This group is starting at OPEN 2020 and will take forward our commitment to clarify our language around the building blocks of the new economy, enabling better communication and collaboration.
Can’t wait to attend today! Will the slides be available?
Here's a nice example of definition of two concepts -- emergence and self-organisation -- which clarifies their use helpfully. Incidentally, both concepts seem to me to be of interest in this complex world of a decentralised, local economy without central control. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221456652_Emergence_Versus_Self-Organisation_Different_Concepts_but_Promising_When_Combined
Yes, these are both very important concepts. The second was going to be the primary focus of the session I proposed on "variety management, self-organization and incentives for co-operation". An important concept related to "emergence" is "autopoiesis" ("self-making" - Maturana & Varela).
The problem with both these important open-system concepts is that they are ‘objective’. They engage with ‘the system’ as an entity that we stand outside of, and analyse. In classic ‘scientific’ mode (oh, that issue again!). Likewise, the important notion of autopoeisis. What we need, however, is constructs (or stories) - and more important, methodologies - that generate perspectives on such systemic interactions, but from the standpoint of an actor deeply implicated within a system - both a located and a situated perspective. Having abstracted models of complex systems is hardly a lot of use (and abstract concepts of system behaviour, even less so), when all we ever have, as actual people in actual weaves of organisational and economic practice, is a local and perceptual capability to perform an action of some kind, which will the ripple off through the system in all directions.
At the very least, we need models of systems that are manipulable by actors in simulation mode, so that the (individual or collective) actor can get a sense of what kind of action may be necessary or wise or consequential, for that action, in that place. Abstract concepts of system form or system behaviour can’t furnish this. Perhaps general ‘principles’ can, if they are sufficiently well contextualised and concrete so that they can be mobilised as performable ’recipes-in-situation-X’. Oops I seem to be talking about pattern language 😉
Concepts like emergence, self-organisation and autopoeisis may be important as counter-ideology, in weaning folks off absurdly simple notions of control, permanence, boundedness and so on. Which is no small matter. An alternative aesthetics, maybe, or sense of humility and mutuality? But beyond that, I suggest they only have value to the extent that they can be mobilised as design principles in building concrete models of systemic weaves, which are designed so that they can be ‘inhabited’ by actors, in practices of situated simulation? They can’t directly be guides to action, and shouldn’t be looked to as ethical or pragmatic principles - only as model-design principles?
I'm generally inclined to agree with your perspective here, @mike_hales My personal enlargement, or generalisation, if I may call it something like that, would be along the lines of "every concept has a place, and our task is to agree on its place". To me, that's a bit similar to the principle of listening to people's stories and meanings. <platitude>Words, and the concepts they stand for, have different meanings for different people.</platitude> So I want to listen to people, try to reflect back their meaning, and then invite us into dialogue to find common language. As I said (now below, for the avoidance of doubt) I am not advocating the article as a 'good' attempt at definition, just that it has its place, and I see you as doing a good job of using it as a foil for critique. I'm hearing your critique and it makes sense to me. So do other points that may appear different. The only words I'm inclined to take issue with are the words 'ever' and 'only'. If you own the exclusion it takes the sting out of it for me. Like "The only other value I can personally see in these concepts is...". I like that kind of formulation, as I see speaking from the 'I' perspective as a valuable humility protector.
please watch our 7 minute animation explaining horizontal governing/organizing, it is about emergence and self-organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywMhg604W8&feature&fbclid=IwAR2Lo-OO7u1yuxrxdBf2L5PLsitRHx27nh8XFZk5t0fiFqXgyN7IFdK3T9s. utopiacornucopia.org.
Seriously amigos, take a look at this, it simplifies everything.
Can we please make comparative analysis of the self-governance proposed as compared to the local Councils system we have now in many countries?What is not working now and how and why will it work in the new system?
And a few of cases studies of transition or of synergy of those two systems would be good to have as well.
Your thoughts, dear fellows?
How do we get this data?
This 7 minute animation explains horizontal governing which is decentralized, by and for the people, very democratic, efficient and effective, removes forever politicians and lobbyists, feasible, and virtually incorruptible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywMhg604W8&feature&fbclid=IwAR3HcZvrdRJvRNqMRZ3m6t3hvuac7bTXlxnQn-WjutSbWoWXOw7iW7AAEd4. utopiacornucopia.org
This is a simple and elegant way to see how self-organization and emergence go together. There may be better ideas (which I would love to know), or ways to improve this, but this allows for autonomy, and emerges organically.
It's a good video and these concepts definitely need to be tested. I've been thinking and discussing this sort of thing for a very long time (10 years) and every time you get down to the details, there are all kinds of complexities. I think we are all striving for this type of architecture in different ways and we will see numerous trials before we get it right.