Dave Snowden posted on his LinkedIn Feed “tongue in cheek and with mischievous intent”
“North Atlantic Buddhism, gurus & cybernetics on the one hand with Daoism (& its interaction with Confucianism), distributed intelligence & complexity on the other.”
Weirdly my last post, 2 days ago, mentioned Dave in the context of Cybernetics vs all the other available Systems Complexity views out there, but I’d not remembered that when I took the rise to his mischievous intent challenge:
Ian GLENDINNING
“Not quite sure where you’re going with the ‘on the one hand / on the other’ … given your distaste for dichotomies :-)”Dave Snowden
“Two sets of associations Ian”Ian GLENDINNING
“Dave Snowden But with more overlap than divergence / distinction?”Dave Snowden
“Ian GLENDINNING Two roads diverged in a yellow wood”Maritina Dimopoulou
“Dave Snowden ah, I first came across this poem when I watched Dead Poets Society in my teenage years…”Ian GLENDINNING
“Dave Snowden Excellent.So I guess I need to acknowledge that allusion to the Good-Fences / Gates-in-the-Forest metaphor I often use.
Mischief appreciated 🙂
(Robert Frost being the common source – and G K Chesterton – I shall have to write a longer piece myself. Weirdly I wrote a piece only yesterday referring to Dave and Cybernetics … in other concurrent parallel threads … https://www.psybertron.org/archives/18971 )”
Essentially this an ongoing dialogue with Dave on here as well as on LinkedIn and his own blog, several in parallel on related topics live on LinkedIn right now – will not link to all – but in summary:
Rather than get into debates about which Systems theories (inc Cybernetics) Dave emphasises his own (Cynefin) approach as using Complexity (and other) Sciences …
Partly, most of us would say that Systems Thinking (of all kinds) is a response to complexity (including the complexities of humanity itself), even if this wasn’t explicit in the way various Systems theories and sciences were framed. Complexity – as a science – came later or independently Dave would say?
My response is four-fold:
-
- From the start Systems Thinking was always about the complexities of self-organising humanity, even if complexity per-se wasn’t the explicit topic and even if the early applications were more machine than human. (First & Second Cybernetics and Cybernetics as Feedback)
- Secondly whatever it is we’re talking about, it’s more than science. We’re trading poetic Robert Frost and GK Chesterton quotes above ferchrissakes!
“With complex systems modelling doesn’t work”
-
- Thirdly, the above are long-running dialogue, but the (mischievous) Buddhist (also non-science?) topics are new in this dialogue, even if long-standing here (and Dave referencing “Zen” back in 2003). Obviously a lot more to discuss here on Eastern thinking, but for now,
- Fourthly Dave first puts his forking Buddhist path in our way.
Although he says, he’s not positing a dichotomy he’s only pointing out “two sets of associations“. He’s making a distinction, the existence of two paths, two sides to a gate or fence, in time and/or space. “Two sides to every story”. The sets of associations he’s highlighting are:
-
- between “North Atlantic” Buddhism and Cybernetics [bad?], and
- between authentic Eastern Thinking and his Distributed Intelligence plus Complexity story [good?].
We can only wonder why?
I think we’re violently agreeing about #GoodFences and #Dichotomies.
The point of #GoodFences is that many distinctions of many kinds exist for all sorts of reasons, good and/or circumstantial. (Fences, gates or forking paths in forests.) But they are never dichotomous, between two entirely different things, never the twain shall meet, unless we actively choose to make them that way. They are things that are mostly the same, with shared histories, but with one or more selected distinguishing feature that is significant in some way(s). They have a purpose, but can move and evolve.
Essentially what I’m struggling with is that when Dave points out a distinction he says he doesn’t mean it dichotomously even though the difference is significant, but when others (Iain McGilchrist’s left<>right-brain say, or myself) point out distinctions, we are accused of (false) dichotomies. Differences are real, dichotomies more often false.
Need to see what Dave is saying in his Third Eastern dialogue before we can see if and why his Fourth divergent views is relevant, even if not dichotomous. As is hopefully obvious above I’m sceptical with putting Cybernetics back in some simplistic mechanistic box it was never intended to occupy. Better to find common ground than to divide?