Many different beginnings are possible. The choices that I, as webweaver, present and the choices that you, as reader, follow are indicative of our values, preferences, histories, opportunities...
[R2] I believe my own background as an individual and social being is present in the focus, approach and results of my research. In turn, my research - arising from individual and collaborative inquiry - informs, and has informed, who I am.
[R3] I do not believe this "I" is a separate and autonomous creature; nor do I belive it is driven soley by deterministic mechanism, divine circumstance or whim. I also do not believe that these factors - autonomy, determinism, whim - are inconsequential. To me, the most tenable understanding of self is one that conceptualizes "I" as a self-in-process (Kristeva), as a relational being constituted through an ongoing process of negotiation - an understanding that arises from, and also contributes to, my research and its presentation. It subsequently seems essential to present my understanding of my 'self', my understanding of a self-in-process and also to acknowledge other people and influences.
Sympoiesis is a systems concept. It is also an anti-systems concept, in at least some ways.
[T2] I developed the notion (Dempster 1995) in contrast to - but also in addition to - the notion of autopoiesis, originated by Maturana and Varela (e.g. 1980). Whereas autopoietic systems are self-producing, sympoietic systems are collectively-producing: they arise from complex interactions among their diverse components and influences. In addition, sympoietic systems - as one particular means for conceptualizing perceptions - are boundaryless. For some, this is very anti-system, making the concept something other than a system-concept (construed as a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing, depending). For others, the subsequent emphasis on relations, organization, interactions, etc. identifies, even reinforces, the very systemness of the concept.
[T3] Sympoiesis is the most original aspect of my work. Further development, exploration and application of the concept - which moves beyond discussing conventional systems-notions - is the primary intention of my research and of this web-presentation. This intention is manifest through content, but also through the presentation itself - which attempts to begin demonstration of sympoietic characteristics, perhaps to be the nucleus of a sympoietic system itself...
[T4] Theoretically, there are a number of starting places...
...with many more coming...!
I begin with two observations: First, current conditions appear to be inequitable and unsustainable across many scales and dimensions. Second, fundamental uncertainty and synergistic complexity appear to 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 futures and facilitate movement toward them, planning must also grapple with the near impossibility of manifesting the futures as desired. [E3] Yet planning is fundamental for manoeuvering our way through existence. We plan our interactions with our environments and for attending to our needs/wants/desires as individuals, groups and societies.
[E4] The intent of my research is to defend and explain 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.
[E5] The challenges and dilemmas that arise can be considered along a number of dimensions:
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 Nicomachean Ethics). It is reason needed in deciding what one's ends should be... (McAfee 2000: 178)
[M2] 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:
[M3] As an additional note, I am intrigued by the frequency of reference to Aristotle's categories of knowledge or reason. Although citing phronesis above, I have more recently learned about metistic reasoning or knowledge, subsequenty leading to further discussion on knowledge.
most recent substantive revisions: 2004.01.19
previous substantive revisions: 2003.12.05
page created: 2003.09.29
Regarding (2), see the discussion about online dissertations.
Regarding (3), this presentation includes new material as well as the re-working of already-mostly-written material into the webbed environment. There is much yet to be done! My apologies for un-finished paragraphs, un-linked links and other little bugs...
Any comments - on content, on style, on navigability, on usefulness, on philosophical grounding - will be greatfully received: beth@sympoiesis.info.
