnel-vision of
university education, the priority it deserves.

We do not give enough attention to Mark Twain's "do not let schooling get in
the way of your education" maxim.

cheers../bala
bala@apic.net
The Asia Pacific Internet Company,  Sydney
http://www.apic.net
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/erumbugal
http://www.tamil.net/newtamil


>My apologies if the list finds this inappropriate.
>Best wishes. Howard

 -----Original Message-----
From: Bala Pillai (Sydney) [mailto:bala@apic.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:27 PM
To: abcd@listserv.it.northwestern.edu; Chester Bowling
Subject: Creating The Future (Was: Re: From McKnight.....)


Dear Chester,

> Chester J. Bowling, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
> Community Leadership and Management
> Ohio State University Extension
> 700 Ackerman Rd. Suite 235
> Columbus, Ohio  43202-1578
> Tel.  614-292-6348
> Fax   614-292-7341
>
> Creating the future rather than waiting for it


I like this quote. Reminds me of my Kahlil Gibran favourite. How about us
forming a virtual group of us who are congruently onto advancing toward what
will be?

Below's what I mean. It is an essay that needs some reflection -- best to
print and read it.
Ecosystems Thinking For The Minds Ecosystem
By Bala Pillai
June 9 2002, Sydney

    "Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what
will be."
                     -Kahlil Gibran, "A Handful of Sand on the Shore"


Each of us can see only up to a certain big picture cause-effect level. To
see cause-effect beyond that big picture level, one has to think and reflect
deeply or be attentive and be able to ask questions of one who does.  As
well, one has to interact with unlike minds, for the very existence of
greater pictures to be sparked.

Ecosystems thinking has us to look at some of the biggest pictures possible.
The small picture-big picture continuum is best imagined by its
representation, concentric spheres.

Concentric spheres in turn are best recalled by their two-dimensional
equivalents, concentric circles -- yes, those reverberating circles you see
when you throw a stone into a pond. You may see 20 concentric circles.

Average man only sees with his eyes and he tends to believe
that his eyes cannot belie him. He is wrong. What you see is *not* the
truth, though it may be. For example, if you understood a tree by what you
see, you will understand wrongly, because you cannot see the photosynthesis
process. Neither can you see the crown roots. The most important parts of
the tree, are hidden to the naked eye.

If you trust your eyes fully, you are seeing the smallest concentric sphere.
It will not occur to you that much of what happens in this concentric
sphere, is caused by a sphere one size larger. And much of what happens in
the one size larger sphere was caused by a sphere yet another size larger.
This goes on and on.

Why is ecosystems thinking crucial today?

Let us take the Internet. It is really an emerging ecosystem of human minds
that combines those on the Net and those off (with wired human bridges).

It is working best where minds share a similar ethos -- where minds have
common references to build trust and relationships off.

When the ecosystem is more complete, it will thrive lots more than it is
thriving today. Some questions you may ask are:-

(a) Why is the ecosystem of minds on the Internet not working perfectly?

(b) What components are missing?

(c) What processes are missing?

(d) What components or processes are already there, but are not understood
well or not accorded the priority they deserve?

The answers to these are best found in paralleling Nature's ecosystem to
that of what the ecosystem of minds should have viz (a) to (d) when it is
much
closer to the completeness of Nature's ecosystem, than it is now.

For example, let us for argument sake, say that there are (i) 300 components
and (ii) 200 processes in Nature's ecosystem. We know that one of the
topmost processes in Nature is photosynthesis. Yet another topmost one is
symbiosis.

Question: What are the equivalents of photosynthesis and symbiosis in the
minds ecosystem? What are the hurdles to them forming? What returns are
there if these hurdles are removed? What ingredients are needed to remove
these hurdles and to forge these processes?

Why is photosynthesis important? It is at the bottom of the food chain. It
is the process by which trees and plants obtain resources to start the whole
food chain.

Now ask, what is the equivalent of photosynthesis in the ecosystem of minds
on the Internet? What is the most significant source of resources for
significant new Internet ventures? In the West, it is passionbits including
Open Source and venture capital. How about your ethos' space?

What are the parallels to the other 300 components and 198 processes in
Nature's ecosystem, in your minds ecosystem?

Would trust between participants be one?  Would more intensive networking
between minds be another? Would networking between complementary folks, as
in Nature, make it more worthwhile? How can complementariness be revealed
easier? Would a database of profiles that is shared by participants be a
way?

Would a rating on each of the 6Rs be one?

[6Rs = resourcefulness, responsibility, responsiveness, reliability,
rapport-building, risk-taking]

How do we rate the 6Rs? Can we experiment with some of the models currently
used in psychological testing, while we find better ways?

Is interaction a precusor to trust building? How do we increase interaction?
What are the key ingredients of interaction, that make it a precursor to
trust building? Would the sense of "presence" when we see each other
face-to-face, be one? How do we recreate this in the minds ecosystem? Can we
go some way through the sense of presence in Instant Messaging and Webcams?

Of these which is of a higher priority than another? Why?

The solving of all these needs are income opportunities for minds in your
ethos space.

The unearthing of other whitespace, unfilled space in your minds ecosystem,
will show up all the other opportunities.

And that comes from ecosystems thinking. That is why ecosystems thinking is
important.


(This message is released for use, redistribution, or modification under
the OpenContent License <http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml>.  In plain
English, the license relieves the author of any liability or implication of
warranty, grants others permission to use the Content in whole or in part,
and ensures that the original author will be properly credited when the
Content is used. It also grants others permission to modify and
redistribute the Content if they clearly mark what changes have been made,
when they were made, and who made them. Finally, the license ensures that
if someone else bases a work on OpenContent, the resultant work will be
made available as OpenContent as well.  Please send comments,
suggestions or edits to the author, Bala Pillai at bala@apic.net Thanks)


cheers../bala
bala@apic.net
Founder, The Asia Pacific Internet Company <http://www.apic.net>
http://www.apic.net/news.phtml
Networking Minds in Halls Without Walls Since 1995
Sydney, Australia

* APPLe: To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apple-request@apnic.net *