reflecting
There are many different ways to begin... Most important among them is to reflect on these very beginnings, for the choices that I, as webweaver, present (and the choices that you, as reader, follow) are indicative of values, preferences, histories...
[R2] This raises several questions: How much I am present in this dissertation presentation? How much are any of us present in what we do and say? And how much does this affect those around us? Most obvious in this case is the fact that the choices available to you are constrained by my offerings. My affinity for this particular medium includes and excludes. My propensity toward the philosophical and thoretical (which are manifest in this presentation) includes and excludes. My foundational philosophies and assumptions - including those I have adopted with careful consideration, as well as those that are unknown to me (all of which are manifest in this presentation) - include and exclude. These philosophies and assumptions are perhaps most powerful for their possible invisibility and subtlety. If these assumptions do not grate upon you, then my discussion likely reinforces your own unknown assumptions. We move forward then, working together, including and excluding on a broader social scale.
[R3] My own background, then, as an individual and social being is present in the focus, approach and results of my research. Yet, in turn, my research - which arises from individual and collaborative inquiry - informs, and has informed, who I am. The intricacies of these mutual interconnections run deep. I can no more excise the influence and prejudice of my unconscious assumptions than I can claim a lack of intention in what I write. Yet it seems important - a requirement or responsibility even - to make some attempt at positioning myself; to offer some sense or explanation of who I am. I do this, in part, that I might unearth and account for my assumptions, but also (perhaps more so) that you might be able to do this...
[R4] I do not believe my "self" (or any other self) to be a fixed, separate and autonomous creature; nor do I believe it to be driven solely by whim, by deterministic mechanism, or by divine circumstance. I also do not believe that these factors - whimsy, autonomy, determinism - are inconsequential. For me, the most tenable description of 'self' is one that conceptualizes "I" as a self-in-process (Kristeva), as a relational being constituted through an ongoing process of negotiation. This understanding arises from, and also contributes to, my research and its presentation.
[R5] Following from these points, it seems important to present:
- my understanding of my 'self',
- my understanding of a self-in-process,
- my acknowledgement of other people and,
- my acknowledgement of other influences.
[R6] Alternatively, it is possible to follow these considerations as they inform:
- the outline of my basic argument.
skeptical
There are many different ways to begin. Most important among them, is to draw attention to the predicaments of ontoepistemological grounding: How to deal with the recursive, reflexive knot arising from the fact that I cannot see and cannot know, what I cannot see and cannot know? How to deal with the recursive, reflexive knot that I am always in the system that I am describing - either as an integral participant or through the very process of observation? How to deal with the concerns of Kant?
It still remains a scandal to philosophy… that the existence of things outside of us… must be accepted merely on faith, and that, if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof (Kant Critique of Pure Reason, preface to 2nd ed. in Pojman 1993).
[T2] Attempts to refute the skeptic - while innumerable in their diversity - remain unsucessful. I have called myself an "ontological agnostic" (Dempster 2002)ref - one who is generally unconvinced about the certain existence of reality or the certainty of its lack; one who is also unconvinced regarding the degree or possibility of its constructedness. I still consider this a reasonable assessment - despite my concerns with respect to the ethical and ecological dimensions of sustainability and my subsequent belief in the need for action. Being unconvinced does not relinquish the need for action but rather emphasizes the importance of a skeptical attitude.
[T3] While I side with many others in claiming the impossibility of refuting the skeptic, I do not believe this absolves researchers of the responsibility for addressing the skeptical challenge. Nor does it absolve any of us of the responsibility for action. Just because the skeptic cannot be refuted does not mean that relevant questions can be left unaddressed; just because we cannot - with absolute cetainty - know does not mean that action can be avoided. Any research or decision-making that relies on (statements of) truth(s) that also fails to (adequately) address the skeptical challenge remains unfounded. A strong statement - and one that remains, and that will remain, unfounded, although it must, if I am to follow my own stipulation, be addressed. To do so, I must consider two things. First, exploring the implications of the skeptical challenge with respect to my own research - as demonstration and also to fill the responsibility I suggest/indicate/claim above. Second, to defend the claim. The challenge is spurious without first laying out (puzzling out) the grounding on which they are based.
The intent of my research is to grapple with this challenge - most notably with respect to the implications the skeptical challenge carries for planning and decision-making - and to explore and develop tools, heuristics and/or methodologies that promote a skeptical attitude through their very application. I have turned in multiple directions - ranging from postmodern philosphy to systems thinking - to consider both challenges and possibilities. While initial conceptualization of "sympoiesis" held no such forethought, more recent developments attempt to draw out skeptical and postmodern aspects of the theory. In particular, I consider a variation on what seems to be an increasingly common approach: This is to claim that the skeptic is wrong (obviously!), so the most reasonable thing to do is to focus on why they are wrong (i.e. rather than trying to refute them, I guess). Putting aside my disagreement that the skeptic is wrong, I think this approach has value. To some degree, the question of whether or not the skeptic is right or wrong is moot: what matters is what we do with the uncertainties and untruths that abound, how we determine (or, more to the point, who determines) what is most truthful, how we deal with contested terrain, etc...
[T4] An outline of the basic argument provides a place to begin tracing these different aspects. Regarding my onto-epistemological grounding, there are topics that might provide important starting places...
...with more coming...!
empirical
There are many different ways to begin. Most important among them, is to describe the basic problem that underlies my research. Most succinctly, I refer to it as the challenge of planning for sustainability and describe it through two critical observations: First, current conditions are inequitable and unsustainable across many scales and dimensions. Second, fundamental uncertainty and synergistic complexity make comprehensive understanding and directed futures inherently impossible. Support for these observations arises in many disciplines and is evident in the daily news and individual lives.
[E2] For planning - as the practice that mediates between past, present, and future - these observations present paradoxical challenge. While attempting to develop visions of desirable, sutainable futures, decide which among them is most appropriate and facilitate movement toward it, planning must also grapple with the near impossibility of manifesting the futures as they are described. Environmental, political, economic realities and a proliferaton of unintended consequences frustrate attempts at achieving desirable futures. Despite this quintessential paradox, planning is fundamental for manoeuvering our way through existence: In order to address our needs/wants/desires as individuals, groups and societies, we must plan our interactions with our environments and each other . We can no more not plan than we can plan with guarantees of success.
[E3] The intent of my research is to defend and explain - and to grapple with questions around - the above observations and paradox and to explore and develop tools, heuristics and/or methodologies that will facilitate recognition of the challenges and supply means for addressing them in a planning context.
[E4] These intentions are clarified in an outline of the basic argument. In addition, the challenges and dilemmas that arise can be considered along a number of dimensions:
- unsustainability, injustice, inequity...
- planning, decision-making
- onto-epistemology
critiquing
There are many different ways to begin. Most important among them, is to draw attention to power/knowledge - the Foucauldian notion emphasizing inextricable interconnections between networks of power and the substantiation of knowledge. Foucault's work highlights the triviality of the familiar phrase "knowledge is power" and deepens Marx's notion that "the ruling ideas are forever the ideas of the ruling class." It points to the pervasive, ubiquitous, critical and significant co-production of knowledge and power, with the latter viewed as a diffuse inteconnected network, rather than as a commodity. In combination, power/knowledge manifests as oppression, but also as opportunity. (Although, admittedly, this very statement runs the risk of being oppressive and needs to be, itself, the subject of critique...).
[C2] In considering the challenge of sustainability, and particularly the challenges of planning for sustainability, it is critical to acknowledge power differentials and the subsequent breadth, depth and diversity of discrimination. The intent of my research is to grapple with these issues and to explore and develop tools, heuristics and/or methodologies that will facilitate recognition of the inequities and supply means for disrupting them, especially in a planning context. Of particular interest is the potential for conceptualization of self-producing systems to facilitate questions and discussion around the recursive, self-referential knot in which the structures of power/knowledge that are culturally and epistemologically pervasive (and discriminatory) reinforce those very same structures of power/knowledge.
[C4] These intentions are clarified in an outline of the basic argument. In addition, the challenges and dilemmas that arise can be considered along a number of dimensions...
...(with more to come...)
manifesting
There are many different ways to begin. Most important among them, is to illustrate the ways in which my research has potential to facilitate positive change in the world. There is a need to outline results and implications; to justify - and clarify - my research by articulating its end point(s). While typically available in brief form through abstracts and executive summaries (and through the reader's ability to flip to the last chapter) such an approach pushes against the norms of presentation. Standard format leads the reader through the (presumed) path of the research from literature search, to question, to method, to results, to recommendations. Aside from questions around whether or not this is actually the path followed, such an approach seems problematic for anyone trying to assess the usefullness of the research. While discussion of literature, theory and methodolgy is important (and, for me, of considerable interest), I posit that research failing to clearly indicate results is inadequate and, more to the point here, that planning research failing to clearly indicate the potential for results to manifest positive difference in the world is unethical. One way to make results clear is to articulate them at the very beginning.
[M2] Among the most important 'results' of my research is the systems-heuristic sympoiesis and related heuristics and methodologies that explain and provide tools for thinking. Pointing to 'potentials for these resulst to manifest positive difference in the world' is difficult. In part, because the very nature of heuristics-for-thinking make their influence subtle and slow-moving. The premise on which I judge these as important is my belief that there is need for new ways to think about the interconnected challenges of society-culture-environment - especially in relation to planning for sustainability; new ways of thinking that facilitate deciding what is best and right to do - in relation to my own actions as well as the actions of those around me. Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that I raise the question of results and effects at the very beginning - for they are, in fact, woven into/an essential part of the very research(question) itself.
[M3] to take another angle on the question, then:
Phronesis is the sort of wisdom or reason involved when human beings act, especially when they decide what to aim for. It is 'the capacity for deciding what is good and advantageous' for oneself (Aristotle [aside] Nicomachean Ethics). It is reason needed in deciding what one's ends should be... (McAfee 2000:ref 178)
My research, then, is perhaps phronetic research - aimed at reasoning about 'what my ends should be'. [aside] It is also broad and philosophical. While 'results' and 'conclusions' are subsequently hard to specify, I attempt their manifestation in different ways in different domains, including:
- development of this web-presentation
- discussion/presentation/description of heuristics, methodologies and processes
- involvement in the civics research co-operative >>>
- other activities and ethics that arise through my being
Page info
substantive revisions: 2003.12.05, 2004.01.19, 2005.05.26, 2005.10.05, 2006.01.1,5 2006.01.25, 2006.02.16, 2006.04.12, 2006.04.18, 2006.09.23, 2006.10.11
most recent substantive revisions: 2006.10.11
2003 - 2007