    
|
|
21st February 2006 | Draft
Council of the Whysemergent wisdom through configuration of why-question dynamics- / - [See also website of Union of the Whys (2007)] Introduction
IntroductionThis exploration responds to an increasing sense of the multiplicity of perspectives perceived as relevant to understanding and navigating the world -- whether as an individual, a group or in terms of governance of the world itself. The challenge is exemplified by:
The challenge can of course be understood as how to unify such matters within a coherently ordered framework, duly discarding that which is judged irrelevant or of inferior quality. The approach here is however to explore how those sensitive to this variety, whatever its quality -- and the complex dynamics associated with it -- might understand their relationship to each other and to any coherence emerging from such appreciation. The focus is therefore on avoiding premature closure on particular patterns of order in response to any particular sense of urgency. As a methodological device, the challenge is framed in terms of the dynamics amongst the "whys" -- as questions -- rather than amongst the "wise" imbued by such questions in order to provide "answers" and closure. Hence a concern with the dynamics of a hypothetical Council of the Whys rather than of a Council of the Wise. In a sense the wise may then be understood as driven or ridden by questions such as "why" -- however these are understood as related to other classical questions such as "what", "where", "when", "which", "who" (including "whom" and "whose"), or "how", collectively studied as "WH-questions" (cf Engaging with Questions of Higher Order: cognitive vigilance required for higher degrees of twistedness, 2004; Functional Complementarity of Higher Order Questions: psycho-social sustainability modelled by coordinated movement, 2004 ). Such questions are notably of significance in the design of information search engines. The assumption in what follows is that "why" questions are fruitfully considered as more fundamental than other WH-questions -- or than the answers which they may engender for reframing individual or collective strategy. The issue is the contrast between question-based dialogue and answer-based dialogue -- and the proportion of time devoted to questions and their improvement, as opposed to that devoted to answering questions that are essentially inadequate to the challenge. Council of the WhysIn considering a hypothetical Council of the Whys, the question of "who" might form part of such a collective identity, or "what" its purpose might be, is set aside in what follows, as with the questions of "where" it might be located, "when" it emerged or with "which" priorities it is faced. The concern here is rather with "how" it might be understood to function and how its dynamics might possibly be described. As an archetypal roundtable, the Council of the Whys might then be understood as at the centre of a pattern of concentric circles (spheres or hyperspheres). In the innermost, the preoccupation would then be with the multiplicity of "whys", whereas outer circles (spheres or hyperspheres) might be successively preoccupied with "whats", "wheres", or "whens". The outermost might then be usefully associated with "hows". This suggests a progression from "external" mundane, concrete preoccupations to "inner" essentials or existentials. Why-questions might indeed be understood as closely associated with the so-called "essence of humanity" and how this is distinguished from the consciousness of animals (and possibly of plants). The latter typically have effectively to formulate or answer questions of:
Is there any implication that animals (or plants), however "curious" or "puzzled", are confronted with the question of "why" as such, rather than its reduction into other WH-questions? By contrast, it is through why-questions that the framing of questions is challenged -- potentially they are a "mise en question" of extant patterns. It is for such reasons that the 5th Annual Edge Question (2002) of the World Question Center (of the Edge Foundation) was: "What is your question? Why?" This was considered to reflect the spirit of the Edge motto:
Fundamental to the domain of Whys are of course the perspectives from which questions of "why" might emerge. Such perspectives might be understood in part as defining sectors of human preoccupation as conventionally understood: health, education, security, employment, environment, technology, relationship, etc. The "inner" concentric circles might then be understood as concerned with the particular principles or values associated with each perspective, however much these seemingly distinct sectoral preoccupations became interwined, entangled and reframed within the dynamics amongst the "whys". In more conventional terms, the distinction between "inner" and "outer" circles might then be crudely seen as:
Why-question dysfunctionality vs Why-question aversionThese and related issues are discussed at greater length in an Annex (Question Avoidance, Evasion, Aversion and Phobia: why we are unable to escape from traps, 2006). For the dynamics of the Council of the Whys, the challenge is then how resonance between the "whys" can be meaningfully and fruitfully achieved across the range of perspectives, whilst avoiding entrapment in the answers they may too readily engender. How is a sterile pattern of repetitious, rhetorical, or circular questioning avoided in order to inhibit unfruitful intellectual "games"? Such intellectualization has been identified as a danger in the Gestalt Therapy of Fritz Perls. In the Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) meta-model, for example, there is a concern to avoid asking the question "why" because there is then a tendency to feel a need to defend what has been said or done, or to make excuses or rationalize behaviour. Whereas a ‘how’ question provides a better understanding of the process [more]. Matt Lee (An Approach to An Introduction to Metaphysics: on the desire of being) offers a discussion of the slippery regressive slope of Martin Heidegger's question "why the why":
A why-question, especially in conventional therapeutic contexts, may be framed as disempoweringly "negative" to the highest degree. Such aversion may even amount to why-phobia. This might be understood as favouring a questioning process that would amount to what could be described as a cognitive form of the current lifestyle trend of cocooning -- enabling only those questions that sustain what has now been recognized as a "psychological cocoon" (cf Dynamically Gated Conceptual Communities: emergent patterns of isolation within knowledge society, 2004). Disruption of an agenda, righteously and unquestionably assumed to be appropriate, is then naturally seen as inappropriate [more more more]. In contrast to such "why shy" perceptions by those identified with psychosocial change, a commitment to why-questions is to be found amongst those concerned with change in the business world [more more]. For the dynamics of the Council -- to avoid entrapment in either extreme -- this calls for an appropriate balance between "positive" and "negative" (cf Being Positive Avoiding Negativity: management challenge -- positive vs negative, 2005). In this sense, the Council of the Whys would be vigilant regarding the dangers of systematic why-avoidance, as illustrated by the quote much-favoured in management schools: Having lost sight of our objectives, we redoubled our efforts (attributed to Walt Kelly). Adapted as a warning regarding Council dynamics, this could read: Having lost understanding of why we continue this initiative, we redoubled our efforts. The pressure on the Council to elicit fruitful why-questions (to avoid the complementary danger of becoming trapped in cycles of repetitious, inappropriate why-questions) is however well illustrated by the saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (attributed to George Santayana) Of particular concern for such a Council, might be its own vulnerability to fragmentation, its associated loss of coherence, as well as any loss of identity as a viable context for such dynamics. The challenge for the Council, and a prime reason for framing "why" as "negative" or destructive, is that "whys" can in effect function like the archetypal "universal solvent" of alchemy. This is known as the “Liquor Alcahest” (Alkahest, Aqua Permanens, Ab-e-Hyat or "prickling, fiery essence") -- alluding to its ability to dissolve or reduce all physical matter to its basic essence, releasing it from its bonds to the past [more]. This suggests another way of understanding a "burning question". In effect a why-question opens up the possibility of alternatives, questioning the accepted frame and effectively setting it aside -- as in "out-of-the-box" thinking. Other WH-questions tend to remain within-the-frame ("in-the-box") and even to reinforce it. The Council dynamics therefore have to self-organize to provide a container for such a "universal solvent" -- a traditional challenge of alchemy (of which "psychological cocooning" is perhaps a faint echo). In physical terms the challenge bears a strong relation to providing a container for plasma in nuclear fusion reactors (see below). Frederick Turner (The Universal Solvent: Meditations on the Marriage of World Cultures, 2006) explores the nature of such a solvent in cultural terms (that relate to the cognitive challenge of the Council of the Whys):
The issue for the Council of the Whys, within the alchemical metaphor, is to purify its cognitive "body" until it is able to identify with its "divine essence". When that is achieved, the "water of life" pours forth and takes away all remaining dross, leaving "pure gold". The aspirations for nuclear fusion, as an enduring source of energy for global society, could be expressed in similar language. Whys as collectively associated with a form of Prima MateriaIn seeking to understand the elusive dynamics of Whys, there is a need to use metaphor to describe the "insubstantial matter" of which "whys" are composed (possibly a cognitive variant of the Prima Materia explored by C G Jung) -- and of how it might take various forms in the course of any transformative dynamics in that domain. What indeed is transformed when a why-question is transformed -- when it is not transformed by reduction (through habit or instinct) into a who-question, a what-question, a when-question, a which-question, a where-question or a how-question, or "quenched" by an answer? It might be argued that "why" is more intimately associated with the experience of meaning and meaningfulness than are other typical WH-questions. Meaning is that which "why" seeks and evokes in contrast to the more tangible, tactical outcomes of other WH-questions. Meaning is that which emerges through those dynamics and thereby nourishes the Council of the Whys. In going this route it is of course important to avoid closure on what is a "why" or on the psychodynamics of asking such a question (perhaps to be called "why-ring" or "why-nding", as suggested below ). This epistemological reservation is a classic feature of:
The need for such an approach has also been argued elsewhere (cf Union of Intelligible Associations: remembering dynamic identity through a dodecameral mind, 2005; Comprehension of Appropriateness, 1986). The challenges associated with closure have been usefully explored by Hilary Lawson (Closure: A Story of Everything, 2001) who confirms that "things" emerge through closure:
Orrin Klapp (Opening and Closing: strategies of information adapation in society, 1978) explores the need for appropriate balance with openness in an information society. Curiously there is a sense in which the evocation of meaning in Whys, through the continuing process of formulating why-questions, is necessarily associated with exposure to meaninglessness and chaos -- and is even triggered by it. The mountains of meaning are in this sense necessarily defined by the valleys of meaninglessness that separate them. Why bother? Within such a metaphor, a plateau (of the height of the highest mountains) is as much associated with meaning as with meaninglessness. Meaning, in this sense, is then fundamentally associated with difference (cf George Spencer-Brown, Laws of Form, 1969). The approach here is to refine a language or cognitive tool through which "whys" of various kinds may be variously understood and expressed -- a language with a degree of isomorphic relationship to the forms that why-questions might take. It is from such understanding that the questions can be addressed of how the dynamics of Whys can more fruitfully engage with the preoccupations of other WH-questions, notably regarding more concrete matters. As already noted in 1980 by W. Wahlster (Towards a Computational Model for the Semantics of Why-Questions):
Re-distribution of significance through various sets of categories -- metaphorically framedThe relevance of the use of metaphor in this kind of exploration has been notably established by the collaborative work of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (Metaphors We Live By, 1980; Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, 1999) and subsequent cognitive studies (cf George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez, Where Mathematics Comes From: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being, 2001). Of particular relevance here is the way in which the nature of "why", and the dynamics between "whys", is intimately related to the nature of the cognitive engagement with the number of distinct issues in play. This number is an obvious indicator of the complexity, and the associated tensions, that evoke a sense of "why" in seeking to understand a situation -- whether or not there is any question of controlling it or responding to it in other ways. The challenge of a juggler comes to mind as the number of objects increases and subtler techniques are required to sustain a dynamic rather than have it degrade catastrophically (in some kind of "quenching" process). The following table distinguishes between the "mysteries" of "why" -- as the number of issues, or factors, in play increases or decreases (cf Andrius Kulikauskas, AddOne, Glossary of Structure, 2004; Kirby Urner, Functions and Generators, 2006). This follows from a more detailed experimental exploration elsewhere (Distinguishing Levels of Declarations of Principles, 1980). The table below focuses on the mysterious quality to understanding why the number of factors (in a pattern through which a given situation is comprehended):
In either case the "why" that is of interest has more to do with why the cognitive trap is framed and constrained -- to a degree of satisfaction (a sense of "goodness of fit") for those involved -- in terms of a given number of factors (cf Representation, Comprehension and Communication of Sets: the Role of Number, 1978; Distinguishing Levels of Declarations of Principles, 1980). This can be usefully understood in the light of the understanding of early policy scientist Geoffrey Vickers: "A trap is a function of the nature of the trapped" (Freedom in a Rocking Boat: changing values in an unstable society, 1970).
The "mysterious" quality of these integrative challenges of course lends itself to the extensive "mystification" seemingly cultivated by groups with esoteric preoccupations and sympathies. Typically the transitions within those frameworks are associated with, or celebrated by, rituals of "initiation" into more advanced "degrees" of understanding, notably as is to be found in freeemasonry (cf Varieties of Rebirth: distinguishing ways of being "born again", 2004). More generally (as explored in systematics by J G Bennet and summarized by Anthony Blake) they point to the challenge of the nature of more integrative understanding, whether:
Both raise questions of how people of the future will understand (cf Authentic Grokking: Emergence of Homo conjugens, 2003) and their preferred, and hopefully enriched, metaphors for articulating that understanding. It is in this sense that unusual explorations, such as that of Michael Winn (Daoist Internal Alchemy: A Deep Language for Communicating with Nature's Intelligence), are to be valued. Two-fold metaphorical framing of meaningOne choice for such a metaphoric language would be based on a binary system. This is consistent with the "yes-no" questions that are closely associated with research on "WH-questions". This binary approach is taken by the I Ching in using the contrasts of yin and yang to distinguish 64 decision conditions that might indeed be used to frame why-questions and the resulting 384 transformations between them (cf Patterning Transformative Change for sustainable dialogue, vision, conference, policy, network, community and lifestyle, 1983). A case could be made for using the 64 hexagrams as a way of coding WH-questions, or their combinations, in a particular situation. The 384 transformations between them are suggestive of an understanding of the dynamics of the Council of the Whys. But this binary approach has also figured prominently, and most unfortunately, as a basis for constituting the Coalition of the Willing following the declaration of the USA that "If you are not with us you are against us". This provides one strong indication of the manner in which such an approach can be subject to dysfunctional reductionism as opposed to responding to the challenge of transcending the constraints of polarization (cf Discovering richer patterns of comprehension to reframe polarization, 1998). Edward de Bono has done much to to highlight the limitations of binary thinking (Po: Beyond Yes and No, 1972; I Am Right -- You are Wrong, 1991). A two-fold framing is notably interesting in the light of classic existential polarities such as:
On the occasion of the Edge Foundation's Annual Edge Question (2002), Derrick de Kerckhove ('To be or not to be' remains the question, 2002) considered that:
The phrase "to be or not to be" is often discussed in relation to reflection on suicide (whether actual or symbolic). The existential nexus of that moment is characteristic of haiku poetry written prior to seppuku (cf Ensuring Strategic Resilience through Haiku Patterns, 2005). WH-questions might then be understood as the primary existential windows of humans onto chaos and meaninglessness (cf Pandora Consulting. The Seven Sisters of Project Management). The phrase might then be the focus of the following:
In each case, the "or" in "to be or not to be" implies the possibility of an existential reframing -- a kairotic moment. But only "why" can point beyond the binary framing, raising the possibility of a four-fold framing, for example -- as recognized with regard to richer modes of dialogue in the quadrilemma of some Eastern cultures as explored by Kinhide Mushakoji (Global Issues and Interparadigmatic Dialogue; essays on multipolar politics, 1988) (cf Threshold of Comprehensibility: a fourfold minimal system?, 1983). "To-be or not-to-be" might then offer two additional forms: "to-be and not-to-be", as well as "neither to-be nor not-to-be". This suggests similarities to the mathematical challenge of mapping complex numbers in the complex plane in terms of orthogonal axes:
The dynamics of the Council of the Whys might then be understood as "defined" within such a complex context, notably the Mandelbrot set (cf Sustainability through the Dynamics of Strategic Dilemmas: in the light of the coherence and visual form of the Mandelbrot set, 2005). The associated psychodynamics are explored elsewhere (Psycho-social Significance of the Mandelbrot Set: a sustainable boundary between chaos and order, 2005) Conformality of WH-questions to elementary catastrophes [see Annex]As a human response to the perception of a cognitively chaotic situation, WH-questions might be considered to lend themselves to analysis with the tools of catastrophe theory as developed by René Thom and others. Thom developed catastrophe theory as a mathematical way of addressing the work on morphogenesis done by C.H. Waddington in the 1950's. Thom's Classification Theorem culminates a long line of work in singularity theory. The crucial theorems rigorously establishing his conjecture were proven by Bernard Malgrange (1966) and John N. Mather (1968). Its essential concern is change and discontinuity in systems (cf Robert Magnus, Mathematical models and catastrophes). WH-questions may be considered as triggered and formulated in response to discontinuity -- when habitual adaptive responses to change are inadequate. The contents of the Annex are:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||