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 for example here: 0484 COGNITIVE SPACES. See also the page on lines, and grids in 3D (embodied models) or in systemic terms: Blackbox-Whitebox-Greybox-Colourbox
0479 COGNITIVE
PANORAMA 1) - 2)
A conceptual superstructure that defines and identifies topics as
logical places, displays relations and connections within these topics
or issues"
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)
Each individual has his/her proper cognitive space, i.e. a perceptive
capacity.
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 Section 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/ or
®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)
The Eco-cube is a three dimensional knowledge representation
proposed by H. BENKING.
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
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)
A mental model we construct, knowingly or not, of
some part of the world.
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)
H. BENKING and A. JUDGE observe that the "intellectual
product" of international conferences of all kinds "takes the form of
complex declarations and programmes"
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)
H. BENKING and A. JUDGE write: "There is a need to distinguish
classes of metaphors offering different advantages and disadvantages.
Typically they would include: geometric forms (cube, sphere, polyhedra
in general), artificial forms (townscapes, house, room), natural forms
(landscape, trees, etc.), systemic structures (highway systems,
pathways, flow systems), dynamic systems (atomic, molecular, planetary,
galactic systems), traditional symbol systems (mandalas, sand paintings,
etc.)"(1994)
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)
The most dangerous challenge that mankind will
have to meet during the 21st c. is the growing confusion in all
kinds of issues, worldwide.
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 (
- 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
- 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)
H.. BENKING proposes a three-fold space-time panorama
of understanding linking subjects, objects and contexts.
He writes "The objective is to transcend and transform by thinking within,
between and beyond, not inside "boxes" or domains"
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)
H. BENKING considers that "We have to be able to
talk about the same things with words which are grounded...We need to see terms
and concepts
in their context" … 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: 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. more: http://benking.de/systems/ http://benking.de/systems/encyclopedia/