Philosophical aspects of sensemaking and operational definitions - Global Sensemaking2024-03-28T11:48:44Zhttp://globalsensemaking.net/forum/topics/philosophical-aspects-of?commentId=2052744%3AComment%3A8701&feed=yes&xn_auth=noScott,
I must be dense! I se…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-23:2052744:Comment:101432009-01-23T16:14:54.000ZGeorge E. Mobushttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/GeorgeEMobus
Scott,<br />
<br />
I must be dense! I sensed no brashness. And I certainly don't need an apology.<br />
<br />
My reasons for not participating much more here are several, not the least of which is time. This thread, in particular, sort of weaved away from the original idea of exploring more philosophical aspects of sense making, so I didn't have much to say about other sub-threads.<br />
<br />
On the time front: When I first joined this tribe I assumed there would be time to develop a killer-app kind of tool(s) that would…
Scott,<br />
<br />
I must be dense! I sensed no brashness. And I certainly don't need an apology.<br />
<br />
My reasons for not participating much more here are several, not the least of which is time. This thread, in particular, sort of weaved away from the original idea of exploring more philosophical aspects of sense making, so I didn't have much to say about other sub-threads.<br />
<br />
On the time front: When I first joined this tribe I assumed there would be time to develop a killer-app kind of tool(s) that would enable problem solvers to collaborate globally. But events are moving too rapidly in the world and I think the window of opportunity to build and deploy such a tool is closing. At least there doesn't appear to be time to be philosophical about it!<br />
<br />
My time now is spent capturing my thoughts and writing them down, documenting them in my blog. These thoughts lean more to what do we do after the crash. I am now at the stage of thinking that there is little we can do to avoid a major crash of civilization and probably a population crash to go along with it. What comes after is now something to consider, if my surmise is correct.<br />
<br />
So I hope you won't take my absence from discourse as a sign of my being offended in any way. It isn't. Soldier on!<br />
<br />
George I remember reading an essaie…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-23:2052744:Comment:101232009-01-23T03:11:34.000ZBen Tremblayhttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/BenTremblay
I remember reading an essaie or poem in my teens that cut me to the quick ... something about how Napoleon, high on his fine steed, was heedless of the alpine flowers trod upon.<br />
In that regard I'm particular atuned to Alexander ... the apple seemed to fall far from the tree in that case.<br />
<br />
And yet, and yet ...<br />
... in my tradition "outrageousness" is a virtue alongside meek and perky and inscrutable.<br />
<br />
At the risk of seeming arch: I'm full to the gills with fecklessly nice ...<br />
... democracy is…
I remember reading an essaie or poem in my teens that cut me to the quick ... something about how Napoleon, high on his fine steed, was heedless of the alpine flowers trod upon.<br />
In that regard I'm particular atuned to Alexander ... the apple seemed to fall far from the tree in that case.<br />
<br />
And yet, and yet ...<br />
... in my tradition "outrageousness" is a virtue alongside meek and perky and inscrutable.<br />
<br />
At the risk of seeming arch: I'm full to the gills with fecklessly nice ...<br />
... democracy is messier than that. Spending some time this eveni…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-23:2052744:Comment:101212009-01-23T02:55:57.000ZScotthttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/ScottNesler
Spending some time this evening reading through post since November, the realization of my brashness stood out. I would like to apologize to George, Jack, and Twain for my tone in the valuable exchange of ideas. Starting with George's comments on November 27th some great references to the dynamics and history of problem solving were provided. I realize my tunnel vision was disrespectful to the dialog.<br />
<br />
The aspirations and experience of each member in this group is dynamic and valuable. I will…
Spending some time this evening reading through post since November, the realization of my brashness stood out. I would like to apologize to George, Jack, and Twain for my tone in the valuable exchange of ideas. Starting with George's comments on November 27th some great references to the dynamics and history of problem solving were provided. I realize my tunnel vision was disrespectful to the dialog.<br />
<br />
The aspirations and experience of each member in this group is dynamic and valuable. I will work harder to respect this in future post. In developing a group, I feel…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-06:2052744:Comment:97852009-01-06T01:23:27.000ZScotthttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/ScottNesler
In developing a group, I feel a clear set of objectives and a framework which is adhered to is required. Blogs, forums, and even this Ning tool is far too loose in providing any cohesive dialog. I would also suggest that group relationships must be given time to evolve.<br />
<br />
Jack, I understand your frustration about individuals not behaving in a focused manner, but I would suggest the use of lacking literacy, sounds a bit intellectually snobbish. Between philosophy, psychology, mathematics,…
In developing a group, I feel a clear set of objectives and a framework which is adhered to is required. Blogs, forums, and even this Ning tool is far too loose in providing any cohesive dialog. I would also suggest that group relationships must be given time to evolve.<br />
<br />
Jack, I understand your frustration about individuals not behaving in a focused manner, but I would suggest the use of lacking literacy, sounds a bit intellectually snobbish. Between philosophy, psychology, mathematics, logistics, computer science, human factoring engineering, and the hundreds of other disciplines related to the topic of sense making I would suggest noone should be expected to speak fluently in all subject matters. I fear too much is lost if we spend all of our time focusing on the grammar or making people speak to our understanding.<br />
<br />
I say this in the point of view of research and development or refining the argument. This is the current state of this global sense making effort.<br />
<br />
I'm still intrigued about the framework of Benjamin Franklin's Junto for getting around much of the group mechanic issues Jack brings up.<br />
<br />
I describe the Junto on the following link:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dogoodgauge.com/site/DoGoodGauge/page_contents/display/67">Historical Methods of Generating Intelligent Arguments</a>. p.s. all the pages I've poste…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-06:2052744:Comment:97832009-01-06T00:32:13.000ZBen Tremblayhttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/BenTremblay
p.s. all the pages I've posted over the years ... I've received 4 comments and 0 email. It really is remarkable.
p.s. all the pages I've posted over the years ... I've received 4 comments and 0 email. It really is remarkable. Indeed ...
... my quibbles ar…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-06:2052744:Comment:97812009-01-06T00:27:47.000ZBen Tremblayhttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/BenTremblay
Indeed ...<br />
... my quibbles are 2:<br />
1) after spending months with VRML concept mapping (During which time I cobbled together a "translator" using VB5, parallel to the contract I had with the Psych department at Dal, working for an ethology lab) and having spent years surveying that field (I mean visual concept mapping) the limitations became all too clear. Systems like cMap and Compendium and Rationale are very good, as far as they go, they truly are. But for my money / IMNSHO they don't go very…
Indeed ...<br />
... my quibbles are 2:<br />
1) after spending months with VRML concept mapping (During which time I cobbled together a "translator" using VB5, parallel to the contract I had with the Psych department at Dal, working for an ethology lab) and having spent years surveying that field (I mean visual concept mapping) the limitations became all too clear. Systems like cMap and Compendium and Rationale are very good, as far as they go, they truly are. But for my money / IMNSHO they don't go very far ... which is my point.<br />
2) After literally decades grapling with public discussion, everything from GATT (mid-70s) and anti-apartheid (late 70s) through the national debate on cruise missile deployment (early 80s) to the massive outpouring with regards to globalization (late 90s / early 00s ... IndyMedia &tc) I saw the same dynamic: even the most well-intentioned experts had the effect of mooting discourse.<br />
<br />
So ... back to square 1 ... and after 3 years I came up with something: as I've written elsewhere, it's a synthesis of Jurgen Habermas (Frankfurt) on "discourse ethics" and John Willinsky (UBC) on "OpenAccess". I mean an actual design. I mean an implementable system specification. That was autumn 2003. In 5 years I've found precisely 0 people who were interested. I mean existentially, concretely. (One company I approached wanted me to send them a system description before talking strategic partnership. In other words I'd sign over the deed to the farm, c/w cows, milk, cream, and butter, and then /maybe/ talk terms later. And they're not different from learne'd individuals: folk get upset / offended when the talk turns to IP ... kinda like talking to banks: you can get money if you already have a lot, else you're SOL.)<br />
<br />
But folk are in the grips of "not invented here" ... which is like saying that fish are oblivious to the water.<br />
Bottom-line? If a designer isn't A-list, he isn't asked. Period.<br />
<br />
Ergo: innovation is merely one form of social exchange, and so it follows the same inter-personal dynamics as all the others, i.e. it's about rank.<br />
"Participatory deliberation"? A pretext for yet more learned chatter.<br />
<br />
Reminds me of the guy who invented a super-cheap super-simple water pump in the 70s ... took years before anyone paid him any attention at all; he wasn't connected ... just bad karma, I guess. heh A very long time ago (in inte…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-05:2052744:Comment:97662009-01-05T22:04:58.000ZJack Parkhttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/JackPark
A very long time ago (in internet years), Jeff Conklin once commented that it is difficult to have unfacilitated collaboration when some people lack the literacy necessary to "behave properly" (my words). An example: I recently sat at a "World Café"-like table, except there were a dozen people, the first time, and half dozen the next time. I decided to attempt a Bohmian dialogue in which, rather than just diving into the problem posed to the table, let's all get to know each other better. I…
A very long time ago (in internet years), Jeff Conklin once commented that it is difficult to have unfacilitated collaboration when some people lack the literacy necessary to "behave properly" (my words). An example: I recently sat at a "World Café"-like table, except there were a dozen people, the first time, and half dozen the next time. I decided to attempt a Bohmian dialogue in which, rather than just diving into the problem posed to the table, let's all get to know each other better. I suggested brief introduction with something about how you relate to the posed problem. There were two kinds of responses: the valued ones went like "Hi, I'm Joe, I've got an ... background, and I see this problem as ..."; the not so valuable ones went like "Hi, I was born in ... I went to grammar school at ... I studied ...I then started a career but got side tracked by ...and, oh, by the way, I'll consider any ideas related to this issue that are like ... to be useless...". We saw lots of the latter types. We ended up spending so much time in those diatribes that we never actually tackled the issue posed to us in the time allotted.<br />
<br />
Another instance. I run a "sensemaking" group at diigo.com. It's pretty amazing that a percentage of those who join the group think it's ok to spam the bookmarks with humor--not even sensemaking humor!, with totally off topic stuff. Some folks really get the idea of high signal to noise ratio; others apparently are clueless.<br />
<br />
I agree that Debategraph is a powerful tool; I'd prefer to see it integrated with Cohere, and (to turn my hat around for a moment) together with something like a topic map to help wire all the dots. In fact, Cohere comes quite close to being a topic map itself. All that as a boundary infrastructure to serve the needs of sensemaking journeys. I'm actually replying to Ben'…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-05:2052744:Comment:97642009-01-05T21:34:50.000ZMark Szpakowskihttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/MarkSzpakowski
I'm actually replying to Ben's message down below in deep-nestedness, from which I'm trying to surface :-)<br />
<br />
RE<br />
<blockquote>So my design sets out to [...] concentrate on how significant "meaning" is essentially personal and subjective ... in response to or riding on top of mere data. To do that I focus on the propositional ... when we come close to exhaustive disputes by systematically grappling with facts and data we will, I suspect, no longer have convenient smoke-screens for sophistry ... and…</blockquote>
I'm actually replying to Ben's message down below in deep-nestedness, from which I'm trying to surface :-)<br />
<br />
RE<br />
<blockquote>So my design sets out to [...] concentrate on how significant "meaning" is essentially personal and subjective ... in response to or riding on top of mere data. To do that I focus on the propositional ... when we come close to exhaustive disputes by systematically grappling with facts and data we will, I suspect, no longer have convenient smoke-screens for sophistry ... and then rhetoric will be seen more clearly for what it is and how it works, by priming entire constellations of associations. And yes, I'm talking about "cognitive schema". [...] so long as folk are satisfied with the crudest aspects of communications (e.g. flame-wars, word games, put downs, mutual admiration &tc &tc &tc) there will be no market ... no audience ... no pull. Until and unless we create a system as effective as Hesse's glasperlenspiel I don't think we'll see any real progress.</blockquote>
<br />
I think I very much agree. I see a lot of value to tools such as Debategraph, but also see part of the value as exposing the limits of what can be done by tracking the logical relationships of arguments. This then makes more obvious the "personal and subjective" which is driving choices of arguments.<br />
<br />
Some kind of tool may be needed for pulling up the "bigger picture" that emerges in sustained debates about, for example, Palestine vs Israel, among many participants.<br />
<br />
That bigger picture I think <i>includes</i> the subjectivity of the person holding a coherent cluster of arguments.<br />
<br />
I do not see an alternative to getting the person of the debator involved: arguments do not live in the abstract, divorced from the people voicing them (I suppose I'm an Aristotelian here).<br />
<br />
The next step is then to have those persons with their explicitly recognized subjectivities, which they share, in an alembic type of container (closed container where transformation can take place).<br />
<br />
What I'm fuzzily sensing is the need to marry Debategraph and its cousins with something like the group-transformation-journey approaches of Theory-U/Presencing or Art of Hosting.<br />
<br />
I think this would have to be done in relatively small groups, or in ways where small groups can scale up a bit (as World Café tries to do, where you have multiple conversation tables of 4-people each which then change participants while retaining and offering previous contributions).<br />
<br />
I've lately been exploring Second Life, and find it fascinating that our neuroplasticity allows us to identify so "really" with our avatars - the consequence seeming to be that a group of avatars can feel truly contained within a space. There is potential there for the container principle to work more powerfully than in any other other web-collaborative way I can think of (I have not had first hand experience of Cisco Telepresence/HP Halo class collaborative presence). Ah, ok ...
... which is actua…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-03:2052744:Comment:97072009-01-03T22:08:13.000ZBen Tremblayhttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/BenTremblay
Ah, ok ...<br />
... which is actually a nice case in point.<br />
<br />
What I'm grappling with is how, in fact and actually, what we do can be described as "communicative gestures" e.g. someone asks me for the time, there are any number of ways I can reply that include the datum <b>11:45</b> ... each one of those carrying a different valence, though the data is invariant.<br />
<br />
So, methinks, when we are in exchange with another, the air is verily filled with rainbow-coloured hues, not all of them contributing to…
Ah, ok ...<br />
... which is actually a nice case in point.<br />
<br />
What I'm grappling with is how, in fact and actually, what we do can be described as "communicative gestures" e.g. someone asks me for the time, there are any number of ways I can reply that include the datum <b>11:45</b> ... each one of those carrying a different valence, though the data is invariant.<br />
<br />
So, methinks, when we are in exchange with another, the air is verily filled with rainbow-coloured hues, not all of them contributing to the transfer of data, however much information is transmitted.<br />
<br />
"Framing", I suggest, is only one aspect of this complex. Certainly not trivial, and definitely deserving of close attention by principled practitioners, but I decided years ago (decades!) to approach the whole more foundationally: what happens when we moot the subjective and focus intently on the data? First: most folk get pretty danged irritated! Applying syllogistic logic is problematic ... in most cases it seems argumentative, oppositional, and in the end aggressive.<br />
<br />
"What refs?" in my response could seem like that, yes?<br />
<br />
So my design sets out to dis-confound the material <i><b>not</b> to devalue the subjective</i> but, quite the contrary, to concentrate on how significant "meaning" is essentially personal and subjective ... in response to or riding on top of mere data.<br />
To do that I focus on the propositional ... when we come close to exhaustive disputes by systematically grappling with facts and data we will, I suspect, no longer have convenient smoke-screens for sophistry ... and then rhetoric will be seen more clearly for what it is and how it works, by priming entire constellations of associations. And yes, I'm talking about "cognitive schema".<br />
<br />
My point: so long as folk are satisfied with the crudest aspects of communications (e.g. flame-wars, word games, put downs, mutual admiration &tc &tc &tc) there will be no market ... no audience ... no pull.<br />
Until and unless we create a system as effective as Hesse's <i>glasperlenspiel</i> I don't think we'll see any real progress. While exchanges are little more than rock-throwing and flag-waving the powerful and effective will serve their purposes by foregoing what passes for debate in the public domain.<br />
<br />
What pains me is that once I derived a design (Alas, just months before I left Halifax) the "talking about" became more difficult than the actual doing!<br />
<a href="http://groundplane.wordpress.com/gp-101">http://groundplane.wordpress.com/gp-101</a> Umm, seems to be a communicat…tag:globalsensemaking.net,2009-01-03:2052744:Comment:97052009-01-03T21:18:33.000ZMark Szpakowskihttp://globalsensemaking.net/profile/MarkSzpakowski
Umm, seems to be a communication breakdown. I was saying (or trying to say) that the references (Wikipedia links) that <b><i>I</i></b> had posted were not very good (not the best descriptions I would wish for).<br />
<br />
Your post was worth quite a lot, and "so that the subjective narrative is valued and nurtured while the base of commonly recognized facts is expanded" seems to be a very good way to describe the intention attempting to be clarified here.
Umm, seems to be a communication breakdown. I was saying (or trying to say) that the references (Wikipedia links) that <b><i>I</i></b> had posted were not very good (not the best descriptions I would wish for).<br />
<br />
Your post was worth quite a lot, and "so that the subjective narrative is valued and nurtured while the base of commonly recognized facts is expanded" seems to be a very good way to describe the intention attempting to be clarified here.