The way you described Topic and Pattern Mode reminded me strongly of the first pages of a book I started: The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett. He attempts to explain the differences in thought between the western and eastern cultures, starting with Ancient Greece (object attributes, abstractions, logic, debate) and Ancient China (events are related to one another, harmony, interconnectivity, contradictions). Linear and circular views.
On the topic of identifying where 2 systems meet, I imagine it would be necessary to first see both systems in Pattern Mode and then try to see how they affect each other. How do you think it would be clear to see the impact of the edges of 2 specific systems, and not a third?
Out of curiosity, how did you create the diagram of the iceberg? It brings such clarity to the essay.
Thanks for recommending The Geography of Thought. It looks like a fascinating read. I've added it to my reading list. The concept of circularity versus the linear approach is definitely part of my own philosophy (as inspired by Huxley, who in The Perennial Philosophy wrote very interesting thoughts on linear, time-based philosophies vs. the circular, perennial view of many eastern philosophies).
That's also a very interesting question on the 'ecotone' of systems. And not a simple one to answer! From what I've learned so far, most writers assume that identifying a third emerging system from the overlap is almost always flawed. For example, in the garden, true isolation is a fiction. You can’t really look at the soil and the plant without the sun (the third system) or the rain (fourth system) interfering.
Thus, true boundaries do not exist in nature. Edges, then, are creations of the observer. Isolating two systems always becomes an artificial choice we make. The third system that emerges, essentially, is the observer (me). As the observer, my choice of where to draw the boundary is the interference. So my conclusion is a bit philosophical, too: You can never truly exclude the Third, because you are the one looking.
As for the iceberg diagram: I’m glad it did its job! The iceberg is a well-known image in Systems Thinking, and I built that using some simple prompting. I try to keep the visuals as stripped-back as possible, so the structure stands out more than the style.
Thank you Micha! This has given me some items to think about. Especially your line: Isolating two systems always becomes an *artificial choice we make*. And how I am the 3rd system. I didn't expect that but I can see the truth in the statement. Perhaps it's the case that there is always 1 more system than the quantity we are observing.
The Geography of Thought is a book I have not finished. The overall idea topic interests me, but the book is not as dense or rigorous as I was expecting.
This is so lovely, and accurate. Autistics do this kind of processing naturally. But there is one qualm i’ll raise about the privilege it takes to have the mental resources to come to any reasonable conclusions after observation, when one is being mined for labor under the current global oligarchical system. I’m an artist, i've got time. But the majority of the working class can’t find time to sleep, not to mention observe the intricacies of their condition. This is excellent information to have after some kind of real world upending that gives us the cognitive resources required to put this to work. Otherwise what’s the point?
Thanks for that comment, Alexandra. It truly gave me something to think about.
Here's my take on it, reflecting my affection for the Stoics: from Marcus Aurelius (the emperor) to Epictetus (who was born a slave).
I’m hesitant to accept the idea that hard work or systemic pressure strips a person of their capacity for observation. In my experience, and in looking at history, some of the most profound 'pattern recognition' comes from those deep in the trenches of labor, not just those with time to spare.
Epictetus famously argued that while his body could be chained or broken, his will remained free.
If we treat insight as a luxury item available only after system collapse, we surrender the only territory that is truly ours: our minds. I write this not because I think everyone has free time, but because I believe everyone deserves the tools to map their own reality, no matter their personal conditions.
I don’t deny that there are people who are gifted with (not just the capacity, which we indeed all have, but also) the awareness of insight no matter their status or level of travail, i am just pointing out that the overwhelming majority of people would benefit from a reprieve from poverty to turn their attention to philosophy and learn about the structures that bind them. It’s why they identify so many with the blights of poverty; it’s not a metaphor
The way you described Topic and Pattern Mode reminded me strongly of the first pages of a book I started: The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett. He attempts to explain the differences in thought between the western and eastern cultures, starting with Ancient Greece (object attributes, abstractions, logic, debate) and Ancient China (events are related to one another, harmony, interconnectivity, contradictions). Linear and circular views.
On the topic of identifying where 2 systems meet, I imagine it would be necessary to first see both systems in Pattern Mode and then try to see how they affect each other. How do you think it would be clear to see the impact of the edges of 2 specific systems, and not a third?
Out of curiosity, how did you create the diagram of the iceberg? It brings such clarity to the essay.
Thanks for recommending The Geography of Thought. It looks like a fascinating read. I've added it to my reading list. The concept of circularity versus the linear approach is definitely part of my own philosophy (as inspired by Huxley, who in The Perennial Philosophy wrote very interesting thoughts on linear, time-based philosophies vs. the circular, perennial view of many eastern philosophies).
That's also a very interesting question on the 'ecotone' of systems. And not a simple one to answer! From what I've learned so far, most writers assume that identifying a third emerging system from the overlap is almost always flawed. For example, in the garden, true isolation is a fiction. You can’t really look at the soil and the plant without the sun (the third system) or the rain (fourth system) interfering.
Thus, true boundaries do not exist in nature. Edges, then, are creations of the observer. Isolating two systems always becomes an artificial choice we make. The third system that emerges, essentially, is the observer (me). As the observer, my choice of where to draw the boundary is the interference. So my conclusion is a bit philosophical, too: You can never truly exclude the Third, because you are the one looking.
As for the iceberg diagram: I’m glad it did its job! The iceberg is a well-known image in Systems Thinking, and I built that using some simple prompting. I try to keep the visuals as stripped-back as possible, so the structure stands out more than the style.
Thank you Micha! This has given me some items to think about. Especially your line: Isolating two systems always becomes an *artificial choice we make*. And how I am the 3rd system. I didn't expect that but I can see the truth in the statement. Perhaps it's the case that there is always 1 more system than the quantity we are observing.
The Geography of Thought is a book I have not finished. The overall idea topic interests me, but the book is not as dense or rigorous as I was expecting.
This is so lovely, and accurate. Autistics do this kind of processing naturally. But there is one qualm i’ll raise about the privilege it takes to have the mental resources to come to any reasonable conclusions after observation, when one is being mined for labor under the current global oligarchical system. I’m an artist, i've got time. But the majority of the working class can’t find time to sleep, not to mention observe the intricacies of their condition. This is excellent information to have after some kind of real world upending that gives us the cognitive resources required to put this to work. Otherwise what’s the point?
Thanks for that comment, Alexandra. It truly gave me something to think about.
Here's my take on it, reflecting my affection for the Stoics: from Marcus Aurelius (the emperor) to Epictetus (who was born a slave).
I’m hesitant to accept the idea that hard work or systemic pressure strips a person of their capacity for observation. In my experience, and in looking at history, some of the most profound 'pattern recognition' comes from those deep in the trenches of labor, not just those with time to spare.
Epictetus famously argued that while his body could be chained or broken, his will remained free.
If we treat insight as a luxury item available only after system collapse, we surrender the only territory that is truly ours: our minds. I write this not because I think everyone has free time, but because I believe everyone deserves the tools to map their own reality, no matter their personal conditions.
I don’t deny that there are people who are gifted with (not just the capacity, which we indeed all have, but also) the awareness of insight no matter their status or level of travail, i am just pointing out that the overwhelming majority of people would benefit from a reprieve from poverty to turn their attention to philosophy and learn about the structures that bind them. It’s why they identify so many with the blights of poverty; it’s not a metaphor