|
"Benking" entries in the of Systems and Cybernetics: |
|
0479 COGNITIVE PANORAMA 1)
- 2)
0999 ECO-CUBE/KNOW
MAP 1) - 2) - 3)
2002 MAP TERRITORY
RELATION 2) - 3)
2104 METAPHORIC FRAMEWORK 1)
- 2) -
4)
2105 METAPHORS (Classes
of) 2)
2228 MULTI-PERSPECTIVISM 1)
- 2) -
4)
2462 PANORAMA OF
UNDERSTANDING 1) -
2)
2463 PANORAMA THINKING 1)
- 2)
1)
general information 2) methodology or model
3)
epistemology, ontology and semantics
4) human sciences 5) discipline
oriented
PLEASE NOTE:
This link leads
to the model or cube which is the basic spacial element and and part of
the superstructure and is relevant to understanding the above links or
entries in the Encyclopedia. The link in the print version can be found
under
0484 COGNITIVE SPACES.
0479
COGNITIVE PANORAMA 1) - 2)
This
concept has been introduced by H. BENKING.
The following comments are BENKING's explanations, plucked from
a series
of papers and lectures (see bibliography)
"
The cognitive panorama is a metaparadigm to counteract cyberculture's
anticipated impact due to its: 1)open-ended universality, 2) loss of meaning'
3) loss of context"
It is
now obvious that we risk drowning in an ocean of incoherent data
which
could lead us to total conceptual anarchy.
According to Benking, the proposed cognitive panorama "allows us
to
embody and map concepts in their context and develop common frames
of
reference"
Such a
conceptual superstructure " helps us to locate and become aware of: 1)
what we know or miss, 2) where we are and what we think, 3) where we
miss,
underuse or manipulate information.
By avoiding a "flat" chaotic mess of data which leads to the
known "lost-in space" syndrome, we actually define cognitive
spaces.
Through
reflection on conceptual positions, outlining and embodying situations
or
topics (logical places or containers) we can follow meaning into
embodied
context and semantic spaces, and also scrutinize abstract
"realities" by exploring participatory and collaboratory approaches.
®Conceptual
navigation; Convertilibilty of
meanings; Ecocube; Harmonization; Knowledge map; Underconceptualization
0484
COGNITIVE SPACES 1)
The
dimensions of this cognitive space depend on information,
training and
finally on a person's awareness.
All this depends globally from the cultural setting.
While
in general terms this is clearly described by D. MEADOWS et al. graph
of human
perspectives (1972, p. 19), the two-dimensional graph can be expanded
in the
third dimension, as showed by H BENKING, in order to take many
different
aspects of the general environment.
While one can be specially interested in some economic (or
ecological,
or cultural, or...) issue, a more general and global, but at
the same
time more complex view can only be acquired by collaborating and
conversational
groups.
In this
sense Benking distinguishes subjective views and objective ones. The subjective views, are related to the
different aspects of perceived environment that can be considered at
the same
moment by different observers or at different moments by the
same
observer. The objective view tries to
describe the environment at micro-, meso- and macroscale,
in the short, medium or long-term time scale (see graph: http//benking.de/cube/)
|
THIS FRAME was later included by me, Benking, to help to access the Blackbox and Panorama and see it in perspective/context. Unfortunately we and the Publisher were too busy to include the figures already in the 2nd edition. THE INTENTION is not only to show models vs systems as an embodiment which allows multi-perspective communication and avoiding the traps of being caught in one representation or sign system. For more appealing visualizations of mental architectures see http://benking.de/cube/ and a recent overview on mental models and orienting generalisations: http://benking.de/ewoc/ or more "historically" or terse: spatial versus spatial http://benking.de/Global-Change/spatial-spacial.html or Show versus Schau http://benking.de/show-schau.htm, to underline dichotomies and how we indent tackle such thinking in: deep versus flat, 3-dimensional versus 2-dimensional representations and designs. Please see for further reference also http://benking.de/systems/ |
®Cognitive panorama; Eco-cube; Metaphors (classes of);
Venn diagram
Figure:
See entry COGNITIVE SPACES
A
COGNITIVE SPACE
A general diagram of mankinds’s place in the global ecosystem using a VENN diagram subdivided as proposed by E. EDWARDS (1989)
A: Atmosphere, G: Geosphere H:
Hydrosphere E: Energy
The
intersections represent specific fields of inquiry. EH is for example
hydrodynamics. Any subset can be subdivided according to more
particular
necessity (A…A1, A2… An)
Mankind
and smaller human groups interact with any environmental subset. EHAG
represents the most global dynamic and integrated ecosystem. Different
and much
more complex representations are possible as for example DOXIADIS’
ekistics or
BENKING’s eco-cube.
0999 ECO-CUBE/KNOW MAP 1) - 2) - 3)
It
was practically realized for the first time in June 1990 at the
Exhibition
“Global change-
Welt
im Wandel” that took place at the Bundeskanzler Amt in Bonn, Germany.
It
is a kind of upgraded “Rubik's cube of Ecology”.
Alike
the Rubik cube, the Eco-cube is made of smaller also cubic elements.
The
third dimension is needed “in order to be able to dive into information,
instead of surfing on the surface, subject to many influences which can
distract us”.
Benking
adds : “We will have to share exploration in order to share common
ground. We
have to bridge and switch between models and scales, as
one representation
is not enough, and seeing from various distances, with different focus,
lens
and filters will help to establish common references even in
uncharted
terrains and vertical realms”.
The
basic point is “to put different observations into a single context”.
Benking
also refers himself to DOXIADIS's ekistics. For a complete
written and
graphic information see:
http://benking.de/Global-Change/spatial-spacial.html
Benking
writes: “We can build models like
1x1x1 meter or 20x20x20 meters, where objects
in fields of (survey) knowledge, subject areas
or
discipline domains form one dimension, and in another dimension
we have scales
to see if this field is located in the micro-, meso-, or macrocosm,
covering a
small or large scale”.
®Macroscope;
Multiperpectivism; Panorama thinking
2001 MAP (Mental) 2) - 3)
Of
course, physical maps, or models, or even a sculpture, are
originally
mental maps, translated within artifacts.
S.
BEER describes a map as: “the pattern of something,
represented with much attenuation of variety,
but with its significant elements preserved” (1974, p.37).
Still,
a map is a kind of metaphor. It corresponds however to a very
general
type of processes in neural networks, even in animals:
We
register, interpret and retain experiences that can be retrieved when
needed,
let us say for instance, finding our way back home. As expressed by M.
BODEN:
“The map is used to generate an indefinite number of very useful
”coulds“ and
”cannots“. She adds this very important observation: ”A list of
landmarks is
less useful: like the parroting of the first seven square numbers, it
does not
generate any new notions“ (1990, p.47).
This
means that a good map must include information about interrelations
and dynamic interactions similar to G. KLIR's source system.
On
a higher level of abstraction: “Theoretical maps help
scientists to
seek, and find, things never glimpsed before... For example,
MENDELEEV's periodic
table suggested to 19th Century chemists that unknown elements
did exist, corresponding to specific gaps in the table”. However “A new
theoretical map may not be universally welcomed, because yet-unseen spaces
can
be hard to imagine” (p.48). This explains at least in part the
resistance to
new paradigms, and specifically to the systemic paradigm.
2002 MAP TERRITORY RELATION 2) - 3)
A.
KORZYBSKI's “map territory” metaphor is fundamental to the understanding
of homomorphisms and isomorphisms
in General Systems Research.
KORZYBSKI
stated: “Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map
is
not
the territory it represents but, if correct, it has a similar structure
to the
territory, which
accounts
for its usefulness” (1933, p.58).
Thereafter,
KORZYBSKI transfers this understanding to languages:
“If we
reflect upon our languages, we find that at best they must be
considered
only as maps. A word is not the object it represents; and languages
exhibit also this peculiar self-reflexiveness, that we can
analyse languages
by linguistic means. This self-reflexiveness of languages
introduces serious complexities, which can be solved only by the theory
of multiordinality”
(Ibid).
That
the word is not the object is made perfectly clear by G.
BATESON's
example: “The
word
'cat' cannot scratch us” (1973, p.153) and also from the following
humorous
A.N. WHITEHEAD“s comment, quoted by KORZYBSKI: ”The appeal to a class
to
perform the services of a proper entity is exactly analogous to
an
appeal to an imaginary terrier to kill a real
rat“
(1933, p.247).
As
to theory of multiordinality, it is quite close to RUSSELL's
theory of logical
types.
Confounding
the “map” with the “territory” leads generally to dire consequences, as
well as
using an incorrectly structured “map”, whether geographic, linguistic
or
conceptual.
The
subject has also been reworked by H. von FOERSTER through his Cybernetics
of
2d order (1981).
2003 MAPPING 2)
The
process of coupling two sets in a one-one correspondence.
St.
BEER gives the very simple example of creating such a one-one
correspondence
between the 26 letters of the alphabet and the numbers 1 to 26 (1968,
p.107).
While
purely abstract mapping may be isomorphic, when we try to model
concrete
systems, “... in practice the mapping will be homomorphic –
able to
preserve some structure, but committed to losing some information.
Thus our account of nature is 'true', but defective, and our account of
such
characteristics of nature as causation and law will change with the
linguistic
mapping we choose” (p.121).
Any
model we do construct of any part of our universe
is in
some sense a mapping, and necessarily a merely homomorphic one,
and:
“The variety of the image system obtained with a homomorphic mapping
is, of
course, smaller than the original one” (R. VALL]E, 1993b, p.75). It is
essential for our conceptual (and possibly even mental) sanity to
understand
this and consequently, to relativize our knowledge.
Mappings
are useful for the exploration of the interconnections and eventual transformations
of the contents of the set of the interrelated
items.
2104
METAPHORIC FRAMEWORK 1) - 2) - 4)
They
consider that "the challenge is to configurate the conceptual elements
into a global comprehensible form. This
is necessary to counteract the tendency to generate an asymmetric agglomeration
of elements"(1994)
While
this is obvious, it is also obvious that the actual form of the
post-conference
declarations is sometimes a true reflection of contradictory intentions
and
interests of the participants...and even of the muddled thinking of
some of
them.
The
authors add: "In addition to its mnemonic function, a metaphoric
framework
can then highlight the possible missing elements as well as suggesting
ways of
understanding interesting functional relationships between such
elements"(Ibid) This is again
obvious, but transparency may be in some cases ignored by some
who want
to better dissimulate covert intentions.
Moreover, the selection of the metaphoric framework itself could
easily
become the source (or the pretext!) of endless and inconclusive debate
2105
METAPHORS (Classes of) 2)
In fact, what the authors call metaphors can in most
cases be also
considered as models.
To
their listing an important addendum would be topological graphs,
matrixes
and mathematical curves (for ex. exponential, asymptotic, logistic,
gaussian).
The
authors add: "Of special interest are those sets of metaphors
which
permit inter-transformation with minimal loss of conceptual
integrity
(in terms of maintaining relationships between data
referents)
(Ibid) And: "With information
beyond a certain degree of complexity, it is questionable
whether any
single metaphor is adequate as an interface for adequate
comprehension. This is best exemplified
by the wave/particle metaphors used to comprehend fundamental physical
systems" (Ibid) Moreover:
"It is equally desirable to understand the use of metaphors in terms of
the alternation between perspectives which provide a sense of depth
that would
otherwise be unavailable. Such
"depth" is distinct from that obtainable from any 3-D metaphor which
although it offers depth, is cognitively not as significant as that
offered
from the cognitive integration of two contrasting metaphors. Such "depth" is only achievable by
alternation between metaphorical interfaces (as the wave/particle
example
suggests)" (Ibid) As an
interesting tool, the authors also propose the creation of a "library
of
metaphors".
2228
MULTI-PERSPECTIVISM 1) - 2) - 4)
A
very sketchy sampling of
these is as follows:
-the anarchic growth of
megalopolis and the resulting numerous
and intractable problems of most varied kinds
-the growingly complex
ecological problems, turning evermore global
(atmosphereic pollution, water crisis, possible climate change, waste
accumulation, etc.)
-the worldwide massive
demographic explosion, possibly starting
now to turn into an implosion
-terrorism, anarchy,
warfare and massive corruption spreading in
all continents
-growing hostility between some cultures
-foreign debt and financial
crisis in many countries
All
of these issues are known,
but merely in a superficial ill-connected way.
Their interrelations are ignored or ill understood.
This
situation is now
emerging in the consciousness of a growing number of people
and systemic
multi-perspective models are starting to appear.
H.
BENKING, for instance,
advocates the need to make a wide-embracing "know-map", in a
coherently organized fashion, in order to become able to find the
specific information
we need (but within context!), and even possibly to discover
more
precisely what to look for". In this way, every "player" would
know better where he is located in the general frame of events,
with whom to start a conversation and eventually what to do
and how to
do it.
Benking
adds that we do not
only need a "good map", but also a compass to orient us when using
the map and find (or become oneself) a good pilot in the cybernetic
sense.
Other
important proposers of
multiperspectivism are:
-A. JUDGE, general secretary of
the Union of International Associations
(Brussels) who publishes an Encyclopedia about world problems and world
resources
to solve or manage them: http://www.uia.org/uiadocs/aadocdia.htm
-The Club of Rome
interconnected World Models, based on
Forrester's Systems Dynamics
-J. de ROSNAY, who proposed his "Macroscope"
as an
integrative and also multiperspective view of wholes
-the "Systems Reasoning Paradigm
of the Information Image
and Nature” of M. BACEWICZ (Polish
Systems Society at Wroclaw Technological University)
-B.H. Banathy, J. WARFIELD, and
I. MITROFF and H. LINSTONE's work on Design are also important
contributions
®Eco-cube/know map; Panorama; Scholasticism;
Underconceptualization
2462
PANORAMA OF UNDERSTANDING 1) - 2)
Graphically, Benking proposes
a representation through interconnexions between three boxes: the
subject-box,
the object-box and the context-box.
He writes: "The
subject-box and the context-box are looking at the objects in the
object-box,
and the context-box enables us to map the metaphors of
understanding the kind of reality in which this
is taking place"
Each "box" is
represented by a cube, that can easily be subdivided in more elemental
sub-boxes corresponding to more specific situations.
This model is based, according
to BENKING "on the ekistic grid, as
conceived by
DOXIADIS in the field of planning sciences.
We can search not only for words, but for "areas"or
"bodies" of data and knowledge.
After agreement on location and
content, genuine
capabilities of man can come into play, which allow fast visual access
and
assimilation of very large volumes of data"
2463
PANORAMA THINKING 1) - 2)
and "We
can construct frames-of-reference as a schemata to
visually reference
and share diverse but inter-connected positions, focuses, ranges and
horizons,
in order to develop not only common grounds but a tolerance for
alternate ways
of seeing our different levels and
scopes"
By adequate and open conversation, we can
create a common
ground. In this way every player can
discover his own place in the general panorama and understand better
what he
does and what he could and should do, or not do.
Benking advocates the
construction of a good representation of the panorama (Eco-cube/know map)
We can use the cybernetic tools to order
our data-base. But he warns that we should not let us stray
in a "virtual cyberspace" in a
mainly and merely
technical sense, with no relevance to real situations.
Scales and
proportions and their consequences should be
duly taken in account in our representation, as we construct a 3
dimensional
space/time model.
®Multiperspectivism
1) general information 2)
methodology or model 3) epistemology, ontology and semantics 4) human sciences 5)
discipline oriented
|
Pls. note! that the author takes the
liberty as a collaborator and part of the Academic Comittee
to include figures and relevant references typically in a highlighted
format. The original entries of my work by the editor-in-chief Charles
Francois are not changed !! - but
additions are made in view of the forthcoming ESCO
Encyclopedia in a Mediawiki format. New Editor Guenther Ossimitz. Mail: Guenter
[at] ossimitz.at
See also the IFSR Newsletter announcements October 2004. As the WIKI will be available
soon you will have all entries available with their own WIKI page. http://benking.de/systems/encyclopedia/ |