Challenges to Comprehension Implied by the Logo
of Laetus in Praesens
Laetus in Praesens Alternative view of segmented documents via Kairos


Four+ Complementary Languages Required for Global Governance

-- / --


It might be useful to think of the 4 "languages" in which people endeavour to articulate their concerns and favoured action. In principle these languages are complementary and equally necessary. Each has its great strengths and weaknesses. How about:

In response to the above, philosopher Antonio de Nicolas (private communication, 1998) -- who has studied the interplay of four languages from other perspectives -- made the following remarks: Succumbing to the temptation to ask why there might only be the the initial four fundamental languages (Pozzy,  Neggy, Luvvy, Tuffy) -- what other language candidates might there be, and how do they relate to one another? Examples might include: It is possible that such languages could relate to a broader frame -- which might include Myers-Briggs, etc. They could combine in various ways. Luvvy and Tuffy together frame the Tuff-Luvv strategies. Luvvy and Wizzy are together the essence of much New Age Luvv-Wizz discourse. Which languages are primary to the organization of global society / community etc and which secondary?  International programmes tend to get trapped in Wizz-Legg discourse.

Edward de Bono has explored a variant of this approach  through two books: Six Thinking Hats (1987) and Six Action Shoes (1991). These books deal with what he has called "operacy". This is the skill of action, of getting things done and making things happen -- which he equates with literacy and numeracy. They build on a well-publicized series of his earlier books dealing with creative approaches to problem-solving, notably in corporate policy-making environments. He argues that, to get a well-rounded view, a committee needs to look at issues wearing a succession of colour-coded hats (or shoes), corresponding to different styles of thought (or action).

According to de Bono (1991), the metaphoric framework of six thinking hats has been adopted by many major corporations around the world. It is also used increasingly in education. As de Bono points out: "The six hat method has been widely accepted because it is simple, it is practical, and it works. It actually changes how thinking takes place in meetings and elsewhere: instead of the usual to and fro arguments it makes it possible for people to have constructive discussions." (1991, p. 4). The six pairs of action shoes develop the action dimension of the thinking associated with the six hats.

De Bono's hats (1987) involve participants in a discussion in a type of mental role playing:

But, expressed in this way, the coherence and sense of self-sufficiency of the constituencies that strongly favour Pozzy, Neggy, Luvvy or Tuffy is lost. It is this dimension that inhibits balanced collective action and ensures that single-language initiatives undermine each other.

Within what language would one discuss the necessary movement between languages? In what language would one expect to understand the conclusion?

How would one expect to combine insights from different languages? How does translation work? What if some group insists on speaking "French" when "everyone" is "of course" believed to understand "English"?
Relying on any one language as a means of viewing the world would seem to be a recipe for disaster.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

For further updates on this site, subscribe here