reflecting
[R2] But here I catch myself: By searching for the foundation or the logic I am caught in the web of expectations antithetical to my own. I fall into the trap of searching for "the cause" rather than trying to identify the range and scope, patterns and relations, structures and processes, from which the argument arises. The argument - if such term is appropriate - is rhizomatic, not dendritic. It has multiple starting points, multiple logics. Each leads in different directions, following different threads. Only one thread is articulated in this piece of text. Each line of argument follows from the opening statement, each offers a similar, yet different, separate, but interconnected, thread. This multiplicity is a reason for choosing the hypertext medium for presentation.
[R3] Yet on what grounds can I allow my own preferences to have prescedence? Just because I want to? Just because it works for me? Or because I have deeper, more political intentions? And even if this, wherein lies my defense? My most consistent rationale is, perhaps (leaving room for others to disagree), is to be different, to present an alternative approach, specifically, one that relies on a different set of ethical and political criteria, ones that are (to my mind) more equitable, more open, more forgiving - although all of these because they attempt to support the underdog, the marginalized, the excluded, even if they treat those with power and prestige unfairly. There is always the dilemma of trying to meet out justice for the collective on the backs of negligably responsible individuals.
[R3] The arguments, then, are in some ways, antagonistic in their very purpose/nature - despite my preference/desire for being cooperative and inclusive. My sense is that the only way to promote the latter is to be the former. Yet such a straightforward claim is simplistic, for the other key concern/principle is pluralism. To this end, it seems to me, arguments have to be more elusive, evasive, inconclusive. The challenge of pluralism is to be open, which requires a degree of closedness and to simultaneously not be intolerant of closedness. Pronouncing against anything but pluralism would not be pluralistic, yet enabling pluralism requires contraints on non-pluralism...
[R4] In being reflexive, the basic argument necessarily arises from reflecting on the basic argument. It arises from realizing the existence of the differing angles or perspectives; from searching for foundations that sink in a quagmire; from a concern that foundations, premises and logic are constructed, rather than found. Here, the basic argument is paradoxical, an argument that raises questions about the legitimacy of premises and logic that make-up any argument, including this one...
[R6] But how to present an argument that argues against argument? (Or does it, by its own nature, refute itself before we even begin?) (Or is that too 'clever', trying to claim refutation, when I am really just trying to promote my own brand...?) I attempt two rhetorical/presentational styles. One presumes the legitimacy of standard argument as a starting point and clings to the belief as long as it can. The other presents through presentation: the rhizomatic nature of hypertext supporting the rhizomatic nature of argument.
[R7] The first approach relies on onto-epistemological questions, drawing, in particular, on postmodern, hermeneutic and self-reflexive ideas. The point is to question foundations, logic, culture, and to bring the self-producing observer/subject to the forefront. The intent, eventually, is to weave subsequent lessons among the other threads of argument.
[R8] The second approach recognizes that this reflective argument cannot be outlined in the straightforward manner used for the others. There are (not surprisingly) challenges. First, this argument may be harder to follow - and to construct - especially for those used to more conventional(academic) logics. Second, while its nebulous nature may make this reflective argument seem weaker, it is, perhaps, the strongest. It permeates - has even led to - the presentation format of this dissertation. One would (hopefully) have to be rather dogged in pursuing one's own personally favourite argument through this dissertation, without being confronted by challenges that question the argument's foundations. Finally, it follows that the other arguments, while neater, must be viewed with some degree of skepticism.
[R9] Given the two approaches, there are three sets of directions to pursue:
- generic aspects furthering the argument:
- key research "products"
- key research themes
- disscussion around each of the research areas
- discussion around framing discourse
- discussion particularly relevant to reflecting:
- among the research areas, onto-epistemology...
- further descriptions of my self
- descriptions of different concepts, which will be linked here at a later date...
- the nebulous nature of presentation, which can only be realized through the presentation itself, but there are pointers and explanations related to the weaving of this dissertation that might facilitate understanding:
...
skeptical
[Needs revision to more adequatly reflect the skeptical argument...]
Pinpointing the beginning of my argument - and outlining the increments of logic that flow from this starting point - is a challenge. Yet there seems to be an underlying set of concerns that provide a starting place, at least. It begins with ontoepistemological questions: What exists; what is 'real'? According to who? Can we ascertain it objectively; can we know it? What is knowing? What constitutes knowledge and how is it constituted? According to who? A challenging set of questions that have been answered in many many different ways, with many different arugments in support. A set of questions without resolution. A set of questions, however, that are seldom asked, with answers that are often presumed. Yet in planning - which I will argue is a necessarily a political activity, how can such presumptions be allowed. Herein lies the value of the skeptic - the one who raises these questions and digs for acceptable answers. Here they gain their relevance and importance from another facet of my basic motivation: the question of planning for sustainability, given that all is not right or good. [**] How can one determine What to change? How to change it? Who to change it?and... Who to decide what to change and how to change and who to change it? without grappling with the prior questions of power/knowledge?
[T3] The responses to these questions are overwhelming in their variety: specific, general; minute, local, grand; creative, pedantic; economically, ecologically, militarily based; technology intensive; community driven... The list could continue.
[T4] My own concerns and interests are general, attempting to incorporate the 'big picture' with respect to sustainability, to consider the epistemological and ethical implications of approaches and processes, and to investigate ways of manifesting change that are ecologically and socially viable. These topics areas hardly narrow the focus! Yet, they draw research and discussion toward particular aspects of the general challenge - especially through the intersections among them.
[T5] In addition - and perhaps most importantly - my concerns and interests can also be stated quite succinctly and specifically: The central focus of my research is the challenge of dealing with such broad and general issues. Rather than pare the 'big picture' down to something smaller and more manageable, my question is how we find ways to grapple with broad cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, cross-community issues and concerns. Admittedly, it is necessary to learn about and deal with specific pieces of the puzzle. Yet "it it the fact of putting them back together that counts" (source...?) - or perhaps that taking things apart seems often to be considered the only way to proceed. Another question, then, is how can we integrate across holistic and reductionistic perspectives/learnings.
[T6] Systems-based heuristics and approaches have been valued for their holistic perspective, yet also show integrative potential. They offer various means for conceptualizing situations and circumstances and for considering appropriate opportunities and directions. However, to my mind, current theory and concepts seem inadequate for coping with the complexity, uncertainty, intentionality, and self-reinforcing nature of the many components, factors, interactions, and influences involved.
[T7] The theoretical thrust of my research, therefore, is toward the development of systems theory and/or concepts appropriate for such conceptualization. In particular, my focus is on expanding complex self-organizing systems theory to incorporate a conception of collectively-selfproducing boundaryless systems - work that builds on my previous research. In particular, I concentrate on three foci:
- relinquishing boundaries
- acknowledging collectively-selfproducing processes
- accounting for the second-order observer
[12] Such processes and the underlying methodological stances must be capable of meeting the challenges outlined above and - as part of the world they attempt to manifest - must be created, evaluated and critiqued by the very same processes and methodologies. Development of such reflexive and recursive processes and means for their evaluation, then, are also key aspects of my research.
The most novel aspect of my work has been the conceptualization of "sympoietic systems." While I have described the concept previously (Dempster 1995,ref 1998 and more), there remains much to be pondered and puzzled. One of the key questions underlying this work pursues the concept further: What are sympoietic systems? The simplest answer presents anchoring topics that weave together the argument of a response. Sympoietic systems are:
- complex,
- self-organizing,
- 'self'-producing,
- boundaryless
- systems.
- What is sustainability (environmentally, ecologicall, sociall, ethically)? And how does it intersect with and/or how is it informed by an understanding of sympoietic systms?
- What is planning (as theory, activity, generic, professional)? And how does it intersect with and/or how is it informed by an understanding of sympoietic systms?
- How do sustainability and planning come together and how does this coming together intersect with and/or how is it informed by an understanding of sympoietic systms?
- What are the challenges and opportunities offered by an understanding of sympoietic systems?
- What are the ecological, ethical and epistemological implications of sympoietic systems for sustainability, planning and planning for sustainability?
- "We cannot see what we cannot see" (Maturana and Varela)
- uncertainty
- multi-perspectival understanding and knowledge
- other threads on this page
- this dissertation, so:
- research themes
- and among these, particularly, systems and onto-epistemology...
- discussion around framing discourse
...
empirical
- Gross inequities and unsustainabilities exist.
- Their existence is untenable.
- Therefore:
- change toward less inequitable and less unsustainable conditions should occur.
- Distinctions between equity and inequity are multifarious and rarely defined unanimously.
- Distinctions between sustainability and unsustainability are multifarious and rarely defined unanimously.
- Change is complex and ubiquitous, occurring across an entangled range of scales and types. >>
- Synergistic complexities defy the potential for smooth manifestation of chosen/directed change - even if the latter was definable.
- Fundamental ignorance prohibits escape through claims of understanding despite habits of mind and behaviour that claim otherwise.
- Therefore:
- attempting to manifest more equitable and sustainable conditions brings considerable challenge.
- The challenge of grappling with questions of equity and inequity. These are fundamentally questions of ethics, but also of experience, perspective, and power.
- The challenge of grappling with an understanding of sustainability. This is ultimately about quality; quality of ecology, of environment, of society, of community and of self.
- The challenge of implementing chosen change, which is necessarily a composite that includes difficulties around:
- understanding current conditions,
- understanding or imagining future possibilities, oportunities and constraints,
- grappling with the difficulties surrounding choice, and
- grappling with the difficulties surrounding the manifestation of the chosen futures.
- Each of these are entangled with the conundrums of synergistic complexity and fundamental ignorance that were noted previously.
- The challenge of adapting to unchosen change, which arises from the preceding challenges.
- Therefore:
- attempting to manifest more equitable and sustainable conditions must attempt to address these challenges - among others.
[C4] There are a few different options for following the argument forward in this dissertation:
-
- key research "products"
- key research themes
- disscussion around each of the research areas
- discussion around framing discourse
- othe discussions particularly relevant to this line of argument:
- and others to be linked here at a later date...
[[[6] Current conditions are unsustainable. Arising from many different influences, inequities and negative ecological impacts exist; western-scientific, progress-oriented culture dominates; and, habits of mind and behaviour reinforce the very same patterns that generated the poor conditions in the first place.
[7] Planning - as the practice that mediates between past, present, and future - must address these challenges and must do so in an inclusive and comprehensive manner that recognizes complexity, uncertainty and entrenchment.]]
In my own attempts to grapple with these issues in my academic work - with respect to outlining the argument, supporting its premises, and addressing the challenges posed - I have chosen five research themes: sustainability, planning, systems, onto-epistemology and methodology/praxis.
- other threads on this page
- this dissertation, so:
-
- ultimate causality/acausality appears moot, but some patterns do appear to exist
- therefore:
- directed change requires:
- understanding (degree of causality, causal influences, patterns emerging)
- adaptability (to unexpected patterns that emerge)
- directed/intentional change implies preferences/values
- therefore:
- directed change requires the incorporation of ethical considerations
- inequities that exist include inequitable consideration of preferences/values
- with regards to ignorance: directed change
extra notes
with regards to determinism:
with regards to inequities:...
critiquing
Pinpointing the beginning of my argument - and outlining the increments of logic that flow from this starting point - is a challenge. Yet there seems to be an underlying concern that provides shape to a fairly simple and ubiquitous argument:
- Gross inequities and unsustainabilities exist.
- Their existence is untenable.
- Therefore:
- change toward less inequitable and less unsustainable conditions should occur.
Typically the argument continues by itemizing the problems and identifying approaches for moving toward preferred conditions. While such approaches attend (with varying degrees) to ignorance, uncertainty and challenge, there is a deeply ironic and political challenge that seems seldom to surface:
We face the tragic prospect of the next generation being caught in a conceptual double bind where the ability to understand the problem will be dependent upon the same patterns of thought partly responsible for the scope of the crisis (Bowers 1993: 32).
[C2] 'Western' habits of mind and behaviour (inclusive of positivistic and progressive perspectives and emphases on commodities and individual satisfaction) dominate. Additionally, those that accept such perpsectives/emphases hold considerable power and presitge; those that do not, are marginalized. Such divisions are exacerbated by the very nature of the perspective, which ensures that those that 'have' get more, those without, get less… While this is frequently interpreted as a material concern, relevant to housing, incomes, etc., it is also relevant to knowledge and strategy.
[C3] Sustainability, then, must include ethical and political [power-oriented] considerations - as must planning. Approaches must attempt to be participatory, inclusive and all those other good things, but also be politically informed and reflexive. My own approach draws on complex systems as way to try to understand and cope with the challenges, mixing this with Foucauldian and other critiques. Most particularly developing notions of boundaryless systems and considering their implications for assessing constrainst and opportunities…
[C4] There are a few different options for following this argument forward:
- key research "products"
- key research themes
- disscussion around each of the research areas
- discussion around framing discourse
- othe discussions particularly relevant to this argument:
- democracy
- and others to be linked here at a later date...
- glossary terms particularly relevant to this argument:
manifesting
Pinpointing the beginning of my argument - and outlining the increments of logic that flow from the starting point - is a challenge. Yet while the interwoven premises and assumptions may be difficult to isolate and specify, there are themes and there is direction. By adpoting a 'results' perspective, I can point to one simple (yet challenging) question: What must I do to facilitate movement toward a more ethical and sustainable society-culture-environment? Some answers come immediately to mind, although each is quickly recognized as potentially endless. This question has depths and twists that make an easy response facile. Aside from challenges such as (or akin to) delimiting the boundaries of life-cycle analyses as I make choices about resource-use, I think it is imperative for me to consider my research, writing and practice as well as my interaction with others, my use of resources, my mentoring/exemplaring influence.
- hierarchies of power and influence; of power/knowledge
- technologies of the self
- ethics and morals
- methodology/praxis
[M2] There are a few different options for following this argument forward:
- key research "products"
- key research themes
- disscussion around each of the research areas
- discussion around framing discourse
- other discussions particularly relevant to this argument:
- among the research areas, particularly planning and methodology/praxis...
- and others to be linked here at a later date...
...
Page info
most recent substantive revisions: 2005.10.22
previous substantive revisions: 2005.01.28, 2005.01.30, 2005.04.16, 2005.04.16
page created: 2004.04.04
based on earlier discussion: "Beth's Areas of Research Interest" 2002 (formerly at www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/mbldemps/web/)
2003 - 2007