source:

The Social Self of Whitehead’s Organic Philosophy

II-1 | 2010
IndividualsSymposia. “Individuals”

The Social Self of Whitehead’s Organic Philosophy

Olav Bryant Smithhttps://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.935Text | Bibliography | Notes | References | About the author

FULL TEXT

PDFSend by e-mail

1Alfred North Whitehead’s philosophy has commonly become known as process philosophy. Whitehead himself regarded his philosophy as the philosophy of organism. His organic philosophy is understood through various types of process that occur in the becoming of actual organic entities in relationship with one another. Whitehead’s conception of the self is one that provides an alternative foundation for psychology, helps to make sense of personal identity over time amidst a series of changing experiences, and offers a ground for understanding an ethic based on shared bonds between self and world. The mind-body problem is solved in the philosophy of organism, and a ground for understanding the lived body is provided.

2This paper begins with Whitehead’s deconstruction of the modern analysis of the self, and then discusses in turn Whitehead’s “reformed” ontology and theory of perception, the becoming of a single occasion of experience, the development of societies of occasions of experience, the creation of self-identity over time as a society displaying a selective pattern or “unity of style.” The paper concludes with a discussion of this social self, in the context of evolution, displaying an enjoyment and expression of lasting value through a series of fleeting activities of individual occasions of experience.

⁂

3Whitehead’s philosophy of organism would not have been created were it not for an analysis of the relations between the self and world. In what Whitehead termed his reformed subjectivist doctrine, he begins as Descartes did with the analysis of an act of experience, and then searches for an adequate model of the self and its experience.

4Whitehead believed that modern philosophy’s difficulties stem from a worldview that he referred to as Subjectivist Sensationism. Previous models of the self had been thrown off by the stress laid upon one, or other, of three misconceptions:

The substance-quality doctrine of actuality.
The sensationalist doctrine of perception.
The Kantian doctrine of the objective world as a construct from subjective experience. (Whitehead 1978: 156)

5Due to overconfidence in the power of ordinary language to reveal the inner workings of nature, the Greeks’ ontology of qualities inhering in underlying substances were a direct result of analyzing subject-predicate propositions where the subjects were place-holders for ascribed predicates. Subjects endured in narratives through numerous predicative changes, and thus, substances endured while experiencing only qualitative changes over time. So, on the modern theory, the self’s perception of the environing world, (the self being such an enduring substance), was sensationalist, with only such predicative descriptions being perceivable through the senses. The German idealist movement then began with Kant’s model of the self beginning from such a subjective sensationalist starting point, and expressing an objective world resulting from that experience.

The combined influence of these allied errors has been to reduce philosophy to a negligi- ble influence in the formation of contemporary modes of thought. Hume himself introduces the ominous appeal to ‘practice’ – not in criticism of his premises, but in supplement to his conclusions. Bradley, who repudiates Hume, finds the objective world in which we live, and move, and have our being ‘inconsistent if taken as real.’ Neither side conciliates philosophical conceptions of a real world with the world of daily experience. (Whitehead 1978: 156)

6Whitehead was searching for a model of the self and its experience of the world that was adequate to our experience. Hume’s phenomenal theory, as Hume himself attests, had to be set aside when he got up from his desk in order to get on practically with life. Idealists, and other postmodern approaches that accept Kant’s model of the synthesis of the self’s experience from the subjective to an objective construction, find the external world to be somewhat illusory. Whitehead did not believe we can live on the basis of either model. He believed that our theory should support our practices, or be set aside as inadequate.

full article in source:

The Social Self of Whitehead’s Organic Philosophy

source

Complexity, metaphor, and radical change

Complexity, Metaphor, and Radical Change

Published

05 September 2019

Filed under

PhilosophyComplexityRadical change

• Complexity, Metaphor, and Radical Change
• The Double Challenge of Complexity
• Models and Metaphors
• Paradigms and Power
• Making Shift Happen
• Sense-making and Survival
• Literature
• Acknowledgements

Science and society deal with complexity – but, judging from the current state of our social and natural world, they don’t seem to be very good at it. Why? And how can we change their behaviour in ways that keep the worst – collapse, catastrophe, and extinction – from happening?

The Double Challenge of Complexity

The social and ecological systems that surround us are complex. Beyond the common sense understanding of the term, this means they have the following properties:

1. They consist of large networks of individual components.
2. These components interact without central control, but following comparatively simple rules.
3. From these interactions, complex collective behaviour emerges that can change non-linearly through reinforcing feedback loops.

Such behaviour is hard to explain and often impossible to predict. Nonetheless, dealing with complex systems has always been a vital task for humans and other animals trying to survive in their social and ecological environment. Before the arrival of language, natural selection and the biological adaptation it enabled took care of this challenge: It created what might be called implicit, evolutionary knowledge¹ about coping with complexity, embodied at species level – adapted automatic behaviour, inherited instincts, and innate mechanisms for individual learning.

Language² changed all of that. It allowed intersubjectivity and the cultural – as opposed to biological – transmission of information, enabling collective learning and the accumulation of explicit knowledge. This led to an explosion of social complexity and to a constant acceleration of cultural, technological, and economic development. As an effect, biological, social, and technological adaptation have become decoupled, because they operate on different timescales – technology changes faster than social norms, and both change faster than biological design.³ Thus humans created an environment to which they are in many ways biologically and socially maladapted.

This situation poses a double challenge: On the one hand, our capacity to understand the complexity we created is severely limited – we cannot fully and explicitly describe, explain and predict the behaviour of complex systems, and our instincts and intuitions as well as our norms and values produce inappropriate and counterproductive reactions to the systems we have created or changed. On the other hand, the rapidly accumulating negative effects of these changes and our reactions, from social fragmentation and political polarisation to runaway climate change and ecological breakdown, require a more radical change in behaviour to avoid societal collapse and civilisational catastrophe than the slow and evolutionary change of social norms and biological design is able to produce.

full aticle in source:

Complexity, metaphor, and radical change

source:

Frontiers | Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances | Human Neuroscience

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY ARTICLE

Front. Hum. Neurosci., 12 August 2014 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00599

Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances

Jelle Bruineberg^1,2,3 and Erik Rietveld^1,2,4*

• ¹Amsterdam Brain and Cognition, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
• ²Department of Philosophy, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
• ³Department of Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
• ⁴Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

In this paper, we set out to develop a theoretical and conceptual framework for the new field of Radical Embodied Cognitive Neuroscience. This framework should be able to integrate insights from several relevant disciplines: theory on embodied cognition, ecological psychology, phenomenology, dynamical systems theory, and neurodynamics. We suggest that the main task of Radical Embodied Cognitive Neuroscience is to investigate the phenomenon of skilled intentionality from the perspective of the self-organization of the brain-body-environment system, while doing justice to the phenomenology of skilled action. In previous work, we have characterized skilled intentionality as the organism’s tendency toward an optimal grip on multiple relevant affordances simultaneously. Affordances are possibilities for action provided by the environment. In the first part of this paper, we introduce the notion of skilled intentionality and the phenomenon of responsiveness to a field of relevant affordances. Second, we use Friston’s work on neurodynamics, but embed a very minimal version of his Free Energy Principle in the ecological niche of the animal. Thus amended, this principle is helpful for understanding the embeddedness of neurodynamics within the dynamics of the system “brain-body-landscape of affordances.” Next, we show how we can use this adjusted principle to understand the neurodynamics of selective openness to the environment: interacting action-readiness patterns at multiple timescales contribute to the organism’s selective openness to relevant affordances. In the final part of the paper, we emphasize the important role of metastable dynamics in both the brain and the brain-body-environment system for adequate affordance-responsiveness. We exemplify our integrative approach by presenting research on the impact of Deep Brain Stimulation on affordance responsiveness of OCD patients.

continues with full paper in source:

Frontiers | Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances | Human Neuroscience

source:

Systems and Constraints – Discourse

Systems and Constraints

Martin Gurri talks with Alicia Juarrero about her theories of stability and change in the context of government institutionsMartin Gurri August 18, 2020Image credit: The Course of Empire: Destruction, Thomas Cole, American (1801–1848)/Wikimedia Commons

• This interview is a companion to an article about Alicia Juarrero’s ideas that is also published on Discourse.

Alicia Juarrero is the founder and president of Vector Analytica, Inc., a software development firm in Washington, DC. Her books include Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System (1999) and the forthcoming Complexity and Constraint: How Context Changes Everything; many of her papers can be found at her website, www.aliciajuarrero.org. Juarrero has taught philosophy at Prince George’s Community College in Maryland and has been a visiting scholar at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, and Durham University in the United Kingdom. She received her BA, MA, and PhD from the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.

continues in source:

Systems and Constraints – Discourse

source:

https://www.bauer.uh.edu/parks/fis/inqre2a1.htm

While there have been a variety of applications of Churchman’s work to organizational development and organizational effectiveness, the InQ is the only instrument that actually measures our relative preference for each of these major inquiring systems. It also provides an interpretation of the behavioral implications of the resulting profile. And, while it has been applied to broaden and deepen individual competencies in problem solving and decision making, in team building, improving communication, conflict resolution, in matching persons to projects, and in integrating new hires; it has yet to be developed specifically to expedite the process of change needed for mastering the five disciplines of the learning organization, for the purpose of knowledge creation and sharing.

Before embarking upon this, a summary of each of the inquiring systems and their accompanying strategies will be provided, so that the reader will have the necessary background when reading the explanations of how these inquiring modes can apply to the learning organization, or so that they can refer back to them if necessary. Briefly, they are:

• The Synthesist (Hegel) sees likenesses in things that appear unalike, seeks conflict and synthesis, is interested in change, gets at underlying assumptions, sees the essence of problems, is speculative – asks what if and why not, and regards data to be meaningless without interpretation.
• The Idealist (Kant) welcomes a broad range of views, seeks ideal solutions, is interested in values, is receptive, and places equal value on data and theory.
• The Pragmatist (Singer) proceeds on the basis of an eclectic view, uses a tactical, incremental approach; and, being innovative and adaptive, is best in complex situations.
• The Analyst (Leibniz) seeks the “one best way,” operates with models and formulas, is interested in “scientific solutions,” is prescriptive, and prefers data over theory and method.
• The Realist (Locke) relies on “facts” and expert opinion, seeks solutions that meet current needs, is serious about getting concrete results, acts with efficiency and incisive correction, prefers data over theory. (Adapted from “The Art of Thinking” Harrison and Bramson, 1982).

The Synthesist and Idealist inquiry modes are substantive, value oriented ways of thinking and knowing, while the Analyst and Realist are functional and fact oriented. While about half of all people prefer to think in one main way, 35% prefer two or more styles in combination. Most people in North America prefer the Idealist style (+37%), followed by the Analyst (35%), the Realist (24%), the Pragmatist (18%), and the Synthesist (11%). Thirteen percent have a level profile where four or five of the styles are preferred fairly equally (Harrison and Bramson, 1982).

continues in source:

https://www.bauer.uh.edu/parks/fis/inqre2a1.htm#s3

Review
Reviewed Work(s): The Systems Approach by C. West Churchman
Review by: David W. Miller
Source: Management Science, Vol. 16, No. 4, Application Series (Dec., 1969), pp. B288-B291
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2628806

https://www.jstor.org.sci-hub.se/stable/2628806?seq=1

Systems Approaches to Managing Change brings together five systems approaches
to managing complex issues, each having a proven track record of over 25 years.
The five approaches are:
1. System Dynamics (SD) developed originally in the late 1950s by Jay Forrester
2. Viable Systems Model (VSM) developed originally in the late 1960s by
Stafford Beer
3. Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA: with cognitive mapping)
developed originally in the 1970s by Colin Eden
4. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) developed originally in the 1970s by Peter
Checkland
5. Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) developed originally in the late 1970s by
Werner Ulrich
The accounts of the approaches that follow draw heavily on the extensive experience
of the contributing authors. They are more than experienced practitioners, they bring
the added quality of academic rigour to the reflection on practice that characterises
their work. Drawing on the extensive experience of these contributing authors, some
of whom are primary originators, this volume is an accessible exposition of the
fundamentals of five compatible but different approaches and in addition is an opportunity to update guidance on the use of each approach.

Click to access Introducing-systems-approaches_ch1.pdf

Systems ApproachWorkbook
Systems Thinking and Complexity in Substance Use Systems
NOVEMBER 2012
Who should read this brief?
• Leaders and decision makers in the substance abuse and mental health services
field, such as regional directors and program managers
• Anyone interested in learning more about working in a complex system
Why are systems thinking and complexity important to a Systems Approach?
• This brief is part of the Systems Approach Workbook, which is intended to
assist those using the Systems Approach report as a guiding framework for
improving the accessibility, quality and range of services and supports for
substance use in Canada.
• The workbook supports a change management approach to system
development, which should be informed by the level of complexity of the
system in which change is taking place.
• Services and supports for substance use in Canada are located within broader,
interconnected health and social systems.
• This brief will help you assess the level of complexity in your system, and
better understand its impact on change, project implementation and leadership.

Click to access nts-systems-approach-system-thinking-complexity-2012-en.pdf

source

How to Apply System Thinking to Your Business – business.com

How You Can Apply System Thinking to Your Business

Chris PorteousCo-founder and CEO at Framestrbusiness.com MemberJan 11, 2021

What is system thinking, and how can it be applied to a wide range of businesses and industries without impacting their efficacy?

System thinking seems like a new buzzword in the world of business, but it’s actually complex. Companies can be considered from an abstract perspective. Each of its departments, inputs, outputs and processes can be compared, in analog, to systems. If you attempt to do this, we realize that the generalization can offer us deep insights.

System thinking is, at its core, a method of conceptualization. It’s not how we, as humans, typically see things. If we are involved in using it to aid our understanding of business processes, we must first grasp what it is and how it can be applied. This article delves into what system thinking is and how it can be used to benefit a wide range of businesses and industries.

How do you define system thinking?

Depending on whom you pose this question to, the answers will be distinctly different. Biologists view system thinking as to how colonies of organisms arrange themselves to perform tasks that are most beneficial to their ecological niche. Southern New Hampshire University defines system thinking as a way of exploring factors and events holistically that may lead to an outcome. From a business perspective, this seems vaguer than it has to be, but it can be briefly applied.

Businesses are involved in exploring behaviors. Whatever outcome you want from this behavior (a click, for a user to buy, etc.) comprises the outcomes. To fully access this outcome, we must first understand what the user goes through that leads them to that conclusion. These are the factors and events that lead to the click or closing of the sale. In this perspective, a business can figure out how to achieve a goal, given the inputs that make it up. However, these inputs are variable, and there’s no telling what they will be. The interaction of these factors and events is what gives rise to the system that we’re exploring. So, how does a company apply system thinking to its business?

continutes in source:

How to Apply System Thinking to Your Business – business.com

Cybernetics Society: CybSights Events

Enterprise fractals & hierarchical branching—CybSights: President’s Series

Wed,Feb10,2021,5:00PMRegister

Description

Hosted by our President, Dr. John Beckford FCybS, the CybSights President’s Series is a new programme that will bring interesting people together to explore the relevance and contribution of cybernetics to addressing important challenges.

Each event will consist of contributions by two different speakers. Each will be followed by individual Q&A. These are then brought together by the President in a lively and engaging plenary discussion. Each will seek areas of convergence and divergence between the ideas explored.

Events will be held via Zoom on the 2nd Wednesday of each month from 1700 to 1900.

Meetings are open to members of the Cybernetics Society and also the general public. Non-members are invited to join or give a donation. Booking is required.

The Cybernetics Society has been hosting conversations and lectures since the late 1960s.

#PS5 : February 10 2021: Fractal and branching designs & their relevance to business, society, and ecology

This event continues the exploration of the relevance of cybernetics to the contemporary world with contributions both theoretically practical and practically theoretical. The purpose of this series is not just to provide answers but to test whether the right questions are being asked.

FIRST SPEAKER: Patrick Hoverstadt

Cybernetics in Systems: A practitioner’s perspective

Patrick Hoverstadt will talk about how much easier it has become to use systemic cybernetic approaches with clients over the last 25 years. He’ll talk about some of the tricks and pitfalls of communicating and working with clients who don’t have a background in systems, where to use systems and cybernetics and why it matters now more than ever to make these approaches more accessible. The talk will cover some of the classical stances practitioners take, and the effects our positioning choices have.

Patrick Hoverstadt

Patrick Hoverstadt has been a consultant using systems and cybernetics for 26 years working with around 100 client organisations on over 250 systems projects. Clients range from micro businesses to multi-nationals and projects at whole sector and national levels. He is the chair of SCiO the professional body for systems practitioners and has developed a number of systemic approaches including a systemic/cybernetic approach to strategy development and execution.

Followed by brief Q & A

SECOND SPEAKER: David Dewhurst, FCybS, Vice-President of the Cybernetics Society

Strategies for being a tree and related branching systems (0th order cybernetics?) as more conservative!

David tackles some important questions on the notion of hierarchy, teasing us with these challenges:

• If each reader first ponders why trees are tree shaped for perhaps a day before reading further, we will generate more insights.
• How far will the simplest fractal + randomness get you?
• Why are branching structures ubiquitous – family trees, information processing and so on?
• As trees do not occupy the whole universe what are their downsides?

A concrete outcome of this discussion might be a greater respect and contempt for hierarchies.

David Dewhurst, FCybS

David has worked as a jobbing gardener and advocates his neoliberal gardening system in order to save the planet, and time. His (nuanced) support for Hayek when writing about Occupy’s economic policies in the FT was described by George Osborne as ‘surreal’. His 29 other occupations include teaching from University to Nursery, Headship, Ofsted Inspector, Management Consultant, Cleaner @ Tesco, Management Traineeship, Trainee Clinical Psychologist ten years on the Governing Body of Brunel University and doorstep salesman. In the film ’24 Davids’ released on line last year he comes in at number 13 (56 to 64 minutes) where he is characterised even less accurately than in this summary. He hopes to remain Vice President of the Cybernetics Society until 2022.

Plenary Discussion

The aim of this session, moderated by John Beckford, is to draw out the complementary and competing ideas emerging from the two sessions.

book at source:

Cybernetics Society: CybSights Events

source:

Systemspedia

International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

2nd Edition, as published by Charles François 2004 Presented by the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science Vienna for public access. 

International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics 2nd Edition, as published by Charles François 2004 Presented by the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science Vienna for public access. About

Systemspedia

Training providers for Systems thinking practitioner (level 7)

Training providers for Systems thinking practitioner (level 7)

At time of writing, five providers are listed – two have live website listings:

https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/courses/taught/systems-thinking-practice

35-minute video from four of the moderators of the Ecology of Systems Thinking Group on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/ecologyofsystemsthinking)

source:

Metaphorum Webinar Series – metaphorum

Metaphorum Webinar Series

 WEBINAR SERIES

2020-2021

(Artwork from Vanilla Beer) – see source page

Dear Metaphorum members

As announced in our recent Newsletter, it is a pleasure for us to launch our new Metaphorum webinar series with the first confirmed program of speakers for the next few months. Our intention with this Webinar Series is to maintain an active community of learning, where members can share their most recent contributions to theory or practice, and get feedback and critical reviews from fellow cyberneticians and systems researchers or practitioners.

All sessions are on Wednesdays from 5 to 6 pm (UK time).  The speaker will present in the first 30 min and then there will be 30 minutes for the participants to engage with the speaker. If the speaker agrees, we will make all presentations available in the Metaphorum website.

If you want to participate in any of the webinars, follow this link confirming which webinars you’d like to participate.  

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1n9YyZlJf1Xe3R9smAGojiOKmSsIqjTw7YESnF2Ctsvw/prefill

You can include as many webinars as you’d like in the form -. There is no cost to attend the webinars for Metaphorum members.

Looking forward to have you with us in this webinars’ series.

Angela Espinosa, Allenna Leonard and Jon Walker

continues with full details of speakers and recording in source:

Metaphorum Webinar Series – metaphorum

Viable Tribes: Jonathan Huxley

The Soul of the Viable System Model: Mike Jackson – 3 February 2021

The Neo-Cybernetic Synthesis: Ashby’s True Legacy: Manel Pretel-Wilson

Dr. Barry Clemson & Dr. Hans-Peter Plag:Monitoring the health of riverine systems

Dr. Steve Morlidge: ‘The VSM in 2020 – more relevant than ever?’

source:

Final Report – The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review – GOV.UK

Independent report

Final Report – The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review

Final Report of the Independent Review on the Economics of Biodiversity led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta.Published 2 February 2021From:HM Treasury

source:

Final Report – The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review – GOV.UK