tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-21:/Dedicated to the new generations of the Digital Age Summaries of readings, original writings and excerpts from leading scholarsMokoFeed2009-11-21T07:46:10+01:00tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-20:/2009/11/20/socila-learning-7422053/aysekok2009-11-20T19:43:40+01:002009-11-20T19:43:40+01:00 <p>The social dimension of learning suggests the existence of a group mind that takes the form of cognitive interdependence centered on memory processes. People working together give life to a single transactive memory system, complete with differentiated responsibility for remembering their experiences. The behaviours of group members, like to the neuron connections in the brain, may be spontaneously and tacitly activated and then interconnect so that they coordinate an intelligent action. Social learning is thus a network of collective behaviours based on distributed knowledge (Tsoukas, 1996).</p> <p>This approach of learning as a social process suggests that there are a set of relations among persons, activity and world. As Wenger & Lave assert a community of practice is required for the existence of knowledge as it provides the interpretative support necessary for making sense of its heritage. So, learning and knowledge creation are closely bound up with each other in a local practice rather than being distinct activities.<br> Learning has to do with participating, with becoming a member of the community; because social relations are important for the transmission of knowledge and the relational development of identity. Consequently, learning is mostly situated in the sphere of social interaction. Thanks to the vast numbers of social networking tools we are provided with more opportunities than ever to be situated in this sphere of learning.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/11/20/socila-learning-7422053/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-18:/2009/11/18/the-social-theory-of-the-mind-7409147/aysekok2009-11-18T19:55:27+01:002009-11-18T19:58:54+01:00 <p>The social theory of the mind was refined by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cooley">Cooley</a> who maintained that thought consists of an imaginary conversation with the self and that society is the mind of all individuals. Thus, society is a relationship among ideas, and the ways in which individuals imagine each other are concrete facts.</p> <p>Similarly, Mead pointed out that society is grounded on reflectivity or the ability of the self to reflect upon itself. The self is a point of view and every individual possesses a plurality of selves. Thought is a form of conversation conducted by indiviudals with themselves.</p> <p>Mead's social theory of the mind exerted a profound influence on the doctrine of the rational man. Accordingly, society is conceived of not as a structure but as a process. People don't assume ready-made roles, but rather create and re-create them according to the situation at hand. Social institutions exist only insofar as individuals come into contact with each other and jointly construct actions.</p> <p>Social action comes about because individuals project various 'me's onto future situations; they then assume the role of the 'Other'; predict consequences and model their actions accordingly. This process of continous negotiation yields definitions of the situation and the social construction of reality. This concept of definition of the situation was developed by Thomas who asserted that 'If one defines a situation as real, then it is real in its consequences.' Reality is fluid and susceptible to rapid changes, and if the way people define a certain situation changes, then so does the type of behavior that it induces. Social life has a peculiar tendency to become whatever people think it is.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/11/18/the-social-theory-of-the-mind-7409147/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-16:/2009/11/16/social-realism-7387604/aysekok2009-11-16T19:52:44+01:002009-11-16T19:52:44+01:00 <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Archer">Margaret Archer</a>, the founder of social realism asserts that rather than producing the society, individuals/agents transform or reproduce the society; yet always on the basis of something that was already there, albeit the result of the ‘activities of the long dead’ as Archer put it forth.</p> <p>As Archer herself notes social realist theory is useful for understanding the ways that the causal power of social forms is mediated through social agency. The process of mediation between structure and agency entails the following 3 stages:</p> <p>- Structural and cultural properties objectively shape the situations that agents confront involuntarily<br> - Agents’ own concerns are subjectively defined in relation to nature, practice and society.<br> - Courses of action are produced through the reflexive deliberations of agent who subjectively determine their practical projects in relation to their objective circumstances.</p> <p>Structural emergent properties shape one’s situations such that they have the capacity to operate as constraints or enablements. We, in virtue of their reflexivity, can deliberate about the circumstances in relation to our own concerns. It is through this examination of the objective circumstances in which we are placed and which are not of our choosing that we prepare for the next stage. The influences of constraints or enablement will be only tendential because of the human reflexive abilities to withstand them or circumstantially to circumvent them. We can also act strategically to discover ways round or to define the second best outcome. It all depends on how creatively we can evade the constraints imposed by the objective reality in which we find ourselves. </p> <p>Based on this framework, we all have the powers to monitor our own life and to mediate structural and cultural properties of the society. We make our choices based on structural conditions and conduct endless assessments of whether the price to be paid is worth paying.</p> <p>Archer’s social realist theory provides us with a means to show how we are able to find ways to evade, endorse, repudiate or contravene enablements or constraints on our actions. We might be influences, yet not determined, by the barriers we face. This concept of reflexivity shaped by the interplay between the social situation and personal goals present two type of personalities in general:</p> <p>- the autonomous reflexives who sustain internal conversations leading directly to action<br> - the fractual reflexives whose internal conversation may lead to disorientation rather than purposeful action, with life chances being determined largely by their involuntary social positioning.</p> <p>Rather than remaining victims of circumstances we might want to try to circumvent the constraints.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/11/16/social-realism-7387604/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-13:/2009/11/13/learning-beings-7367807/aysekok2009-11-13T17:49:42+01:002009-11-13T17:49:42+01:00 <p>Michael Oakeshott (1972) has referred to as a 'civilised inheritance of enduring traditions of thinking that may lie beyond the compass of their current life-world preoccupations'. To obtain such a whole system shift, the following model- simply the four ‘P’s model- might be useful:</p> <p>- Paradigm: Instead of learning reflecting a paradigm founded on a mechanistic root metaphor and embracing reductionism, it might embrace holism which might give rise to purpose.</p> <p>- Purpose: Instead of learning seen as preparation for economic life, it becomes a broader knowledge generation process for a sustainable knowledge society. This expanded sense of purpose might give rise to a shift in policy.</p> <p>- Policy: Instead of learning being viewed solely in terms of product (courses/materials/qualifications) it becomes a process of developing potential and capacity through life, at individual and community levels through life-long learning. This connective view requires a change in methodology and practice…</p> <p>- Practice: Instead of learning being largely confined to instruction and transmission, it becomes a much more participative and dynamic learning process based on knowledge generation, on real-world problem solving and situation betterment. </p> <p>The integration of such a holistic view into the learning process implies the following shifts (based on van de Bor et al., 2000):</p> <p>- Process oriented: Providing opportunities for learners to construct meaning through an engaged and participative learning environmment, reflecting different learning styles. Everyone is a learner, including the teacher.</p> <p>- Balancing: Embracing cognitive and affective, personal and collective aspects of learning </p> <p>- Inclusive: For all types of learners from all age groups and extending throughout their lifetimes.</p> <p>- Open and inquiring: Encouraging curiosity, imagination, creativity to arise through thought-provoking conversations.</p> <p>- Diverse: Allowing for variety and difference of provision and ways of knowing within a coherent framework.</p> <p>- A learning community: Promoting learning through engaging learners in reflexive learning </p> <p>Such a learning environment would be intrinsically transformational and might increase the number of‘learning beings in Mary Catherine Bateson’s terms.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/11/13/learning-beings-7367807/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-11:/2009/11/11/a-cybernetic-view-of-knowledge-7352513/aysekok2009-11-11T18:04:43+01:002009-11-11T18:04:43+01:00 <p>In his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Steps-Ecology-Mind-Anthropology-Epistemology/dp/0226039056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257958984&sr=8-1">Steps to an Ecology of Mind</a> Bateson (2000) makes several points concerning our relationship to a greater whole that, taken in themselves, possess a high degree of plausibility—and importance. For example, he asserts that we can never be in a position to see the whole. Consciousness is always selective, working by a systematic sampling of the events and processes of the body and of what goes on outside according to its purposes. </p> <p>Basically, on Bateson’s account the picture is one of the greater whole as a vast cybernetic system—a self-corrective information feedback system. And the individual mind is portrayed as a variable localised part of this system. As Bateson puts it: ‘‘My’’ mind – delimitation of an individual mind must always depend upon what phenomena we wish to explain: Obviously there are lots of message pathways outside the skin, and these and the messages which they carry must be included as part of the mental system whenever they are relevant.’ (p. 464) </p> <p>This statement provides a picture of mind as synonymous with cybernetic system—the relevant total information-processing, trial-and-error completing unit. Within the mind, there will be a hierarchy of sub-systems, any one of which we can call an individual mind (p. 466) </p> <p>For this ‘cybernetic epistemology’ the individual mind is immanent not only in the body, but also in pathways and messages outside the body—and there is a larger Mind of which the individual mind is only a sub-system whose identity varies with the phenomena to be explained. Bateson suggests that this larger Mind is now strictly immanent in ‘the total interconnected social system’ (p. 467). </p> <p>The cybernetic/scientific model privileges an understanding of things as constituted through systematization—that is, through appropriation to a super-ordinate system that posits all as information. It sets up our understanding of the greater whole as a set of discursive interrelations. This characterisation of mind as a computer, simply a ‘sub-system’, a ‘total information-processing, trial-and-error completing unit’ radically revises the whole landscape of human Understanding. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/11/11/a-cybernetic-view-of-knowledge-7352513/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-09:/2009/11/09/fundamentals-of-science-7339510/aysekok2009-11-09T20:35:01+01:002009-11-09T20:35:01+01:00 <p>Science is based on presupposition. The goal is to test and revise the old presuppositions and to create new ones. Bateson reminds us of the following characteristics of science:</p> <p>- Science never proves anything: Science sometimes improves hypotheses and sometimes disproves them. Yet, proof would be another matter. The truth about what can be perceived or arrived at by induction from perception is something else. We don’t know enough about how the present will lead into the future. We only use the rule of parsimony. Prediction can never be absolutely valid; so science can never prove some generalization or test a single descriptive statement and arrive at truth. Science is a way of perceiving and making what we may call “sense” of our percepts. Yet, perception only operates upon difference. All receipt of information is necessarily the receipt of news of difference and all perception of difference is limited by threshold.</p> <p>- The map is not the territory and the name is not the thing named: There is a transformation between the report and the thing reported as naming is always classifying and mapping is essentially the same as naming.</p> <p>- There is no objective experience: All experience is subjective as our brains make the images that we think we perceive. All perception has image characteristicsand to that extent, objects are our creation and our experience of them is subjective rather than objective. </p> <p>Derived from these statements, Bateson asserts that the object of science should be looking for metapatterns- the patterns that connect patterns rather than aiming at objectivity or generalization. How is the world of logic that eschews circular argument related to a world in which circular trains of causation are the rule rather than exception? Logic is unable to deal with recursive circuits without generating paradox and that quantities are precisely not the stuff of complex communicating systems. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/11/09/fundamentals-of-science-7339510/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-06:/2009/11/06/organisational-knowledge-7319219/aysekok2009-11-06T13:59:38+01:002009-11-06T13:59:38+01:00 <p>Regarding the knowledge development within the organisations they are two main approaches.<br> According to the representational approach, there is a pre-given world. This approach is based on the belief that only pure thinking can yield reliable knowledge. Agents follow explicit rules in order to achieve their goals. Action is driven by reliable prior knowledge.</p> <p>On the other hand, the enactive approach asserts that knowing is action. Knowledge is the result of an ongoing interpretation that emerges from our capacities of understanding. These capacities enable us to make sense of the world. So, rather than the mind passively reflecting a pre-given world, the mind actively engages with the world. Meaning is enacted (constructed) from a taken-for-granted background of understanding (Tsoukas, 2007).</p> <p>The world causes us to form beliefs but not dictate the content of our beliefs (Tsoukas, 2007). The moment we ask for facts about an object we are asking how it should be described in a particular language and that language is not neutral. Its vocabulary is loaded with meaning. Notions are bound up with having certain experiences which involves seeing that certain descriptions apply.</p> <p>To sum up, the enactive approach assumes that actors are beings-in-the-world; so social activity is the fundamental building block of the social world. This approach also highlights the personally constructed character of human knowledge (Tsoukas, 2007).</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/11/06/organisational-knowledge-7319219/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-04:/2009/11/04/in-defense-of-collective-knowledge-7306577/aysekok2009-11-04T17:02:01+01:002009-11-04T17:02:01+01:00 <p>A narrowly Cartesian understanding of knowledge tended to privilege ‘pure’ knowledge at the expense of outlining forms of social life that sustain particular types of knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi argue that knowledge is essentially related to human action and is grounded on the beliefs and commitment of the holder. Similarly, Davenport and Prusak (1998) assert that knowledge is a mix of experiences, values, contextual information and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating new experiences. Yet, this definition is an all-encompassing and little-revealing concept. </p> <p>Knowledge can be defined as the individual capability to draw distinctions within a domain of action based on an appreciation of context, theory or both. Similarly, collective knowledge is the capability members of a community have developed to draw distinctions in the process of carrying out their role in a particular context, by enacting sets of generalizations whose application depends on historically evolved collective understandings. So, knowledge presupposes values, beliefs and is related to action. </p> <p>Based on this definition of knowledge, an individual capacity is required based on an appreciation of context and theory. Theory allows one to take a finding and generalize from any context to another one. Knowledge becomes collective when, while drawing distinctions in the course of their work by taking into account the contextuality of their actions, individuals draw and act upon a corpus of generalizations in the form of generic rules produced by the related community. </p> <p>Collective knowledge can be seen as an open-ended process of coordinating purposeful individuals whose actions stem from applying their unique interpretations to local circumstances confronting them. Given the distributed character of collective knowledge the key to achieving coordinated action depends on those lower down finding more ways of getting connected and interrelating the knowledge each one has. For this to happen, the character of the community as a discursive practice should be appreciated: a form of life in which individuals come to share an unarticulated background of common understandings. Sustaining a discursive practice is as just important as finding ways of integrating distributed knowledge.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/11/04/in-defense-of-collective-knowledge-7306577/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-11-02:/2009/11/02/world-making-7293552/aysekok2009-11-02T18:00:38+01:002009-11-02T18:00:38+01:00 <p>The social world cannot be understood in the same way as natural and physical worlds. What sets social world apart is meaning. To understand this meaning requires one to recognize the discursive patterns embedded in world-making.</p> <p>Postmodern thought helps us to see the roots of western metaphysics by privileging <em>becoming</em> over being, <em>change</em> over stability, <em>process</em> over form. Postmodernism is concerned with providing local truths that are normally suppressed by metanarratives rather than explanation per se. The postmodern then is concerned with giving voice and legitimacy to those tacit and unrepresentable forms of knowledge that modern epistemologies depend upon yet overlook in the process of knowledge creation. Its axioms are (Tsoukas, 2005):</p> <p>- Instead of the traditional emphasis on stability, identity and order postmodern analyses seek to emphasize the Hereclitean primacy accorded to process, flux, formlessness and incessant change. The ontological primacy lies in the <em>becoming of things</em>. It eschews an atomistic thinking.</p> <p>- The focus on this ‘becoming ontology’ asserts that symbolic representations don’t mirror the going-ons in the world. Theories may be workable, yet not timelessly true.</p> <p>- Due to this inadequacy of language, events cannot simply be understood in terms of actors’ intentions; yet in terms of embedded contextual experiences and accumulated memories. Surprise and unexpected are the real order of things. A more tentative attitude rather than total control defines its agenda.</p> <p>- Real world happenings consist of loosely coupled and non-locally defined web of event clusters.</p> <p>Given this ceaseless process of reality construction, we should appreciate that phenomena are mutually constituted rather than being trapped by certain dualisms . Exploring the discursive patterns might give a clearer sense of the world-making people are engaged in.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/11/02/world-making-7293552/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-30:/2009/10/30/thrownness-7275826/aysekok2009-10-30T15:41:56+01:002009-10-30T15:41:56+01:00 <p>Quantum theory and chaos theory suggest that the experience of thrownness should not surprise us. The world is less like a machine and more like patterns of relationships. The patterns are unknowable as to measure something is to change it. The patterns are also unpredictable as tiny differences in initial conditions can lead to large differences in future states. In such an unknowable world; sense-making is all we have (McDaniel, 1997).</p> <p>Quantum thoery helps us to understand that the present state of the world is at best a probablity distrubution. As the next state is unknowable we must pay attention to the world as it unfolds. So, it is a good thing that we can't do more than sense-making; otherwise our inability to know might frustrate us (McDaniel, 1997). Believing enables actions that leads to more sense and taking action leads to more sense so that sense-making might connect actions to beliefs McDaniel, 1997).</p> <p>Action is also being in a state of "thrownness". It is a mixture of unknowability, unpredictability and enactment. It is about losing oneself in the world- resorting to detached hindsight. It contradicts the basic assumption that one can always know something by gaining a reflective and detached clarity about it (Dreyfus, 1995). Knowing something best comes instead from direct access to the world through practical involvement. As life is unfolding in a holistic and dynamic way we should act our way into meaning by acting thinkingly (Weick, 1983). True comprehension lies in the direction of detachment.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/30/thrownness-7275826/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-23:/2009/10/23/the-technology-of-science-7230882/aysekok2009-10-23T17:31:21+02:002009-10-23T17:31:21+02:00 <p>The relation of knowledge and power is a very important question in every age. The idea “knowledge is power” has a specific meaning as in the modern age science has a highly technological characteristic. Technology is familiar with power, science is not, it is a contemplative practice.</p> <p>What is the technology of making good science? Is there a meta-technology and a meta-science, and of course, an interrelatedness. Yet, recent trends in philosophy of science and technology combine the elements of technological, philosophical and scientific meta-reflections often without any conscious reflection. Reaching a balanced position between these two is an important source of debates within philosophy of science. </p> <p>There are many forms of „technicization” of sciences, which is based on disregarding or eliminating the philosophical constituent of sciences. As a possible motivation of technicization, a need for an ideology-free science can be identified. On the other hand, the fragmented world of the postmodern age yields to a postmodern science, which is a very technicized one, like to computer and information science/technology.</p> <p>Eliminating technological constituents from science, the complicated role of philosophy in scientific practice becomes much clearer. The Kuhnian normal science does not think (however, normal scientists think), but the revolutionary science thinks.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/23/the-technology-of-science-7230882/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-22:/2009/10/22/imagination-7221973/aysekok2009-10-22T11:40:01+02:002009-10-22T11:40:01+02:00 <p>One of the key facilities of the human mind is imagination. The primary components of the mind include memory, imagination and invention working in harmony to allow the individual to know the world. Through memory of past experience the individual is connected to the "common sense," and largely through the medium of metaphor, original knowledge about the human world is created by using imagination (Arcero, 1997). The "new" scientist looks inward and outward<br> alternately in building knowledge of the world, and all aspects of culture are important sources of data for understanding, especially myth, poetry and other forms of artistic expression which essentially deal in the rhetoric of metaphor. The collective mind is revealed more through the material representations of its visions than its more "rational" productions. In Vico's words, "For when we wish to give utterance of our understanding of spiritual things, we must seek aid from our imagination to explain them, and like painters, form human images of them." Vico's epistemology is the antithesis of pure reason and logic, and appears at least somewhat related to Eastern mystic religions.</p> <p>In evolutionary biological terms, we have been designed to dream and imagine, to recombine sense and experience in our minds in various ways (Arcero, 1997). As Vico argues "All that guides imagination is an unwillingness to reduce the mind's uncertainty [what is going<br> on internally in terms of thought, both conscious and unconscious] by embracing what is familiar to the mind. This sense of ignorance leads us to reach out past our inclination to make experience familiar through the power of the concept and to engage the power of the image. We must reconstruct the human world not through concepts and criteria but as something we can practically see."</p> <p>Thus our creativity is part of us, part of the constant functioning of the mind, an integral aspect of the process of moment by moment constructing useful edifices of understanding (images) in our minds. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/22/imagination-7221973/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-19:/2009/10/19/the-fluidity-of-life-7200876/aysekok2009-10-19T15:05:10+02:002009-10-19T15:14:00+02:00 <p>No matter how thorough we are, there is a fundamental truth that cannot be avoided: there are always holes in wholeness. Life calls forth life, continually striving towards wholeness. While there are always milestones to celebrate along the way, change is a never-ending journey. The more we can be at peace with this, the more we can enter into the unknown with a spirit of adventure. </p> <p>There is always something outside of our frame of reference. Accepting this and getting<br> curious is a wonderful way to direct life-energy towards what else is possible. The following are to be taken into account during this process (Su, 2009):</p> <p> * Fluidity of Life - Life is always fluid. The unexpected and even unimaginable can and does happen at any time. And all things, scenarios, events can shift their course at any time: from bad to good, from good to bad. There is no good or bad, there just is. Surrendering to whatever that happens, without placing unnecessary importance holds the key to lasting happiness. At any moment, we have the choice to choose bliss, to see the light. </p> <p> * The Mind’s Reality - Our mind always makes unknown situations worse than they actually are. Its goal is to dwell on pain and problems. Often when we find out the truth, we feel instantly relieved that the “reality” of events wasn’t as bad as what we had imagined.</p> <p> * Building Intensity - All our frustration and inner suffering really has a purpose and benefit: they build the intensity in us that further encourages us to break free from the inner conflicts.</p> <p> * Seek to Understand, Drop Self Pity - When others behave in ways that we are not happy with, we better drop the self-pity story, bring in compassion, and try to understand why they are behaving in certain ways toward you. When we fail to truly see things from other people’s perspective we miss the chance to heal others and ourselves.</p> <p> * Everything is Auspicious - No matter how bad things seem there is always a reason that contributes positively towards us. There always exists an incredible gift in any “bad” situation, trust that you are always being taken care of by higher powers.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/19/the-fluidity-of-life-7200876/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-16:/2009/10/16/dealing-with-emergent-change-7179689/aysekok2009-10-16T09:28:33+02:002009-10-16T09:28:33+02:00 <p>There is an ever-present tension between two natural forces of change (Holman, 2009):</p> <p>• a drive for coherence -- for relationship, unity, community, wholeness – a coming together. Similar to atoms forming molecules, people join into communities, or long for contributing to something larger than ourselves.</p> <p>• a drive for differentiation -- individuality, distinction, uniqueness – a breaking apart. Similar to teenagers separating from parents to find their identity, we long to be accepted just as we are.</p> <p>Together these forces form a system for engaging emergence. Every designer works<br> with change and emergence in different ways. Three patterns support us during the chaotic process of emergence(Holman, 2009):</p> <p>• Engaging: taking responsibility for what we love as an act of service.<br> • Listening: sensing broadly and deeply, witnessing with self-discipline.<br> • Connecting: being with difference while finding common bonds.</p> <p>Ultimately,in order to make sense of emergent change we also need to get involved in the following acts (Holman, 2009): </p> <p>• Reflecting: sensing patterns, making meaning by naming what is ripening on behalf of the whole</p> <p>• Harvesting: sharing the stories through multiple modes and channels</p> <p>• Iterating: doing it again and again, integrating what we know into what’s novel.</p> <p>According to Holman (2009), these patterns help us shift from working with emergence to invoking it on behalf of the system:</p> <p>• Tuning in: being centered - calm in the storm and just enough storm in the calm.<br> • Focusing intentions: seeking meaningful futures, open to outcomes.<br> • Setting context: mindfully establishing initial conditions.</p> <p>In this way, we can establish a framework to make sense of the forces at play when we are facing change in a chaotic world. We can also have some insight into how to work with those forces, even take initiative to serve intentions that matter to us, those we care about, and the systems of which we are all a part.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/16/dealing-with-emergent-change-7179689/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-14:/2009/10/14/invoking-emergence-7167409/aysekok2009-10-14T12:57:53+02:002009-10-14T13:11:01+02:00 <p>The word "emergence" is usually related to surprises. By definition, if we know the steps to generate the desired outcomes, then emergence isn't happening. Yet, just because specific outcomes are unpredictable, doesn’t mean it is impossible to work with emergence. It just requires a shift in orientation. With clear intentions and a well-set context, it is possible to engage creatively with emergence.(Hogans, 09). </p> <p>While we can’t control emergence, we can use our knowledge to focus intentions to guide our work. We can disrupt established patterns, explore the diverse, often conflicting, aspects of<br> the system, and discern the differences that make a difference so that a novel whole arises that serves us all well (Hogans, 09). Hogans (09) suggests to ask the following questions for invoking emergence:</p> <p><em>• How do we disrupt coherence compassionately?<br> • How do we engage dissonance creatively?<br> • How do we realize novelty wisely?</em></p> <p>Similarly, in social systems, simple acts of individual entities can create higher-level order. Conversations among diverse people about complex topics may lead to unexpected breakthroughs.</p> <p>This is the nature of emergence. It is radically different from the predictable flow of<br> managed change. It requires opening to unfamiliar people or ideas, welcoming who and what appears. It takes reflecting on what we are noticing and making meaning of it. Once underway, it can create "a sense of excitement and spirit of possibility that become the hallmark of creation".(Hogans, 09).</p> <p class="center"><a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/media/photo/sacred_science/4001833" title="sacred_science"><img src="http://data6.blog.de/media/833/4001833_c252a50e55_m.jpeg" alt="sacred_science"></a></p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/14/invoking-emergence-7167409/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-12:/2009/10/12/complex-processes-of-human-relating-7152759/aysekok2009-10-12T14:21:36+02:002009-10-12T14:21:36+02:00 <p>The insights into the complexity sciences can be applied to human organisations. Organisations are comprised of a large number of individual agents who interact locally. They also have the ability to be both chaotic and stable at the same time and can demonstrate novelty and emergence. The pattern of behaviour we see in these systems is not constant, because when a system’s environment changes, so does the behaviour of its agents and, as a result, so does the behaviour of the system as a whole. In other words, the system is constantly adapting to the conditions around it. Over time, the system evolves through adaptation. A central core to this thinking is that complexity theory requires management to acknowledge the self organising and emergent properties of complex systems rather than managing organisations in a mechanistic way. As Stacey argues “in not attending to the limitations in systems thinking, they run the risk of simplification that subtly undermines the proclaimed challenge....” (Stacey, Griffin & Shaw, 1999.p.128.)</p> <p>Complexity science is a way of thinking that invites us to think from within our participation in the evolution of forms of identity. There is something deeper and bigger and more meaningful and if we work together in harmony we can tap into a greater something. In the creative world, conflict is important in the creative process and conflict and diversity may often often contribute to new and novel behaviour. The main questions to be asked are:</p> <p>• How have I come to be who I am?<br> • How have we come to be who we are?<br> • How are we all changing, evolving and learning?</p> <p>It is also crucial to keep in mind that conflict and tension are always an expected part when it comes to human relationships. We should get used to work within that creative tension and to feel comfortable with uncertainty. While traditional organisational management encourages uncertainty out of the system; complexity theory on the other hand encourages individuals to live happily within uncertainty.</p> <p class="center">"Don’t establish the<br> boundaries<br> first,<br> the squares, triangles,<br> boxes<br> of preconceived<br> possibility,<br> and then<br> pour<br> life into them, trimming<br> off left-over edges,<br> ending potential."<br> (Ammons, 1965).</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/12/complex-processes-of-human-relating-7152759/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-09:/2009/10/09/the-nature-of-wisdom-7130412/aysekok2009-10-09T11:12:50+02:002009-10-09T11:15:55+02:00 <p>Wisdom is often defined as an ability to make right choices. Dr. Robert Sternberg, a professor of Psychology and Education at Yale University, defines wisdom as the application of intelligence and experience as mediated by values toward the achievement of a common good through a balance among intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extrapersonal interests, over the short and long terms.</p> <p>There are some important points that Sternberg makes in his definition. Sternberg implies action in his definition of wisdom, through its application towards the achievement of a common good. It is crucial to understand the dualistic nature of wisdom’s movement. Quantum mechanics has taught us that neutrons, protons, and quarks are in constant motion. Yet from some perspectives, this river of wisdom seems still and unmoving (Felser, 2006). This is the nature of wisdom. </p> <p>Another distinguishing point of Sternberg’s definition is wisdom’s drive towards balance. It is a beneficial harmonizing in all interactions. Stephen R. Covey, author of the best selling book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Habits-Highly-Effective-People/dp/0743269519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255082455&sr=8-1">The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People</a>, says that the integrated individual uses clear guidance and true wisdom to direct their actions, thus bringing about a balanced character. Almost every major theology tells of this needed balance; with our minds, our bodies, and our environment. What name we give to this wholeness matters not, be it Tao, Allah, God, Elohim or any other, what matters is our active, balanced, moral understanding of the one flowing and living wisdom; to merge with the source of the river, becoming it (Felser, 2006). </p> <p>As seekers, spiritual people tend to search for knowledge, which is similar behavior to those who are described as being wise.” According to a study undertaken at the University of California-Davis- “The Wisdom Project”- 1,000 college alumni were asked for traits of wisdom and concluded that seeking spirituality, a way of relating to God, was an identifying attribute. In the article, “Finding the Wise People”, Dr. Jeff Myers says, “It occurred to me some time ago that the wisest people I know all have something in common: they voraciously seek wisdom!” This quest for wisdom, truth, and a personal relationship with the One, is by and far the most common trait amongst the wise. It helps one to pray to the Great Spirit for further knowledge of the One who is the source of all things (Felser, 2006). </p> <p>Immanuel Kant argues in his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Critique-Practical-Reason-Philosophical-Classics/dp/0486434451/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255082576&sr=1-1">Critique of Practical Reason</a> that people become immoral when they attempt to set a different standard for humanity than they do for themselves. </p> <p>When Abraham Maslow, presented his Theory of Human Motivation, he established a recognizable pattern in the self-realized, wise people and noted an inspired egoless compassion, amongst other things. Maslow's self-actualizers focused on concerns outside of themselves; they liked solitude and privacy more than the average person, and they tended to be more detached than ordinary from the dictates and expectations of their culture. They were inner-directed people. They were creative, too, and appreciated the world around them with a sense of awe and wonder. These traits, indeed, pave the way to wisdom. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/09/the-nature-of-wisdom-7130412/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-07:/2009/10/07/forms-of-knowledge-7117128/aysekok2009-10-07T13:17:36+02:002009-10-07T13:17:36+02:00 <p>Contrary to the English language, the Welsh language has at least six different terms for knowledge processes and types of knowledge, each with their distinct meaning. The general word for knowledge in Welsh refers to 'knowing-ness' rather than knowledge. Jenny Hughes has produced ana analysis of these terms. While the first three relate to knowledge absorption the latter ones refer to knowledge generation:</p> <p>- <strong>Cynnull:</strong> To gather knowledge (as in acquisition) along life's way<br> <strong>- Cynhaeaf:</strong> To harvest (purposefully) knowledge or to set up systems for harnessing knowledge<br> <strong>- Cymrodedd:</strong> To compromise what you know to accomodate the unknown<br> <strong>- Cynnau:</strong> To light knowledge- knowledge sharing that is an active process and implicit opposed to knowledge exchange that is a different concept<br> <strong>- Cynllunplas:</strong> To design new knowledge<br> <strong>- Cynyddu:</strong> To increase existing knowledge</p> <p>In terms of different types of knowledge the following terms are available. While the former 3 are internal the latter ones are external:</p> <p>-<strong> Cynhenid:</strong> Original, congenital knowledge<br> <strong>- Cynhwynol:</strong> Innate knowledge (collective)<br> <strong>- Cymrodeddol:</strong> Compromised knowledge- knowledge adjusted to cope with the unknown<br> <strong>- Cymdeithasol:</strong> Sociable knowledge, not social skills but knowledge about the social context in which it is used<br> <strong>- Cynefin:</strong> Shared and passed on knowledge- implies usual, accustomed knowledge<br> <strong>- Cynddelw:</strong> Archetype/model/exemplary knowledge </p> <p>Most valuable distinction may be the one between "Cynyddu"- to increase knowledge- and "Cymrodedd"- to compromise what you know to accomodat ethe unknown. A quick hypothesis would suggest taht much formal learning is "Cynyddu"- building upon existing knowledge. Yet, much informal learning in our Digital Age- learning through Information Communication Technologies- falls into the definition of "Cymrodedd"- to comprise what you know to accomodate the unknown. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/07/forms-of-knowledge-7117128/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-05:/2009/10/05/dealing-with-big-bang-problems-of-life-7102591/aysekok2009-10-05T12:08:08+02:002009-10-05T12:09:00+02:00 <p>When we look out into the future and try our best to make wise decisions, we only find ourselves staring into uncertainties. It happens to all of us that we confront this deeper dilemma: How do we strike a balance between prediction - believing that we can see past these uncertainties when in fact we can't - and paralysis - letting the uncertainties freeze us into inactivity? </p> <p>Questions like these are known as "long fuse, big bang" problems (Schwartz, 1970). Whatever you decide to do will play out with a big bang, but it can take years to learn whether your decision was wise or not. Worse yet, "long fuse, big bang" questions don't lend themselves to traditional analysis; it's simply impossible to research away the uncertainties on which the success of a key decision will hang (Wilkinson). </p> <p>Given the impossibility of knowing precisely how the future will play out, a good decision or strategy to adopt is one that plays out well across several possible futures. To find that "robust" strategy, scenarios are created in plural, such that each scenario diverges markedly from the others (Schwartz, 1970). </p> <p>Yet, the purpose of scenario planning is making large-scale forces visible rather than pinpointing future events so that the planner will at least recognize them (Schwartz, 1970). It's about helping make better decisions today.</p> <p>Scenario planning begins by identifying the focal issue or decision. There are an infinite number of stories that we could tell about the future; our purpose is to tell those that matter, that lead to better decisions. So we begin the process by agreeing on the issue that we want to address. </p> <p>Some of the decisions we make today will make sense across all of the futures. Others will make sense only in one or two. The decisions that make sense in only one or some of the scenarios are tricky. For these we want to know the "early warning signs" that tell us those scenarios are beginning to unfold (Schwartz, 1970). Sometimes, the leading indicators for a given scenario are obvious, but often they are subtle. The main point is to be aware of these critical uncertainties and warning signs.</p> <p>Ultimately, scenario planning helps us understand the uncertainties and what they might mean. It helps us "rehearse" our responses to those possible futures. And it helps us spot them as they begin to unfold. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/05/dealing-with-big-bang-problems-of-life-7102591/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-10-02:/2009/10/02/religion-in-a-postmodern-society-7084219/aysekok2009-10-02T13:03:43+02:002009-10-02T13:10:45+02:00 <p>Before the practitioners of New or Alternative Spiritualities are influencing the twenty-first century such as Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer,Dalai Lama, Charles Leadbeater, Shirley Maclaine, Rudolf Steiner and Neale Donald Walsch; the ideas of Hegel, Marx, Darwin and Freud dominated much of twentieth-century Western thought in very broad terms. </p> <p>New Age spirituality arose from various sources including Hindu and Buddhist thought, Jungian analysis and alternative healing traditions. </p> <p>The New Spiritualities (including New Age) cover a vast collection of ideas and starting points where the themes of personal transformation loom large. Within this context, the purpose of life is to simply grow, learn and spiritually evolve.</p> <p>At a popular or consumer level, it involves a “mix and match” approach that draws<br> on a wide range of sources. Spiritual inspiration can be drawn from existing religions, however, it is often drawn from the mystical streams such as Medieval Christian mystics, tantric Buddhism or Sufism (Islamic mysticism).</p> <p>The pace of life does not leave much time for deep philosophical reflection. What matters to people is finding a workable, practical spirituality that relates to their daily experiences. This does not mean that truth is irrelevant to them, but that seekers want to know, “Does it work?” before they will experiment to see if “it is true.” Not interacting with those whose worldview is shaped by “practical post-modernity” has been a weakness in the way the religious institutions generally function and this has created their missional failure (Johnson, 2006).</p> <p>Belief systems should be both intensely spiritual and intensely intellectually vigorous. Religious institutions should be listening, journeying, creative and holistic. They should be calling for an engagement that truly meets, dialogues and challenges people living in a culture known as post-modernity. By acknowledging that the current witness and evangelistic methods are problematic they might be prepared to revise their own approaches and methods (Johnson, 2006).</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/10/02/religion-in-a-postmodern-society-7084219/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-30:/2009/09/30/the-evolution-of-the-complex-organization-7068608/aysekok2009-09-30T12:51:27+02:002009-09-30T12:54:54+02:00 <p>Complexity science might appear to have no relation to the organizational studies. Yet, it is at the core of today's network organization. An overview of the evolution of the organization might make this relationship more clear. </p> <p>There are four forms of organization that underlie the governance and evolution of all societies across the ages (Ronfeldt, 2006):</p> <p>- The tribal form: Beginning thousands of years ago, its main dynamic is kinship, which gives people a distinct sense of identity and belonging. </p> <p>- The institutional form: Emphasizing hierarchy, it led to the development of the state and the military. Initial examples are the Roman Empire, the Catholic papacy and other corporate enterprises. </p> <p>- The market form: It enables people to excel at openly competitive, free, and fair economic exchanges. Although present in ancient times, it did not gain sway until the 19th century, at first mainly in England.</p> <p>- The network form: It serves to connect dispersed groups and individuals so that they may coordinate and act conjointly. Enabled by the digital information-technology revolution, this form is only now coming into its own, so far strengthening civil society more than other realms. </p> <p><a href="http://www.blog.co.uk/media/photo/slide1/3951331" title="Slide1"><img src="http://data6.blog.de/media/331/3951331_be6f3d4ece_m.jpg" alt="Slide1"></a></p> <p>Each of the four forms embodies a distinctive set of structures, processes, beliefs, and dynamics about how society should be organized — about who gets to achieve what, why, and how. Each involves different codes and standards about how agents should treat each other. Each has both bright and dark sides, both strengths and weaknesses. And each can be gotten “right” or “wrong” in various ways, depending on circumstances.</p> <p>As the complexity science suggests (although the system appears to be chaotic, over time a deep order is revealed), once a form is subscribed to by many agents, it becomes more than a mere form: It develops into a new realm, even a system, of thought and behavior. Each is a generator of order, because each defines a set of interactions that are attractive, powerful, and useful enough to create a distinct realm of activity (Ronfeldt, 2006). Each becomes the basis for a new governance system that is self-regulating. And each tends to foster a different kind of worldview, for each orients people differently toward social space, time, and action. What is deemed rational — how a “rational agent” should behave — is different for each form; no single “utility function” suits them all (Ronfeldt, 2006).</p> <p>The main story is that human-beings advance by learning to use and combine all four forms, in a preferred progression. What ultimately matters is how these organziational forms are added and how well they function together. They are not substitutes for each other; they are complements. Historically, a society’s progress depends on its ability to use all four forms and combine them (and their realms) into a coherent, well-balanced, well-functioning whole.</p> <p>For an organization to progress optimally, no single form should be allowed to dominate any other, and none should be suppressed or eliminated. An organization’s potential to function well at a given stage, and to evolve to a higher level of complexity, depends on its ability to integrate these inherently contradictory forms into a well-functioning whole. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/30/the-evolution-of-the-complex-organization-7068608/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-28:/2009/09/28/a-complexity-science-perspective-7053372/aysekok2009-09-28T09:22:22+02:002009-09-28T09:27:02+02:00 <p>Although the science of complex systems was initially applied to physical and biological systems, its application to human organizations has become more widely recognized.</p> <p>Complex systems dynamically evolve over time and exhibit the properties of self organization, emergence, and co-evolution. Self-organization is the tendency of many systems to generate new structures and patterns over time on the basis of its own internal dynamics—order emerges from patterns of relationships among individuals. </p> <p>When we use complexity science to view the problems and issues we face in every day life,our attention is focused differently than when we use other, more traditional mental models.</p> <p>Complexity science provides the following practical suggestions:</p> <p>■ The quality of the relationships among individuals is more than important than the quality of the individual agents. We are sensitive to the fact that relationships are nonlinear and dynamic, and therefore, often result in high levels of surprise and uncertainty.</p> <p>■ We focus on the co-evolution of the system with the environment rather than how the system adapts to the environment.</p> <p>■ We encourage diversity among individuals and leverage this diversity to foster learning and evolution instead of attempting to socialize it away or minimize its effect.</p> <p>■ We recognize that the system is a social entity. We try to use the social relationships to foster sense-making, learning, improvisation, and other functions that require interaction.</p> <p>■ We acknowledge that the system exists on a multidimensional fitness landscape and that the interactions among the dimensions will be an important factor in the system development over time.</p> <p>■ We acknowledge that any one is a part of the system itself and not an external<br> observer or manipulator of the system.</p> <p>In summary, there is a shift in our thinking away from single events or processes toward thinking in terms of patterns, interrelated processes, and relationships. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/28/a-complexity-science-perspective-7053372/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-25:/2009/09/25/science-spirituality-7037982/aysekok2009-09-25T13:09:12+02:002009-09-25T13:09:12+02:00 <p>Both science and spirituality search for the truth, but use completely different tools and interpret their results on completely different grounds. As Albert Einstein (1940)said "Science without faith is lame, religion without science is blind." So, science (objectivity) and spirituality (subjectivity) are complementary to each other and we need both. </p> <p>Science models empirical data: derives a model (hypothesis, theory) which<br> describes measurements and, if the model describes the data accurately, reliably and repeatedly, it is eventually accepted to be a (natural) law. If new measurements deviate from the current knowledge, the laws are changed/widened in order to correspond also to new measurements. Science limits itself with objective principles and admits only the rational mind, which is limited with symbolic representation. Science is interested in HOW the nature operates and is not concerned in WHY the universe exists and what is the purpose of life. Many scientists assume that the universe and the life appeared by chance and that there is no deeper purpose of existence.</p> <p>On the other hand, spirituality is mainly concerned with the purpose of life. In all traditions, spiritual movements and all religions, from the east and the west, we can find the same basic issues:</p> <p>² the purpose of life goes beyond the materialistic world;</p> <p>² everything that exists is one, originates from the same source and serves the same purpose;</p> <p>² the truth is undescribable and unreachable to logical mind, it is necessary that everyone tries to feel it by him or herself by subjective experience;</p> <p>² the purpose of life is learning, the goal is to overcome the limitations of ego, to subjectively recognize the truth and to attain the wisdom;</p> <p>² spiritual life is based on cultivation of spiritual virtues, such as unconditional love, compassion, faith, humility, patience, tolerance, simplicity, spontaneity, modesty, courage, sincerity, forgiveness etc.</p> <p>Spirituality is necessarily subjective and uses intuitive mind, inner sense - heart.</p> <p>Philosophy uses both science and spirituality, objective and subjective experience, in order to achieve the balance and harmony between rational and intuitive mind, between head and heart. True philosophy deals<br> with both questions, how the universe operates and why universe exists and what is the purpose of life. As Dalai Lama has stated: “We need education and the sense of moral ethics - these two have to go together.”</p> <p>Although consciousness is often related to intelligence it has a deeper meaning and purpose; it is necessarily connected with ethics of life. Intelligence without heart is unconscious intelligence, able to demolish and destroy the environment</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/25/science-spirituality-7037982/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-23:/2009/09/23/the-science-of-religion-7025560/aysekok2009-09-23T16:28:42+02:002009-09-23T16:40:18+02:00 <p>There is a vast number of potential religious concepts, beliefs, and practices. Is there something that religious concepts have in common that explains why they have been preserved and passed down to new generations?</p> <p>Regarding the science of religion, most of the theoretical contributions have been made from the field of cognitive science. From cognitive science perspective, Boyer introduces the idea of a template that allows for quick development of more particular concepts. We have only a small number of templates such as person, animal, object. Boyer’s thesis regarding religious concepts is that they are anomalous, in that they add a special tag that violates one or a few characteristics contributed by the template. Some examples, a spirit violates the PERSON template by adding to it that it has no body. An omniscient God is created from the PERSON template with added special cognitive powers.</p> <p>From among an infinite number of possible religious concepts, the ones we actually find in the world have survived and spread because they have this feature of minimal anomalousness. So, they are concepts that are easily formed by slight alteration of a template and they happen to be more memorable simply as a result of how the human mind or brain works.</p> <p>In addition, we have inference systems that are turned on by different kinds of entities. These are sometimes called cognitive modules. To the extent, then, that religious concepts have enough in common with ordinary concepts, they set off these inference systems, and this makes some sets of beliefs about the relevant entities natural, and therefore likely to be understood, remembered, elaborated in specific ways, and passed on to others.</p> <p>Boyer says that a typical assumption by and about religious believers is that belief in gods or spirits comes first, and then both religious practices and moral prescriptions follow. Boyer believes that morality and religious practices take priority, and both of these make religious belief more plausible. </p> <p>Our evolution as a social species is sufficient to explain our shared morality. However, without an evolutionary explanation, humans through the ages have needed some other explanation (Boyer, 1998). </p> <p>In terms of a science of religion, it can be said that as human brains have evolved to work in ways that suited us for survival in our early environments, religious concepts, belief systems, practices, and rituals are natural by-products of these cognitive processes.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/23/the-science-of-religion-7025560/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-18:/2009/09/18/the-spiritual-evolution-6989506/aysekok2009-09-18T11:01:35+02:002009-09-18T11:02:49+02:00 <p>Spiritual growth is a journey into a greater macrocosm. In its earlier stages, it is a journey of knowledge and not of faith. In order to escape the microcosm of our previous experiences we must learn. We must continually expand the realm of knowledge and our field of vision through the incorporation of new information.</p> <p>To develop a broader vision we must be willing to forsake our narrower vision. The road of spiritual growth lies in distrusting what we already believe and questioning everything. </p> <p>Self-realization is also related to spiritual growth. It might be referred to as the perception of the divinity and the perfection of the world (Bucke, 1998). Cosmic consciosness, 'I-thou' relationship, 'Being-cognition' are terms often associated with self-realization (Buber, 2003). It is also called as the perception of the miracolous. Miraculous does not necessarily refer to an extraordinary phenomena but also to the commonplace as long as enough attention is paid to it. It ıs a matter of paying close attention to what is ever-present. The true wonder lies in understanding that we are part of a finely balanced ecosystem in which individuation goes hand in hand interdependency. Perception of the miraculous is the subjective essence of self-realization from which one's highest experiences grow (Washburn, 2006). </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/18/the-spiritual-evolution-6989506/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-16:/2009/09/16/sensing-the-whole-6977505/aysekok2009-09-16T16:33:32+02:002009-09-16T16:33:32+02:00 <p>A system is composed of parts, yet it cannot be understood by only looking at its parts. We need to work with the whole of a system, even as we work with individual parts or isolated problems. From a systems consciousness, we understand that no problem or behavior can be understood in isolation. We must account for dynamics operating in the whole system that display themselves at different times. Only then can we realize that what looked like chaos reveals inherent order or that paired electrons that refuse to act individually exhibit a wholeness.</p> <p>As our traditional analytic skills narrow our field of awareness and prevent us from seeing the total system we move deeper into the details instead of comprehending the wholeness of the system. Yet, at the quantum level it does not help to analyze thıngs in more detail (Durr, 2007).</p> <p>Philosophers and scientists described their own ways of understanding the wholeness for many centuries. As the German philosopher Heidegger states we need a 'dwelling consciousness' to understand the whole phenomenon. When we dwell with a problem we move quietly into our senses, away from our analytic skills. We look for images, words and patterns that surface and try to pick impressions and to notice how something feels.</p> <p>The great German philosopher Goethe applied his genius to the problem of seeing the wholeness of nature. He tried to understand any phenomenon in terms of its relationship to other phenomenon. According to Goethe, we should move from interrogation to receptivity and be open to what is occuring. Only then can we allow ourselves to be influenced by a whole that we can't see. We can dwell with the phenomenon and feel how it makes itself known to us (Wheatley, 2007).</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/16/sensing-the-whole-6977505/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-14:/2009/09/14/sailing-through-chaos-6960607/aysekok2009-09-14T12:34:30+02:002009-09-14T12:35:46+02:00 <p>The mechanistic view promised us lives of continual progress. Since we were in control and engineering it all, we believe that we could pull ourselves straight uphill. But life doesn't work that way. No rebirth is possible without moving through a dark passage. Dark times are normal to life; there is nothing wrong with us when we periodically plunge into the abyss (Wheatley, 2006).</p> <p>The journey to newness is filled with the black potholes of chaos. It might be terrifying when the world we so carefully held together dissolves. We don't like feeling lost and emptied of meaning. We would prefer an easier path to transformation. But even as we experience the demands as unreasonable we know we are in partnership with great creative forces. We know that chaos is a necessary place to dwell occasionally (Wheatley, 2006). So, we have learned to sit with these dark moments-confused, overwhelmed, only faintly trusting that new insight will appear. This might be the only route to new ways of being.</p> <p>The more we contenmplate these times, when we truly are giving birth to a new world view, the more we realize that our culture is presently journeying through chaos. As the old ways are dissolving we must engage with one another differently, as explorers and discoverers. No single person or school of thought has the answer as what we need is far beyond isolated answers. We can turn to one another as our best hope for inventing and discovering the worlds we are seeking. Thanks to the proliferation of Web 2.0 technologies we can make this discovery collaboratively and much easier. </p> <p>We can no longer wait expectantly for the right solution as we are each required to begin our individual journeys. We do need to be sharing what we find. From each other, we need to learn what is possible. Another's success encourages is to continue our own search for a fulfilled life. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/14/sailing-through-chaos-6960607/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-11:/2009/09/11/wisdom-leadership-6941819/aysekok2009-09-11T12:15:43+02:002009-09-11T12:15:43+02:00 <p>Leaders need behavioural and cognitive complexity to be able to respond effectively to organisational needs. </p> <p>Behavioural complexity identifies a person’s capacity to cope with “the interplay of a volatile, complex, and potentially ambiguous environment” (Satish, 1997). </p> <p>Cognitive complexity is founded on the “number of dimensions used by individuals to perceive environmental stimuli”, and integration, “the complexity of rules used by individuals in organising the differentiated dimensions” (Wang & Chan, 1995). However, although these are necessary components of leadership they are not sufficient. One must also have the capacity to understand the categorical foundations of knowledge systems and the context in which this foundation derives its meaning, or “common sense”. To practice this acuity, a leader needs reflexivity and agency. Reflexivity is a capacity to transcend the here and now. </p> <p>To be able to step outside these ideological structures requires considerable ability, an ability that we claim strongly characterises wise leadership. Malan and Kriger (1998: 246) acknowledge such a characteristic when they say that a major executive challenge is “to filter and interpret the noise from within their own organizations and determine the salient points on which to act”. So, leaders should filter the enormous amount of knowledge present in organisational discourse. Such knowledge may often be simply data and information, and all knowledge is ideologically invested in some way. Those uncomfortable with the notion of ideology would, nonetheless, accept the proposition that all knowledge makes sense only within an assumed episteme and the appropriate ontological structures that accompany it.</p> <p>Rabinow (2005) explained discursive diachronicity in this way:</p> <p>"from time to time, and always in time, new forms emerge that catalyze previously existing actors, things, temporalities, or spatialities into a new mode of existence, a new assemblage, one that makes things work in a different manner and produces and instantiates new capacities. A form/event makes many other things more or less suddenly conceivable".</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/11/wisdom-leadership-6941819/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-09:/2009/09/09/wise-leadership-6931494/aysekok2009-09-09T17:19:14+02:002009-09-09T17:19:14+02:00 <p>Being sceptical of the “facts”, orthodoxy, and “common sense” and showing a fluid intelligence (Sternberg, 2007) are well-known aspects of wisdom. Wise people focus at the right level or aspect by choosing what “facts” are salient in a given situation. In other words, they “filter and interpret the noise from within their own organizations and determine the salient points on which to act”. </p> <p>When it comes to leadership wisdom plays a crucial role, as well. The characteristics of wise leaders are (Rooney, McKenna, 2006):</p> <p>- Wise leaders make careful observations to establish facts and logical deductive explanations. Rather than being misunderstood as anti-rationalist they utilize insight, imagination, and foresight that occur outside a consciously rational process of intersubjective verification.</p> <p>- On the other hand, wise leaders also allow for non-rational and subjective elements when making decisions. They acknowledge the sensory and visceral as important components of decision-making and judgment. They have a capacity to think creatively and to acknowledge the potential worth of one's own instincts in making judgments.</p> <p>- Wise people can grasp the meaning of “several, often contradictory signals and stimuli”, they interpret them holistically, and adapt their cognitions (e.g., schema).</p> <p>- Wise leaders have a metaphysical, even spiritual, quality that does not bind them absolutely to the rules of reason thereby enabling vision, insight and foresight.</p> <p>- Wise leaders respect and draw upon tradition as a form of personal insight enabling them to understand the contingency of life and the constructedness of phenomena, particularly their historical and spatial contexts.</p> <p>- Given their cognitive complexity, wise leaders have a capacity to seek out and understand the “facts” of a situation and to deal with them rationally, but also to understand and question the ontological basis of these facts. As Eflin said "The greater an enquirer's ability to move fluidly between producing alternatives and evaluating them and to operate at both levels simultaneously, the better she will be at finding valuable discoveries.” </p> <p>- - Because wise leaders are humane, they produce virtuous and tolerant decisions.<br> A wise leader displays long-term vision and virtue; having a proven commitment to long-term welfare not just of immediate stakeholders, but of humanity in general. </p> <p>- Finally, a wise leader is articulate; having a proven capacity to reach people through word, affect, and action.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/09/wise-leadership-6931494/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:aysekok.blog.co.uk,2009-09-07:/2009/09/07/timelessness-6912593/aysekok2009-09-07T15:54:18+02:002009-09-07T15:54:18+02:00 <p>An astronomer asked his Master what time means. The Master said:"You would measure time the measureless and the immeasurable. You would adjust your conduct and even direct the course of your spirit according to hours and seasons. Of time you would make a stream upon whose bank you would sit and watch its flowing."</p> <p>Yet, the timeless in you is aware of life's timelessness (Gibran, 2006). It knows that yesterday is but today's memory and tomorrow is today's dream (Gibran, 2006). Gibran says:</p> <p>"That which sings and contemplates in you is still dwelling within the bounds of that first moment that scattered the stars into space. Each of us feels that very love, though boundless, encompassed within the center of his being and moving from love deeds to other love deeds. Like love, time is undivided and paceless. But in your thought you must measure time into seasons, let each circle encircle all the other seasons. And let to-day embrace the past with remembrance and the future with longing." </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://aysekok.blog.co.uk/2009/09/07/timelessness-6912593/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>