Submitted by carl on Tue, 2006-08-01 17:51.
Daily Dialogue Blog Entries
I'm off tomorrow on a long-planned retreat, and by the time I return, this conversation will have ended. So this is farewell, I guess.
I'll divide my final comments into two sections. First I'll summarize key recent posts, then offer my own thoughts about the dialogue process.
In these closing days, the posts most directly relevant to the Sustainability Principles were on the theme of education. Michael Ben-Eli wrote:
I have posted an enthusiastic response re the importance of education and about the possibility of introducing a statement about it in the text.
On second thought I realized that that requirement (for education) is actually covered by the first P&O Implication in the Economic Domain which states:
"Employ a comprehensive concept of wealth related to the simultaneous enhancement of five key forms of capital: Natural, Human, Social, Manufactured and Financial"
Enhencement of human capital is achieved, first and foremost, by education.
Joshua questioned whether this was sufficient. His comments were meaty enough to warrant quoting at some length:
Your second thought is true in a very indirect sense imho, way too indirect. I do not think you can go about "employing" anything or anyone especially a "comprehensive concept of wealth" unless one learns the concept. Grasping such concepts hinges, as you know so well, on a acquiring a deep understanding of systems dynamics at multiple levels -- the key to "comprehensive" thinking.
I assert that Education For Sustainablity(EFS) must be distinctly articulated as it is an apriori condition that must be fulfilled if anyone is going to demonstrate the ability to "Employ a comprehensive concept of wealth related to the simultaneous enhancement of five key forms of capital: Natural, Human, Social, Manufactured and Financial."
None of this comes naturally and can only flow from an educated mind. It has to be learned and serious investment of time and resources is essential.
Therefore it has significant policy and operational implications that cannot be overlooked and must be made explicit or we're sunk!
Whichever domain turns out to be the most suitable place for education related Policy and Operational Implications (P, O & I), I suggest that an appropriate P, O & I be included that follows along these lines:
Curriculum at every level of study from preschool to post doctoral, (regardless of specialty area) should integrate applicable principle based 'education for sustainability' (EFS).
The core of these curricula should prepare individuals to understand systems dynamics and to be systems thinkers.
The more advanced your education the greater systems complexity you are able to comprehend and manage. The objective is that one's work in the world will always be conceived, implemented and intimately understood within the largest possible system to which it is connected.
Education is about wisdom (at least, it should be about wisdom!), and this theme entered the conversation, too. Michael wrote:
Joshua,
Your argument that one needs to know before one can act effectively is compelling and I will give more thought to how to integrate it more fully in the text. Could participant think of more such essential preconditions?
Incidentally, in light of your argument it is interesting to note how the jewish Kaballah tradition places the domains of "wisdom," "knowledge" and "understanding" at the head of all the ten "sephirot."
Dick Fischbeck offered these closing thoughts about the wisdom of Bucky:
Did Bucky ever write or do anything that wasn't guided by principles of sustainability?
You said principles guide behavior. Bucky, aka. guinea pig B, had a set of principles he adopted based on experience and which he lived by. One of them was never ask people to listen to you. Instead, wait for them to ask a question and then give the best answer you can.
This forum is about to come to a close and I have this final thought.
We can look to Bucky and probably discover five or six principles he already concluded were necessary for human global sustainability. I don't know if these principles exist in a collection somewhere or not but I bet they do.
Let's use and amplify the knowledge we already have available. I think Bucky's work is barely used. Michael, I applaud your efforts to futher his work. This has been a valuable experience for me. Thanks very, very much.
A fitting final observation, certainly. And I will add some thoughts of my own. I agree with Dick in observing that this has been a most interesting experience for me. I've learned about Bucky, I've learned about the core nature of sustainability, I've learned about the challenges we face in making the transition to sustainability, and I've learned about the nature of online dialogues.
Bucky's prescient genius continues to be, quite literally, marvelous. Visionaries are so often untethered and go drifting off into the Land of Nowhere. I can hardly imagine a being more visionary than Bucky, yet his wild ideas (and improbable language) contain so many deep truths and are so prophetic that they come across, to me at least, as improbably grounded. Bucky the wild visionary AND practical philosopher--as I said, quite the marvelous combination.
The longer this dialogue has gone on, the more it's enhanced my regard for Michael's Sustainability Principles. I would summarize my view of them this way: they have a certain nobility. They stand above the fray. In a world where everyone has an opinion, and where on top of that people seem to be driven, at least in part, by a will to disagree, it's mighty difficult to reach consensus. Michael's Sustainability Principles are higher-level in the twin senses of being a) quite general and inclusive AND b) standing above the "opine forest" (to the extent this is possible, of course). This is precisely what is needed. The alternative, it seems to me, is the myriad delights of debating, substituting sometimes for meaningful progress.
This dialogue has been striking for its courteousness, the acuity of a great many of the posts, and the tendency to drift away from the core subject matter -- Michael's Sustainability Principles. I think the "tendency toward tangentialism" is in large measure intrinsic to the medium. Dialogues of this sort are energy-driven: if a person's post produces enough psychic energy, it will inspire a response, and this in turn will inspire a response, and the next thing you know the conversation isn't really about Michael's Principles any more. Is this a good or a bad thing? I suppose the answer to this is, again, a matter of personal ideology. For those of us who like order, these digressions can seem irrelevant and not useful. However, it's entirely possible that a certain dialogical unruliness is actually useful. Maybe it stirs the pot; maybe it incites creativity.
Ultimately, this dialogue will be judged by the answers to two questions. What did Michael get out of it, in terms of feedback that can be applied to improving his Principles? And what did the other participants get out of it? Will their work in the world be rendered more productive by virtue of their participation in this forum? Speaking for myself, I can say that my learnings have been considerable. This has been great grist for the mill, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in this learning journey.