Monday, January 29, 2018

The Emerging Constraints of the Digital Environment and the Future of Identity.




The sciences of complexity offer a powerful framework for understanding change in the conditions of change. This paper, explores in broad strokes, essentially providing only hints, a complexity concept of ‘attractor of efficiency’ as a paradigm for understanding mutually shaping constraints related to the work of shaping social fabric, social structures and individual identity. Three basic attractors are important to this discussion. The attractors: Shaping hunter-gatherer experiences (where anarchy is the most efficient); Shaping civilizations up to the emergence of post-industrial society (where hierarchy is most efficient); and Shaping the emerging digital environment (where programmable self-organization, networked individualism and responsible autonomy is most efficient). Another key concept explored is the relationship of constraints derived from accounting and accountability to shaping identity and social fabric.

Attractors

Complex systems often configure 'attractors'. Attractors are non-linear, non-repeating paths of changes, contained in recognizable patterns. The ‘field’ (phase space) of an attractor is a basin constituted by a number of key variables. When the variables remain within related variances they form the attractor’s boundary conditions.



Economic attractors are constituted by boundary conditions such as: transaction-opportunity costs, population size/density, conditions of governance. Changing boundary conditions can nudge an attractor toward another basin or field. Attractors of efficiency play a key role in explaining evolving constraints of identity related to the work of creating social fabric.

Extensive and Intensive Change

The measurable world involves extensive and intensive properties. Extensive properties include measures of such as length, width, breadth, volume, mass, etc. Change of extensive properties creates predictable change in quantity or shape.

Intensive properties are measures related to populations – such as temperature, pressure, density, etc. For example, a single molecule of water does not have temperature or ‘wetness’.

Phenomena measured by intensive properties are subject to Phase Transitions. These are dramatic and fundamental changes within narrow band of difference, such as when water turns to ice.

Phase transitions can also initiate proliferating divisions (bifurcation). A bifurcation graph is a metaphorical illustration of the increases in divisions of labor, specialization or exchange-communication flows that arise when human populations increase in size, densities and/or connection.



Finally, complex, living systems require constraints that enable a release and harnessing of energy, resource or information flows to perform the work of sustaining the system.






The first surprise is that it takes constraints on the release of energy to perform work, but it takes work to create constraints. The second surprise is that constraints are information and information is constraint.
Stuart Kauffman –in Deacon (2012).


Social Attractors of Efficiency



Increased population density enables new divisions of labour, and specialist occupations that become domains of knowledge. New roles arise shaping new forms of exchange. New institutions also emerge. All of which influence the construction of identity.

Dunbar (2014) argues group size is determined by cognitive constraint determining the stable close ties an individual can maintain – the Dunbar number of 150 to 250. This is a direct function of the relative size of the brain’s processing capacity for relationships and also constrains possible divisions of labor, for example: elder, adult, child; man, woman; hunter, gatherer; shaman, healer. Larger numbers of ‘close ties’ require other constraining rules, laws and norms.

Graeber (2014) established that debt and credit (including the flow of favors) has been the heart of social fabric forming a social accounting of ongoing obligation and moral conscience. In fact, exact reciprocity of exchange tends to signal a desire for no relationship.

In early gatherer societies identity was constrained in statuses and roles of a ‘pecking order’ social structure. The idiosyncrasy of individual character –temperament, talents and skills was constrained to fit within social status and roles. The constraint of the Dunbar number means there can be no ‘private’ person, no experience of anonymity.

Coase (1990) established transaction costs as an economic constraint. Transaction costs are frictions related to patterns and rates of interaction, including: time, effort, resources, missed opportunities and conditions constraining efforts to search, negotiate, enforce, coordinate and communicate. The assumption is that systems adopt structures and processes that are as efficient as possible. Other conditions such as population size and density; environmental niches, providences and rhythms; levels of technology; also shape the boundaries of efficiency.

Accounting and Exchange

The technologies of language and culture externalized human memory. Learning no longer had to be ‘encoded’ into DNA and experienced as instinct. Learning could be encoded in ‘memes’ enabling rapid transmittal, modification, replacement for adaptive acceleration in a wider variety of changing environmental conditions. Language, culture and meme provided a learning-exchange platform and better ‘insurance’ against loss of group knowledge or an individual’s genetic endowment. Social-learning favored cooperative behaviors for regulating intra-group fitness. Language enabled capacity to explore infinite forms of reasoning.

Human nature is less defined by selfishness or cooperation than it is by a capacity for social accounting – dynamic bookkeeping of relationships, constraining identity within a (moral) social fabric.

Maintaining a pecking order (social structure) is cognitively complex and demanding. Each individual assesses their relation with every other individual in a largely unconscious parallel process of social computing. The pecking order is a dynamic homeostatic process of moral accounting maintaining group cohesion. For example, when a hunter brings in a large animal to the group –the division of the animal is predetermined by the social structure. All know who gets what portions and parts and order of eating. Moral bookkeeping (Lakoff; 1995, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008) is a fundamental conceptual metaphor inherent in concepts of reciprocation, retribution, restitution, revenge, altruism and fairness. Even grooming among primates is a process of moral bookkeeping (establishing credit – paying debt) that maintains social structure and fabric.

Boehm (1999) helped establish evolutionary selection also operates on group levels. In competition between individuals, selfishness will trump. But if competition is between groups –then cooperative groups trump aggregations of selfish individuals. Primate and early human social structures were shaped by practical egalitarianism – a reverse hierarchy where the weak combine to control the strong.

Similarly, Graeber (2004) argues gatherers were anarchistic, enacting practices enacting cohesion and constraining relative autonomy by avoiding authoritarian methods of imposed decisioning. Decisioning emphasized concrete action, where all had real voice with minimum loss of ‘face’. “What is seen as an elaborate and difficult process of finding consensus is, in fact, a long process of making sure no one walks away feeling that their views have been totally ignored”, Graeber (2004, p. 89).

The attractor of efficiency in gatherer groups constrained identity into a relatively rigid public self, and a form of anarchy (Graeber, 2004; Dunbar, 2014) in order to do the work of creating and maintaining social fabric.

The Transition to Agricultural Civilizations

Tudge (1999) argues humans were proto-farmers for about 30,000 years (having knowledge of how to protect and plant food sources). What kept early humans from making the shift to agricultural societies sooner? Plausibly a constraint of memory – a capacity for sophisticated accounting.

Writing originated from accounting (Schmandt-Besserat, 2010). Simple systems of accounting externalized memory for managing greater diversity of divisions of labor and the complex exchanges of surpluses, products, expertise of a more complex social economy.

Written accounting changed the boundary condition of human memory, enabling a shift to larger, denser, agricultural societies. Anarchy could not scale to new population and density levels. A new attractor emerged favoring hierarchy (Coase, 1990). Hierarchy retained status structures and framing the efficiency of larger collective efforts and instituted new constraints on identity. Other emergent conditions included: bifurcation of occupations and new institutions; formal religious processes; forms of local markets; commons and collective infrastructures.

Identity was constrained in a larger range of roles, status and class structures, occupational and kinship networks. Encounters with strangers were mediated through trust established by extended personalized networks and through local governance (North, 1981, 2005).

In the Axial age, large scale warfare and currency emerged (Graeber 2012) needing impersonal forms of exchange. Invading forces obtained supplies with coin currency without depending on accounting of local social fabric. Currency was a concrete system of circulating trustworthy (enough) IOU’s. A paradox of externalized memory and an early mechanism mediating anonymity.

The Transition to Industrial Society

The emergence with cities and higher population densities created new constraints of impersonal diversified exchange, and mobility, engendering anonymity. Eventually, shaping new narratives of the self eventually formulating the individual as isolated, atomistic and selfish. Wider networks of loose ties and encounters with unknown (perhaps unknowable) strangers (moments of potential new behaviors enacting mirror neurons) created conditions for an emerging public and private self.

New institutions emerged for verification and validation of identity to provide certificates, licenses, credentials, verifications, ‘papers’, etc. It became possible to ‘steal an identity’. Psychological independence, a private self, and institutions of authentication, were new constraint on identity to enact the work required to sustain an economy of increasingly impartial exchange arising from political-economic concepts of markets, equality and a freedom to self-actualize. The faceless (anonymous) worker is also a currency for the work constituting industrial society.

The industrial age shifted the attractor of efficiency – favouring paradoxical constraints of hierarchy and a freedom through anonymity and property rights.

Constraints Emerging in the Digital Environment

Rifkin (2014) suggests capitalism will be displaced by collaborative commons, not erased, but contained in a larger economic ecology of new modes of production relevant to near-zero marginal costs. The digital environment exponentially increases social fluidity and change – obsolescing the primacy of scaling efficiency and highlighting the marginal value of network effects. Marginal value of networks being determined by ‘Metcalf’s Law’ (value is the number of nodes squared = n2) and ‘Reed’s Law’ (group forming networks where value is the possible number of sub-groups = 2n).

The concept of exponentially increasing marginal value, in the digital environment, is key to grasping how to govern, manage and account for the non-rival nature of knowledge, information, data and potentially any near-zero marginal cost goods or services. The digital environment is essentially a vast copying and connection platform (an intensive medium – acting as a global nervous system) enabling algorithmic intelligence to function as an external neocortex (pattern making-learning brain system).

Wellman and Rainie (2012), establish ‘networked individualism’ as an emerging social operating system in the digital environment. Identity is now beyond being shaped by close and loose ties and now involves having audience(s). The rise of personal brand (by definition needs audience) retrieves (McLuhan, 1989, 2001, 2011) a tribal constraint on identity. Paradoxically, digital platforms enable near costless transaction-coordination, enacting new constraints such as: search and findability (transparency) and distributed production.

Fuller (2014) proposes a shift in fundamental rights – from property rights (owning our information) to liability (recourse when harm is perpetrated). Security is not what others may know, but recourse when information is used to cause harm. Insurance as security of our personal identity – a de facto price for potentially unlimited personal freedom – A ‘Proactionary Imperative’.
The price of greater freedom is that others are free to access you, which means that you need to ensure that you benefit – or at least are not harmed – by that newfound freedom that others have over you. But in any case, privacy in its classical sense is effectively dead.
Kelly (2016) notes how convenience continually trumps privacy. Owning one’s personal data as private property can more often impede 'wealth/value' creation. For example, a conversation with a friend - each recording it. Each is part of the other's experience. Who owns the conversation?

To own our part of the conversation requires an 'appropriation' of the other’s personal experience and vice-versa. The value of the conversation is more than the sum of each contribution, not to mention the creative and spill-over network effects. A new narrative of dynamic social, co-creation is emerging as a new constraint (Kelly 2016).

Hutchins (2008) among others, argues human cognition is an entangled, embodied and inclusive system of objects, patterns, events, ecologies and other beings. A counter-narrative of the ‘social self’ arises in this context of entangled, mycelial-like ecology.



"Perhaps I didn't live just in myself, perhaps I lived the lives of others … My life is a life put together from all those lives: the lives of the poet."
Pablo Neruda – Memoirs, p1

The Age of Entanglement


The digital environment is a phase transition in the entanglement of things, people, data-information, algorithmic intelligence and embodied knowledge thinking systems. The attractor of efficiency is shaped by boundary conditions of real-time transparency and real-time data. Our digital trails are on a trajectory of visible, queryable histories.

It promises unimaginable visualization of information, forms of analysis, personalized service-products, emergent opportunities –of dynamic, convenient customization.

The boundaries between, history, relationships, reputation, information, currency and accounting of value and choice – all dissolve identity. The challenge is a deep re-imagining of ‘value’ – especially non-rival, non scarce, subject to increasing returns and intangible value. 

We are at the dawn of the Age of Entanglement. In the Age of Enlightenment, we learned that nature followed laws. … understanding these laws, we could predict and manipulate. ... We granted ourselves god-like powers: to fly, communicate across vast distances, hold frozen moments of sight and sound, transmute elements, create new plants and animals. … we orchestrated fantastic chains of causes and effect in our political, legal, and economic systems as well as in our machines. Our philosophies neatly separated man and nature, mind and matter, cause and effect. We learned to control.
we constructed digital computers, the very embodiments of cause and effect. Computers are the cathedrals of the Enlightenment, the ultimate expression of logical deterministic control. … we learned to manipulate knowledge, … beyond the capacity of our own minds. … We began to build systems with emergent behaviors that were beyond our own understanding, creating the first crack in the foundation. 
So what is this brave new world that we are creating, governed neither by the mysteries of nature or the logic of science, but by the magic of their entanglement? It is governed by the mathematics of strange attractors. Its geometry is fractal. Its music is improvisational and generative rather than composed… progress in the Age of Entanglement is synthetic and comes from putting things together


In the age of Digital Entanglement the Bitcoin is a currency technology, built on a deeply disruptive technology, called the Blockchain.

[Blockchain] is to Bitcoin, what the internet is to email. A big electronic system, on top of which you can build applications. Currency is just one.
Sally Davies, FT Technology Reporter
The blockchain is a distributed ledger. For example, every Bitcoin account holder has a copy of ‘the ledger’ of all Bitcoin transactions. There is no central administrator.

Transactions are synchronized via complex encrypted algorithms ensuring all copies correctly record transactions – ensuring ‘no dollar is spent twice’. Transactions take 10 minutes to ‘clear’, are grouped in a ‘block’ distributed across the network. A validated block is added to previous blocks in a chain = ‘blockchain’.
This ledger is open to any form of record – property deeds, insurance, academic, real estate, legal, health care, bio-data. The Blockchain emerges as a digital institution of accounting – enabling more efficient trade, exchange, and record of any form of value creation.
The technology likely to have the greatest impact on the next few decades has arrived. And it’s not social media. It’s not big data. It’s not robotics. It’s not even AI. … It’s called the blockchain. 
Don Tapscott
The most significant factors of Blockchain applications and platforms have not yet been invented, yet when we recount that last fundamental innovation in accounting – we get hints of how profoundly accounting innovation can impact societies.

Double-entry bookkeeping was deployed … in the 1300s. … this fundamental atomic unit of tracking and managing value–is still based on this 700-year-old invention. … we have the opportunity to create a system of accounting of the 21st century–a system beyond numbers in ledgers and utilizes machine learning, multiparty computation, and algorithmic representation to redefine “value.” 
the technology of the financial system is built on top of a way of thinking about money and value … designed when all we had were pen and paper ... we reduce complexity [by using] a common method of pricing, put elements into categories, and add them up. … trying to make the system “better” … without addressing the underlying problem of a lossy and oversimplified view of the world.

The Blockchain signals an emergence of a new attractor of efficiency for economics, work and institutions. A creator releases a creation on the Blockchain. All can access it and are recorded on the Blockchain when they do – crediting the creator. Anyone can add to or recombine it with other creations and release ‘mash-up’. Others using the new combination give credit to original creator and to the ‘added value’ creator. All access, use and value-added are recorded, accredited and accounted for via the Blockchain.

This sort of accounting system increases social trust, resilience and agility (Pentland, 2014). It reduces transactions costs and by establishing trusted networks enables an exponential increase in idea and knowledge flow. In the world of accelerating change, we now live in a ‘beta-world’ and will always be ‘newbies’ (Kelly, 2016). A ‘beta world’ of eternal ‘newbies’ needs to steward intrinsic motivation to enable rapid scaling of learning to adapt to new technology, systems, processes as well as deeper engagement, participation, trust-based social fabric for collaboration and self-organization.
Learners do not receive or even construct abstract, “objective,” individual knowledge; rather, they learn to function in a community. They acquire that particular community’s subjective viewpoint and learn to speak its language. Learners are acquiring not explicit, formal “expert knowledge,” but the embodied ability to behave as community members.
Brown and Duguid, 1991, p. 48

Conclusion

The constraint that the radically transparent, globally networked, non-rival and near zero-marginal cost economy of the emerging digital environment places on the construction of identity implies that the ‘individual’ is no longer the smallest unit which society can be reduced to. The individual is no longer a whole self-contained unit – but now become divisible among unpredictable varieties of networks, interests, projects and groups.

As McLuhan noted the printing press enabled the emergence of the mass individual – the digital environment creates constraints for the emergence of ‘Dividuals’ (Deleuze, 1992). Dividuals are like fractal mosaics of data, networks, samples, markets, communities and ‘banks’ as vehicles of value storage, exchange, transformation and recombination. Knowledge is the currency of digital societies measured via transparent behavioral action and creation. The Individual Dividual is a mosaic identity-as-index of continual networking – surfing the digital waves of change.

The digital environment is becoming one general purpose platform of costless coordination. This new boundary condition shapes the attractor of efficiency to favour self-organized processes of social computing – assembling knowledge networks as and when needed. Enabling a move from a hierarchical attractor of efficiency based on principal-agent accountability towards a new attractor based methods of agent-forum accountability. Wikipedia demonstrates a platform enabling a capacity to develop shared mental models, common rules, languages and purpose (e.g. see North, 1981, 1990, 2005; Ostrom, 1990, 2002, 2005).

The Job is Dead – Long live Net-Work.

Personal Brand can likely become more salient retrieving (in a McLuhan sense) a tribal type identity. However, we will likely become comfortable having multiple complex ‘Brand Personas’ suitable to a fractal-like mosaic of self-organizing networks, interests and groups. Rather than a rigid unique character of the tribal gatherer group the digital environment enables an adaptive ‘Individuated Character’ corresponding to bifurcating social contexts – also held accountable through agent-forum mechanisms (Bovens, 2010) and forms of reciprocal accountability (Brin, 1999).


Bibliography

What is not included in this bibliography is are all the citations from an environmental scan weekly newsletter that has been undertaken since 2010. However, only the newsletters produced since the fall of 2014 are available for viewing at: http://johnverdon-friday-thinking.blogspot.ca/ 

Aaltonen, Mika. 2010. Robustness: Anticipatory and Adaptive Human Systems. ISCE Publishing.

Ahonen, Tomi T., Moore, Alan. 2005. Communities Dominate Brands: Business and Marketing Challenges for the 21st Century. Futuretext.

Alberts, David S. 2002. Information Age Transformation: Getting to a 21st Century Military. Command and Control Research Program. www.dodccrp.org.

Alberts, David S., Hayes, Richard E. 2003. Power to the Edge: Command and Control in the Information Age. Command and Control Research Program. www.dodccrp.org.

Alberts, D.S. (2007) Agility, Focus, and Convergence: The Future of Command and Control. The International C2 Journal, Vol 1, No 1: 1-30

Aldhous, Peter. 2009. Genome sequencing falls to $5000. New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16552-company-will-sequence-your-dna-for-5000.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=genetics

Allen, Douglas, W. 2011. The Institutional Revolution: Measurement and the Economic Emergence of the Modern World. University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, Chris. 2008. The Long Tail: The Future of Business is Selling More of Less. Hyperion: New York.

Anderson, Chris. 2010. In the Next Industrial Revolution, Atoms Are the New Bits. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_newrevolution/all/1

Arthur, W. Brian. (2009) The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. London: Free Press.

Arquilla, John, Ronfeldt, David. 1997. In Athena’s Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age. Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.  National Defense Research Institute. Washington, D.C.: RAND.

Atkinson, Simon Reay; Moffat, James. 2005. The Agile Organization: From Informal Networks To Complex Effects and Agility. CCRP. http://www.dodccrp.org/html2/pubs_pdf.html

Bar-Yam, Y. 2006. Complexity Rising: From Human Beings to Human Civilization. New England Complex Systems Institute, Cambridge, MA. Presented at DRDC Complexity Workshop, Nov 2006, Valcartier.

Beinhocker, Eric D. 2006. The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.

Benkler, Yochai. 2006. Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press. http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Download_PDFs_of_the_book

Benkler, Yochai. Coase’s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm. 2002. Yale Law Journal. Vol. 112 v.04.3 August http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.PDF

Boehm, Christopher. 2001. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University Press. http://www.amazon.com/Hierarchy-Forest-Evolution-Egalitarian-Behavior/dp/0674006917/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420701789&sr=1-1&keywords=hierarchy+in+the+forest

Bovens, Mark. 2007. Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, July 2007, pp. 447–468

Bousquet, Antoine. 2009. The Scientific Way of Warfare: Order and Chaos on the Battlefields of Modernity. Hurst & Company. London.

Brafman, Ori.; Beckstrom, Rod, A. 2006. The Starfish and The Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. Portfolio, Penguin Books: London.

Brin, David. 1998. The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Brown, John Seely; Duguid, Paul. 2000. The Social Life of Information. MaGraw-Hill.

Brown, John Seely; Adler, Richard P. 2008. Minds on Fire: Open Education, The Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSEreview, Jan/Feb 2008. http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/MindsonFireOpenEducationt/45823?time=1220901893

Brown, John Seely; III John, Hagel; Davidson, Lang. 2010. The Power Of Pull: How Small Moves, Smartly Made, Can Set Big Things in Motion. New York: Basic Books.

Brown, John Seely; Thomas, Douglas. 2011. A New Culture of Learning. Createspace

Brynjolfsson, Erik; Saunders, Adam. 2009. Wired for Innovation: How Information Technology is Reshaping the Economy. The MIT Press.

Burt, R.; Cook, K.; Lin, N. 2001. Social Capital: Theory and Research. Aldine Transaction.

Cascio, J. (2005) The Rise of the Participatory Panopticon. Posted 4 May 2005. Accessed 28 August 2010. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002651.html

Castells, Manuel. 1997. The Power of Identity : The Information Age - Economy, Society and Culture. Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, Manuel. 2000. End of Millenium. Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, Manuel. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, Manuel. 2001. The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford University Press.

Castronova, Edward. 2002. On Virtual Economies. CESifo Working Paper No. 752, Category 9: Industrial Org. http://www.ssrn.com/ 

Chia, R., & Holt, R. 2009. Strategy Without Design: The Silent Efficacy of Indirect Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni. Press

Coase, Ronald, 1990. The Firm, the Market, and the Law. University Of Chicago Press; Reprint edition. http://www.amazon.com/Firm-Market-Law-R-Coase/dp/0226111016/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1422945063&sr=8-2&keywords=ronald+coase

Collins, Harry. 2010. Tacit & Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Deacon, Terrance, W. 2011. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter. WW Norton.

De Landa, Manuel. 1991. War in the Age of Intelligent Machines. Zone Books, MIT Press, New York.

De Landa, Manuel. 1997. A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History Zone Books: New York.

De Landa, Manuel, 2001. Open-Source: A movement in Search of a Philosophy. Presentation at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey. http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/delanda/pages/opensource.htm

De Landa, M. 2002. Intensive science and virtual philosophy. London: Continuum.

De Landa, Manuel, 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. Continuum: London.

De Landa, Manuel. 2012. Emergence, Causality and Realism. Architectural Theory Review. Volume 17, Issue 1. http://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version_Speculative_Turn_9780980668346.pdf

Deleuze, Gilles. 1992. Postscript on the Societies of Control. October, Vol. 59. (Winter, 1992), pp. 3-7. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-2870%28199224%2959%3C3%3APOTSOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

Diamond, Jared. 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: Norton.

Diamond, Jared.2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Penguin Paperbacks.

Doctorow, Cory. 2012. Disorganised but effective: how technology lowers transaction costs. The Guardian. 21 June, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jun/21/how-technology-lowers-transaction-costs

Doidge, Norman, M.D. 2007. The Brain That Changes Itself. Penguin.

Dunbar, Robin. 2014. Human Evolution: A Pelican Introduction. Pelican.

Dyson, Freeman. 2007. Our Biotech Future. The New York Review of Books.  Volume 54, Number 12. July 19, 2007. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20370

Edvinson, Leif. Malone, Michael S. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value By Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. New York: New York: Harper Business.

Eymard-Duvernay, François; Favereau, Olivier; Orléan, André; Salais, Robert; Thévenot, Laurent. 2003. Values, Coordination and Rationality: The Economy of Conventions or The Time of Reunification in the Economic, Social and Political Sciences. Paper presented at the Conference "Conventions et institutions: approfondissements théoriques et contributions au débat politique", Paris, 11-12 décembre 2003. http://www.pse.ens.fr/orlean/depot/publi/ART2004tVALU.pdf

Fairtlough, Gerard. 2005. The Three Ways of Getting Things Done: Hierarchy, Heterarchy and Responsible Autonomy in Organizations. Triarchy Press Ltd.

Federman, Mark; de Kerckhove, Derrick. 2003. McLuhan for Managers: New Tools for New Thinking. Viking Canada.

futurelab. 2007. Opening Education: 2020 and beyond: Future scenarios for education in the age of new technologies. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications_reports_articles/opening_education_reports

futurelab. 2008. Designing For Social Justice: People, Technology, Learning. www.futurelab.org.uk/openingeducation.

Fuller, Steve. 2014. Justice Beyond Privacy: As the old social bonds unravel, how can we balance free expression against security? http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/justice-beyond-privacy-auid-409

Fuller, Steve. Lipinska, Veronika. 2014. The Proactionary Imperative: A foundation for Transhumanism. Plagrave. MacMillan.

Gershenfeld, Neil A. 1999. When Things Start to Think. Henry Holt & Company.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Gibson, William. 2007. William Gibson says reality has become sci-fi. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/07/us-books-authors-gibson-idUSN2535896520070807

Gibson, William. 2010. William Gibson says the future is right here, right now. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-11502715

Gleick, James. 2011. Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood. New York: Pantheon.

Graeber, David. 2004. Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Prickly Paradigm Press.

Graeber, David. 2012. Debt: The First 5000 Years. Melville House.

Greenfield, Adam. 2006. Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Peachpit Press.

Hagel, John; Brown, John Seely; Samoylova, Tamara. 2013. Unlocking the passion of the Explorer. Deloitte University Press. http://dupress.com/articles/unlocking-the-passion-of-the-explorer/?id=us:el:dc:dup402:awa:shift:tmt?id=us:el:dc:dup402:awa:shift:tmt

Haque, Umair. 2011. The New Capitalist Manifesto: Building a Disruptively Better Business. Harvard Business Review Press.

Hamel, Gary. 2011. “First Fire All the Managers”. Harvard Business Review. December 2011. http://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers/ar/1?referral=00134

Hidalgo, Cesar. 2013. WHAT IS VALUE? WHAT IS MONEY? An Edge Conversation with Cesar Hidalgo. http://edge.org/conversation/what-is-value accessed Oct. 2013. 

Hodder, Ian. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Wiley-Blackwell.

Iannacci, Frederico; Mitleton-Kelly, Eve. 2005. “Beyond Markets and Firms: The Emergence of Open Source Networks”. First Monday, volume 10, number 5 (May 2005), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_5/iannacci/index.html

Ingold, Tim. 2011. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge; Reissue edition. 
http://www.amazon.com/Perception-Environment-Essays-Livelihood-Dwelling/dp/0415617472/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420971819&sr=1-3&keywords=tim+ingold

Jenkins, H., Prushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., Robinson, A. 2009. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.

Juarrero, Alicia; Rubino, Carl A. 2010. Emergence, Complexity, and Self-Organization: Precursors and Prototypes. Isce Publishing. http://emergentpublications.com/

Kahane, Adam. 2004. Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Kahneman, Daniel. 2012. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Doubleday, Canada.

Kauffman, Stuart. 1996. At Home in the Universe : The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. Oxford University Press.

Kauffman, Stuart; Montevil, Mael; Longo, Giuseppe. 2012. No entailing laws, but enablement in the evolution of the biosphere. https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2069

Kauffman, Stuart. 2016. Answering Descartes: Beyond Turing. In S. Cooper & A. Hodges (Eds.), The Once and Future Turing: Computing the World (pp. 163-192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511863196.017

Kaufman, Stuart. 2016. Humanity in a Creative Universe. Oxford University Press

Kelly, Kevin. 1995. Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social System and the Economic World. Perseus Press.

Kelly, Kevin. 1998. New Rules for the New Economy: 10 Radical Strategies for a Connected World. Penguin Books.

Kelly, Kevin. 2010. What Technology Wants. New York: Viking USA.

Kelly, Kevin. 2016. The Inevitable: Understanding the 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future. Viking, USA.

Kurtz, C.F.; Snowden, D.J. 2003. The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-making in a Complex and Complicated World. IBM Systems Journal. Vol. 42. No. 3.

Kurzweil, Ray. 2005. The Singularity is Near. Viking USA.

Lakoff, George. 1995. Metaphor, Morality, and Politics. http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark.1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.

Lakoff, George; Nunez, Rafael. 2001. Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. Basic Books.

Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Cons
ervatives Think. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark. 2003 Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, George. 2008. The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain. Viking.

Latour, Bruno. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Havard University Press.

Leonhard, Robert R.1998. Principles of War for The Information Age. Presidio Press: Novato, California.

Lissack, Michael, R. 2004. The Redefinition of Memes: Ascribing Meaning to an Empty Cliché. Journal of Memetics. http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2004/vol8/lissack_mr.html#Odling-Smeeetal2003

Longo, Montévil and Kauffman. 2012. No entailing laws, but enablement in the evolution of the biosphere. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2069.pdf

Lopez, Jose. 2003. Society and Its Metaphors: Language, Social Theory and Social Structure. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Lutz, Wolfgang; Sanderson, C. Warren; Scherbov, Sergei. 2004. The End of World Population Growth in the 21st Century: New Challenges for Human Capital Formation & Sustainable Development. IIASA, Earthscan.

Malone, Thomas. 2004. The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style, and Your Life. Harvard Business School Press.

Malone, Laubacher & Johns. 2011. The Big Idea: The Age of Hyperspecialization Harvard Business Review. July-August 2011. http://hbr.org/2011/07/the-big-idea-the-age-of-hyperspecialization/ar/1?cm_sp=most_widget-_-hbr_articles-_-The+Big+Idea:+The+Age+of+Hyperspecialization

Mandavilli, Apoorva. 2011. Trial By Twitter. Nature. Vol. 469. 20 January. 2011. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110119/pdf/469286a.pdf

Marti, Jose Luis; Pettit, Philip.2010. A Political Philosophy in Public Life: Civic Republicanism in Zapetero’s Spain. Princeton University Press.

McLuhan, Marshall; McLuhan, Eric. 1989. Laws of Media: The New Science. University of Toronto Press.

McLuhan, Marshall; Fiore, Quentin; Fairey, Shepard. 2001. The Medium is the Massage. Gingko Press; New edition edition.

McLuhan, Marshall. 2003. War and Peace in the Global Village. Penguin Canada.

McLuhan, Marshall. 2005. Understanding Me: Lectures and Interviews. MIT Press.

McLuhan, Marshall; McLuhan, Eric. 2011. Media and Formal Cause. NeoPoiesis Press.

Mitchell, Melanie. 2009. Complexity: A Guided Tour. London: Oxford University Press.

Mitleton-Kelly, Eve. 2003. Ten Principles of Complexity & Enabling Infrastructures. Chapter 2 of Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organizations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organizations. www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/ICoSS/Papers/Ch2final.pdf

Morton, Timothy. 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. University of Minnesota Press.

Morton, Timothy. 2016 Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence Columbia University Press.

Naam, Ramez. 2013. The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet. UPNE.

Negroponte, Nicholas. 1996. Being Digital. Vintage.

Neilsen, Michael. 2011. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Nisbett. E. Richard. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asian and Westerners Think Differently… And Why. Free Press.

North, Douglass, C. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History W. W. Norton & Company: New York.

North, D. C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Nye, David E. 2007. Technology Matters.MIT Press.

Okros, Alan; Verdon, John; Chouinard, Paul. 2011. The Meta-Organization: A Research and Conceptual Landscape. Ottawa. Technical Report. DRDC, Center for Security Science. DRDC CSS TR 2011-13, July 2011.

Olsen, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Second printing with new preface and appendix. Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons : The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, Elenor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Ostrom, E. and National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. (2002). The drama of the commons. Washington: National Academy Press.

Oyama, Susan. 2000. The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Duke University Press.

Pentland, Alex "Sandy". Social Physics-Bitcoin-BM https://idcubed.org/chapter-1-social-physics-human-centric-society/

Pentland, Alex. 2015. Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter. Penguin Books.

Pink, Daniel H. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates US. Penguin.

Polanyi, Michael. 1969. Knowing and Being: Essays by Michael Polanyi. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Price, If. 2004. Complexity, Complicatedness and Complexity: A New Science Behind Organizational Intervention? E:CO Vol. 6 Nos. 1-2 2004 pp.40-48.

Principe, Lawrence, M. 2011. The Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Raimi, Lee; Wellman, Barry. 2012. Networked: The New Social Operating System. MIT Press.

Reed, David P. 1999. That Sneaky Exponential – Beyond Metcalfe’s Law to the Power of Community Building. www.reed.com/Papers/GFN/reedlaw.html

Rheingold, Howard. 2002. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Perseus Publishing.

Rifkin, Jeremy. 1995. The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era. New York, N.Y.: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam Book.

Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons and the Eclipse of Capitalism. Palgrave. MacMilan.

Ronfeldt, David. 2005. Al Qaeda and its affiliates: A global trive waging segmental warfare?”. First Monday, Vol. 10, No. 3 – 7 March 2005. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_3/

Ronfeldt, David; Arquilla, John. 2001. Networks, Netwars, and the Fight for the Future. First Monday, Vol.6, No.10 October 2001. URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_10/ronfeldt/index.html

Schwartz, Peter.1996. The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. Doubleday.

Schwartz, Peter; Leyden, Peter; Hyatt, Joel. 2000. The Long Boom: A Vision of the Coming Age of Prosperity. Perseus Press.

Schwartz, Peter.2003. Inevitable Surprises: Thinking Ahead In a Time of Turbulence. Gotham Books.

Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1997. How Writing Came About. University of Texas Press; Abridged edition.

Shirky, Clay. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin Press.

Shirky, Clay. 2008. Institutions versus Collaboration. TED Talks at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html.

Smith, Adam. (2006) The Theory of Moral Sentiments. London: Dover Publications.

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. 2000 Modern Library Paperback Edition. Introduction by Robert Reich. Edited, with notes, marginal summar, and enlarged index, by Edwin Cannan.

Smith, Edward, R. Effects Based Operations: Applying Network Centric Warfare to Peace, Crisis and War. Command and Control Research Program. www.dodccrp.org.

Smith, Rupert. 2006. The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. Penguin: UK.

Snowden, David. 2002. Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, Special Issue.

Snowden, David; Stanbridge, Peter. 2004. The Landscape of Management: Creating the Context for Understanding Social Complexity. E:CO Special Double Issue. Vol. 6 Nos. 1-2 pp140-148.

Sterling, Bruce. 2005. Shaping Things. MIT Press.

Sterling, Bruce. 2002. Tomorrow Now. Random House. NY

Surowiecki, James. 2005. Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor Books.

Tait, Andrew; Richardson, Kurt A. 2010. Complexity and Knowledge Management: Understanding the Role of Knowledge in the Management of Social Networks. Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Terranova, T. (2004). Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London ; Ann Arbor, MI, Pluto Press.

Thévenot, Laurent. 2004. The French Convention School and the Coordination of Economic Action. Interviewed by Jagd, Soren. Economic Sociology. European Electronic Newletter Vol. 5. No. 3. http://econsoc.mpifg.de/archive/esjune04.pdf

Tudge, Colin. 1999. Neanderthals, Bandits and Farmers: How Agriculture Really Began. Yale University Press.

Uchiyama, J. Verdon, J. Wait, T. Norton, S. 2002. Military HR Strategy 2020: Facing the People Challenges of the Future. Chief of Staff ADM(HR-Mil), ADM (HR-Mil), DND 2002.

Ulieru, Mihaela. Verdon, John. 2009. Organizational Transformation In The Digital Economy. Plenary Tutorial Paper IEEE Digital Ecosystems Technologies Conference. Istanbul, Turkey, May 31-June 3, 2009.

Ulieru, Mihaela. Verdon, John. Organizational Transformation in the Digital Economy, Invited Plenary Tutorial Paper at the IEEE Industrial Informatics Conference. Cardiff , UK, June 24-26 2009

Ulieru, Mihaela. Verdon, John. IT – Revolutions in the Industry: From the Command Economy to the eNetworked Industrial Ecosystem. IEEE Conference on Industrial Informatics. Paper No. KD-011452, 2008.

Verdon, John. 2000. Scenario-Based Strategic Planning: Integrating Strategic Planning And Decision-Making... DSHRC Research Note 1/2000.

Verdon, John. 2012. Collaboration and Knowledge Governance. Optimum Online: The Journal for Public Sector Management. Vol 42, No. 3. September, 2012. http://www.optimumonline.ca/frontpage.phtml

Verdon, John. 2003. Strategic Planning Process - Uncertainty, Mitigation, Preparedness.. D Strat HR Research Note 09/03. DND 2003.

Verdon, John. 2005. Concepts Toward a Theory of Human Network-Enabled Operations Directorate of Strategic Human Resources, Research Note, 02-2005. July 2005.

Verdon, John; Forrester, Bruce; Tanner, Leesa. 2007. Understanding the Impact of Network Technologies on the Design of Work – Social and Peer Production. Technical Memorandum. DMPFD TM 2007-04. April 2007.

Verdon, John. 2008. The Last Mile of the Market: How Network Technologies, Architectures of Participation and Peer Production Transform the Design of Work and Labour. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal. http://www.innovation.cc/ 2008.

Verdon, John; Forrester, Bruce; Wang, Zhigang. 2009. The Last Mile of the  Market: How Networks, Participation and Responsible Autonomy Support Mission Command and Transform Personnel Management. Ottawa: Technical Memorandum. DRDC, DGMPRA TM 2009-022, Nov 2009. DRDC

Verdon, John. 2010. Stewarding Engagement, Harnessing Knowledge: Keeping the Future in Reserves. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. VOLUME 12, ISSUE 4, SUMMER 2010.

Verdon, John. CMP Fight of the Future - Environmental Scan 2009 – Summary Report. Ottawa: Technical Memorandum. DRDC, DGMPRA TM 2012-022, December 2012. DRDC

Verdon, John. 2012. The Wealth of People – Collaboration and Knowledge Governance – A Strategic Discussion Paper: How the Digital Environment Re-Frames the Future of Knowledge and Work – From Knowledge Management to Social Computing. Technical Memorandum. DRDC, DGMPRA TM 2012-003, September 2012.DRDC.

Watts, Duncan. 2003. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. W.W. Norton & Company: New York.

Watt, Dunan. 2011. Everything is Obvious: Once You Know the Answer. Crown Business.

Weinberger, David. 2007. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. Times.

Weinberger, David. 2012. Too Big To Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That Facts Aren't Fact, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room is the Room. Basic Books.

Wellman, Barry. 2004. Mobile-ized, Glocalized Interaction in a Time of Networked Individualism: Lessons Being Learned from NetLab’s Research. U of T. http://www.ischool.washington.edu/mcdonald/cscw04/papers/wellman-cscw04.doc

Wellman, Barry. 2001. The Rise of Networked Individualism. In Community Networks Online. Edited by Leigh Keeble. London: Taylor & Francis.

Wellman, Barry; Quan-Haase, Anabel; Boase, Jeffrey; Chen, Wenhong; Hampton, Keith; Isla de Diaz, Isabel; Miyata, Kakuko. 2003. The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism
www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue3/wellman.html

Wellman, Barry. 2002. Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism. Centre fo Urban & Community Studies. U of T. www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman

West, Geoffrey. 2008. Superlinear Scaling for Innovation in Cities. http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4994

West, Geoffrey. 2014. The scaling of human interactions with city size. http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royinterface/11/98/20130789.full.pdf#

West, Geoffrey. 2014. Scaling: The surprising mathematics of life and civilization. https://medium.com/sfi-30-foundations-frontiers/scaling-the-surprising-mathematics-of-life-and-civilization-49ee18640a8

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Values in an Ecology of Tensions

Values – The  children of Value Creation – New Myths for Prosperity

Motif

People value
People have values
People exchange value
People choose by weighing values
People account value
People are accountable for values
People act and reveal value
People act and reveal values
People reason about greater and lesser value
People reason about values as more or less valuable
People share value and values
This weaves social fabric

A fabric of choices woven by reasoning
Enacted in tensions and integrity
A fabric of that is, develops, sustains and evolves
Through institutions of conversation

Culture, language, conversation make humans deeply social. At the core of our social nature is an embodied sense of moral accounting. We hear from every child (from the moment they can express it in words) a ‘claim’ of ‘that’s not fair’. Our sense of moral, emotional, social accounting is biologically embodied. One could argue that when primates groom each other they are paying debt or establishing credit enacting a homeostasis within a dynamic social fabric.

How humans account and take into account the discernment of values and value - are all forms of technology. These technologies can include culture and language. What they do is extend memory beyond individual recall, and enable an external recording of accounts that can be publicly verified. As McLuhan and other have noted human shape technologies and technologies shape humans - technology is the most human thing about us. The human-technology dyad is complex, entangled and evolving. It both shapes the boundary conditions that in turn shape the attractors of our ideas, our memes and experiences of moral fabric which in turn change the boundary conditions nudging the human environment toward new attractors.


This short paper will set the stage for a longer paper that will explore the confluence of Values and Value in the emerging digital environment. In turn, the digital environment is enabling unprecedented capacities to account for value, value creation in all domains of social and individual life and accredit the enactment of our values.

Key Context

The idea that science provides Value-Free – Objective, Self-Evident-Fact which equals TRUTH (in itself - or is the foundation of TRUTH) has always been scientifically inadequate. This inadequacy acted as Science’s Shadow (in a Jungian sense) as it fought the culture wars against the corporate organizations of Religion (defined as arbitrary Dogmas of beliefs and faith).

Religious dogma and Science dogma are competing forms of certainty. Both types of dogma are inherently self-referential. We trust science because it can establish verifiable facts – which in turn are trustworthy because science establishes the facts by framing them within a theory. We trust religions because they establish beliefs which in turn are established by how religions can frame them within a dogma.

Although a century has passed since Einstein destroyed the ‘objective frame of reference’ and proposed that space and time were really a unity of space-time, our socio-cultural frameworks still haven’t come close to integrating that realization within daily life. It is curiously hard to grasp how many of the previous pillars supporting our worldviews have been shattered in the 20th century. For example some basic science breakthroughs that shatter the concept of a clockwork universe include:
  • Einstein – that there is no objective frame of reference,
  • Bertrand Russell – the inconsistency of mathematic (essentially of all formal systems of logic)
  • Godel – that even if a system of logic were consistent –it would inevitable have unprovable (e.g. blind-spots) and thus the fundamental incompleteness of systems of formal logic,
  • Quantum Mechanics’ – uncertainty principle (how we observe changes the observed – inability to know position and momentum simultaneously) and entanglement,
  • Turing’s stopping/halting problem – adding to Godel’s incompleteness.
  • Chaos – the fundamental unpredictability of deterministic systems due to sensitivity to initial conditions,
  • Freud, Jung and many others revealing the unconscious determinants of behavior – more recent cognitive & social science such as George Lakoff, Kahneman and Tversky and many others, demolishing the notion of the ‘rational actor’
  • Complexity sciences – and the unpredictability of emergent phenomena – non-reducibility of wholes and inability to model some phenomena (e.g. some complex systems can’t be reduced).
  • The displacement of a ‘physics worldview’ by biology-complexity science framework including the unpredictability of emergent properties
  • More and Moore….

This short list of breakthroughs has shattered the pillars of certainty – ushering in the 21st Century as the century of complexity and uncertainty. Even the concept of evolution is evolving – among numerous possibilities one recent article in Nautil.us by Philip Ball discusses some of the work in this area:

This short list of breakthroughs has shattered the pillars of certainty – ushering in the 21st Century as the century of complexity and uncertainty. Even the concept of evolution is evolving – among numerous possibilities one recent article in Nautil.us by Philip Ball discusses some of the work in this area:

Exactly which genes you have may not matter so much (within reason), because the job they do is more a property of the network in which they are embedded.

This suggests that evolvability, and the corollary of creativity or innovability, is a fundamental feature of complex networks like those found in biology.

…it seems likely that the answer lies beyond biology. Karthik Raman, a former postdoc in Wagner’s lab, now at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, has studied much the same issues of functional equivalence of different circuits not for genes but for electronic components that carry out binary logic functions. By randomly rewiring circuits of 16 components and figuring out which of them will perform particular logic operations, Raman found that they too have this evolvable topology. But crucially, this property appeared only if the circuits were complex enough—if they had too few components, small changes destroyed their function. “The more complex they are, the more rewiring they tolerate,” says Wagner. Not only does this open up possibilities for electronic circuit design using Darwinian principles, but it suggests that evolvability, and the corollary of creativity or innovability, is a fundamental feature of complex networks like those found in biology.

Manrubia agrees that complexity is the key. “It seems clear that efficient navigability can only be achieved in genotype spaces of high dimensionality,” she says. That simply puts more options in reach—because you have more directions to reach in. “As the number of possible neighbors of a sequence increases, the likelihood that some of those neighbors has a viability comparable to the original one grows.” One consequence, she says, is that there could be an adaptive imperative favoring larger genomes, at least for organisms inhabiting varying environments: That way, you gain more in robustness than you lose in the labor of replicating and maintaining a lot of DNA.

These ideas suggest that evolvability and openness to innovation are features not just of life but of information itself. That is a view long championed by Schuster’s sometime collaborator, Nobel laureate chemist Manfred Eigen, who insists that Darwinian evolution is not merely the organizing principle of biology but a “law of physics,” an inevitable result of how information is organized in complex systems. And if that’s right, it would seem that the appearance of life was not a fantastic fluke but almost a mathematical inevitability.

And that’s the rub - there is no clear, pure, uncontaminated, unmitigated TRUTH about Values.

However, the legitimacy of any ‘truth’ arises from trusted social institutions – which are how human enact forms of conversation. For example, the conversations represented by the institution of science are shaped by rules and processes (ever evolving in rigor) that enable participant to come to agreement on evidence/facts that support theories. It is the quality of transparent institutional conversations that is the source of legitimacy – not the appeal to ‘authority’ but to evidence-supported-by reasoning (theory) tested through methods and technologies of rigorous ongoing conversations.

A complex society has many institutions. A very useful definition of an institution (to distinguish it from an organization) is provided by Douglass North (a Nobel Laureate in economics) which I paraphrase as: ‘Institutions are the rules of the game and organizations are the players in the game’. For example, the institution of marriage could be understood as the rules of publicly committed relationships, while the players in the institution would include: religious organizations, civil organizations, private sector enterprises involved in the ‘marriage business’, narratives of romantic love, individuals wanting a committed relationship, etc.

I would add a nuance to North’s definition of institutions. Rather than seeing them as ‘rules of the game’ I think they are better conceived as ‘rules of the conversation’. Rules that enable honest conversations and keep conversants honest.

In his 10 January farewell speech, President Obama made the point that democracy is most fundamentally a system for conversations – about ideas, values, means and ends. Conversations that we engage with in order to achieve a more ‘perfect union’. It is only through engaged and honest conversations can a democratic society and culture, establish any form of shared reality. An open and democratic society that enables the production of a shared reality enables people to align values. To do this requires many types of transparent institutions – structured to steward generative conversations, including institutions of science, law, politics, religion-spirit, health, political-economics, civil engagement and many more. Without legitimate institutions of conversation, we have no hope of generating the requisite trust for sustaining social and human progress.

It seems that most of the current preoccupation with the state of our institutions if almost entirely focused on the political institutions of conversation. However, the decades of assault on government – haven’t only been about anti-science but also about anti-religion, and most importantly - about anti-institutions.

What seems to be left out of the current debate about ‘fake news’ and the ‘post-truth’ era – is the many decades of corrosive, coercive and ubiquitous influence of advertising and marketing in shaping media institutions and content. It is a truism that mainstream media delivers viewers as their real product to their real clients – the marketers. Main stream media has been – of-for-by Big Business. There is a significant body of thought that is concerned with the transformation of the citizen into the rational consumer - end-user. This is deeply worrisome. A shift from citizen as equal participant to consumer-end-user is a shift in the rules of power in the conversation.

Marketing has imbued our times and experience. There is no aspect of modern life that hasn’t been ‘infected’ with both the behavioral sciences and theologies of marketing. Key to the institutions of marketing and the manufacturing of consent is a host of methods, including cherry picking data and sources, or selective or out of context quotes or comments, presenting false-equivalent views, omitting genuinely alternative possibilities, conflating correlation with causation, setting up straw men to attack, insinuating claims and the very careful selection of metaphors and frames to shape how audience engage in the entailing reasoning.

However, science also has played a deeply important role in conditioning collective sensitivity away from the certainties of Dogmas (whether scientific or religious) toward an apprehension of uncertainty. Science has introduced the humanity to an inevitable uncertainty that imbues our realities. This will be covered later in the paper. The elemental context of exploration in this paper is summarized in two ‘sound bites’ below. I ask the reader to suspend disbelief in order to follow trails of reasoning shaping a exploration about value and values entailed by these paradoxical probes.

The TRUTH is Dead – Long Live Honesty
Ethics are Dead – Long Live Social Fabric

Reasoning about Paradoxes of Value and Values

Value - Values
Often we begin a conversation about Values with a focus on abstract concepts - things like justice, fairness, equity, equality, freedom or more recently the environment, ecology, sustainability, etc.

Companies, corporations, organizations of all sorts and even nations try to define their culture in terms of some list of Values. We seek to define a set of Values that can produce the ‘good life’.

Conversation about Values are complicated because we often assume that reasoning means relying on formal systems of logic - and thus that there is a single universal proper form of reasoning. Further, in any formal system of logic, a contradiction is considered evidence that there must be an error in one of the binary proposition. For example one can’t be both, free and enslaved, autonomous and dependent, fair and biased, etc.

The frame of right vs wrong also nudges people to view Values as being a set of concrete, unitary, homogenous, pure concepts - each matched with a binary opposite. For example Love vs Hate, Equality vs Inequality, Diversity vs Homogeneity, etc..  The tendency to framing contradiction as a right vs wrong problem rather than as an encounter with paradox makes substantive conversation difficult. A frame of right vs wrong nudges people toward argument - rather than conversations regarding ‘honest accounts’ of perceptions and experience. The frame of ‘honest accounts’ will be elaborated below.

Accounting for Value-Values
In societies evolving toward liberal political economies, the question of Values is entangled with metrics of accounting. We accept as natural, efforts to measure Value Creation, exchange, storage, etc.. We also try to measure how effectively  we implement our Values. Our language of accounting bridges the domains of Value (e.g. Values Creation) and the systems of our Values that are embodied in our institutions of conversation regarding justice, equity, loyalty, welfare, etc.

Value creation evokes the experience of a concrete currency. However, currency is perhaps better imagined as a way to accounting for information flow - or perhaps more easily understood as information flow about value flow (creation, exchange, storage).  

This might seem logically confusing – conflating Values with accounting - but accounting is fundamental to social fabric. For example, primates when grooming are establishing credit or paying debt and even young children with cry out with claims of what is ‘fair’ (which may not be inter-subjectively valid). One could easily argue that grooming is a conversation accounts for the dynamics of the values of social fabric. Without some form of acknowledgement via a metric of accounting – there is no way to implement any system of Values.

Languaging about Value-Values
Accepting that language is a technology of memory, communication, reasoning and thinking – it is a technology that has become a natural human-built environment (as McLuhan noted language doesn’t live in human rather human exist in language) – one that evolves with uses and in return also evolves the users.

Words act like wild animals: “We don’t understand that no language could ever sit still”


As we language about and with Values – we can only enact them in our lives, behavior and social experience through a  personal and interpersonal ‘accounting’ with which we guide our lives. How do we take account of our enacted values? We do this all the time - who hasn’t heard the phrase ‘I love you more than you love me’, or ‘You’re taking advantage of me’. These statements and so many others don’t explicitly state a precise metric - but they do assume a ‘social-moral’ bookkeeping in all of our relationships.

Remember the proposition – Ethics is Dead – Long Live Social Fabric? When we embrace the implications of complexity and uncertainty – we immediately surrender our capacity to know in objective or absolute terms - ‘The Good’. We have no way to determine is a ‘good’ action taken now will really produce ‘good’ results in the next step or several step. In the same way we have no way to determine the corresponding implications for a ‘bad’ action – will it really result in ‘bad’ consequences? This determination of what is ultimately ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is the foundation of Ethics.

Morality on the other hand is the relative assessment of action taken in terms of social judgment. For example in Adam Smith’s 'Theory of Moral Sentiment’ he elaborates that everyone in making a choice of behavior asks themselves ‘what will others think’. He makes the case that all of us – want to be ‘praiseworthy’ and ‘blameless’. It is in thinking about moral sentiments that Adam Smith used the term ‘the invisible hand’ for the first time – suggesting that when he used the same term in discussing market systems – the regulation of such as system also depended on social and ‘moral fabric’ (not just the price mechanism). Thus, he also suggests, that moral ‘values’ accounting is fundamentally implicated in social fabric.

Since we’ve come to understand relativity (no objective frame of reference), quantum phenomena (observer changes what’s observed), chaos (sensitivity to initial conditions - hence unknowability of how small a difference will make a difference or how large a difference won’t make a difference at all), complexity (where new phenomena can unpredictably emerge beyond a mere addition of components) and more and Moore. What is in fact before us, as the reality of our survival, is the experience of eternal wayfinding.

Wayfinding describes the process of making our way when there is no map. Navigation is only possible when we have a map and can plot a path from ‘A’ to ‘B’. For example – 99% of the time that a regular airplane is travelling to its destination, it is off-course. But because we have precise maps we continually determine precise destination - ‘the there’ and the precise locations ‘the here’. In this way, a continual course correction enables the plane to arrive precisely at the right place. But when the terrain is unknown, and even more – when it is always changing - then we are immersed in a situation of wayfinding - making paths as we explore. 

We live in a reality where each step we make – changes the conditions of the next step we ‘can’ take. A continually changing environment requires different types of choices.

The capacity to establish a dynamic homeostasis of values in a robust and flourishing society-in-environment is vital. But enacting such is a complex endeavour where values exist within an ecology of tensions is very difficult and even more so within a ‘conversation of paradoxes’.

It may seem strange to mix concepts of money-as-currents/currencies-of exchange-of-value with conversations-as-wayfinding-negotiations-of-Values. However, both are shaped by the attractors of value-creation. The problem is that money is a highly constrained flow of highly constrained measures of value. Whereas conversations of Values are widely open ‘ink-blots’ of projection - current-seas that we negotiate in our wayfinding, languaging and behavior.

The challenge, arising from this structure of reasoning, points to the notion that a list of Values (as abstract concepts) is less useful than an engaged conversation of values as they must be negotiated and accounted for in our lives. This leads us to consider the idea of a conversation dedicated to Value Creation, exchange, storage, etc. must be developed - one that helps us address evolving networks of technology, education, culture , collective memory and Language.

One data set - two hypotheses
Occam's Razor is no help
Another fundamental shift arising in the 20th century and at the core of the 21st - is the notion of truth. As noted at the beginning – the proposition for the 21st century could well be “Truth is dead - Long live Honesty”. What does this proposition mean? 

For example:

Science doesn’t ever ‘prove’ anything - what it does do, is provide an honest account of evidence to support an honest theory (one that tends to be accounted for as pragmatically useful). Science is much more about ‘know how’ than ‘know why’. Or, all models are wrong, but some are useful. This honest account is held accountable by the institutions of conversation that we call peer-review.

A lawyer is not concerned with TRUTH of justice, but should be concerned with an honest account of the legal means to pursue or support a legal purpose. The honest account of lawyers is held accountable by the institutions of conversation that include law review and precedent.

A religious advocate (in the age of science enabled reasoning) is concerned with an honest languaging that enables an honest experience of faith (distinct from a simple intellectual or emotional cleaving to a belief or dogma).

A politician’s work is not about the TRUTH - but rather about an honest languaging that enables people to align with an honest implementation of Values toward a common purpose.

By understanding that TRUTH (as an absolute, incontestable reality) is impossible in conditions of the 21st Century - we can focus on creating conditions for an engagement of conversations about honest accounts of experience. This paradigm also enables us to grasp how vital institutions of conversation are to an open democratic society. Rather than being structured by an inadequate paradigm of formal logic that presents only the possibility or right or wrong. Conversations focused on ‘honest accounts’ present a structure of evidence and reasoning based on experience - including a more holistic inclusion of emotions, intuitions and sensibilities.

Furthermore, is the fact that all knowledge is always partial knowledge – the impossibility of complete knowing – if only because any knower – can only know from a particular perspective and in the act of knowing cannot know its process of knowing – similar to the eye not being able to see itself seeing. Conversation is another way to frame what Foucault defined as ‘Veridiction -production and circulation of truths that are established, rather than foundational - but importantly govern.’

Paul Pangaro building on the work of Gordon Pask’s conversation theory, offers a powerful model for Conversations.  This model using the acronym CLEAT. Conversation is a process for first establishing the Context, for the coming to ‘terms’ about the Language being used (meanings), which then enables the building of Engagement and trust so that participants can become Aligned. Only then can participants begin to implement visions, plans, Transactions in a self-organizing-coordinating way. See Paul Pangaro –  An Economy ofInsight Conversations as Transactions in the Future of Commerce 

Thus institutions of conversations are structured processes of aligning and enabling honest accounts - or maybe this is what we should understand as what their purpose/function should be. Inevitably such institutions would also include a social-moral licensing of action. People would be responsible to act both as morals beings and grasp the each of us exist in a socially constructed identity. As noted above in reference to Adam Smith’ s ‘Theory of Moral Sentiments’ - the moral question ubiquitous in all human behavior is measured and accounted for in the question - ‘If I do x what will people think’).

Change in Conditions of Change
As a result of the shattering of the pillars of certainty, the 20th and perhaps even more in entering the early 21st Centuries we experience a looming zeitgeist of a sort of immanent looming transformation – the wars to end all wars, the rapture, nuclear Armageddon, the digital Y2K apocalypse and the acceleration of change into the ‘Singularity’.


The twentieth century began with utopia and ended with nostalgia. Optimistic belief in the future became outmoded, while nostalgia, for better or worse, never went out of fashion, remaining uncannily contemporary. The word “nostalgia” comes from two Greek roots, nostos meaning “return home” and algia “longing.” I would define it as a longing for a home that no longer exists or has never existed. Nostalgia is a sentiment of loss and displacement, but it is also a romance with one’s own fantasy. Nostalgic love can only survive in a long-distance relationship. A cinematic image of nostalgia is a double exposure, or a superimposition of two images—of home and abroad, of past and present, of dream and everyday life. The moment we try to force it into a single image, it breaks the frame or burns the surface.

The word “nostalgia,” in spite of its Greek roots, did not originate in ancient Greece. “Nostalgia” is only pseudo-Greek, or nostalgically Greek. The word was coined by the ambitious Swiss student Johannes Hofer in his medical dissertation in 1688. (Hofer also suggested nosomania and philopatridomania to describe the same symptoms; luckily, these failed to enter common parlance.) Contrary to our intuition, “nostalgia” came from medicine, not from poetry or politics. It would not occur to us to demand a prescription for nostalgia. Yet in the seventeenth century, nostalgia was considered to be a curable disease, akin to a severe common cold. Swiss doctors believed that opium, leeches, and a journey to the Swiss Alps would take care of nostalgic symptoms. Among the first victims of the newly diagnosed disease were various displaced people of the seventeenth century: freedom-loving students from the Republic of Berne studying in Basel, domestic help and servants working in France and Germany, and Swiss soldiers fighting abroad. The epidemic of nostalgia was accompanied by an even more dangerous epidemic of “feigned nostalgia,” particularly among soldiers tired of serving abroad.

 We are living through times of deep transition. The future is continually threatened with colonization by the past - by incumbents and their legacy systems and business models. Paradoxically, the digital environment also enables a retrieval of a new form of tribalism - the more massive assemblages of network parochialisms. It also paradoxically changes the boundary conditions created by the frictions of transaction & coordination. As a consequence there is also an emergent sense of possibility of global alignment - new adjacent possibles that can shape boundary conditions for a vast sharing of value attractors. We see this in massive movements - movements that loom in their potential to mobilize citizens everywhere. Also paradoxically incumbent powers are hysterically working to enact centralized command-control of citizens (in the name of security).

Modern nostalgia is paradoxical in the sense that the universality of its longing can make us more empathetic towards fellow humans, and yet the moment we try to repair that longing with a particular belonging—or the apprehension of loss with a rediscovery of identity and especially of a national community and unique and pure homeland—we often part ways with others and put an end to mutual understanding. Algia (or longing) is what we share, yet nostos (or the return home) is what divides us. The promise to rebuild the ideal home lies at the core of many powerful ideologies today, tempting us to relinquish critical thinking for emotional bonding. The danger of nostalgia is that it tends to confuse the actual home and the imaginary one. In extreme cases it can create a phantom homeland, for the sake of which one is ready to die or kill. Unreflective nostalgia can breed monsters. Yet the sentiment itself, the mourning of displacement and temporal irreversibility, is at the very core of the modern condition. While claiming a pure and clean homeland, nostalgic politics often produces a “glocal” hybrid of capitalism and religious fundamentalism, or of corporate state and Eurasian patriotism. The mix of nostalgia and politics can be explosive.

The digital environment favors a trajectory of near zero marginal cost and increasing network enablement - which has been linked with an exponential increase in the value of a network. For example, Metcalf’s law - the value of a network is the number of nodes squared - n2. However, the value of a network has also be defined as a derivative of ‘group forming possibilities’ which would suggest a value of 2 to the power of the number of nodes - 2n (Reed’s Law).

This suggests a real potential for new forms of value creation (also exchange, storage and accounting) including possibilities of participatory democracy - new means of engaging citizens and assembling their knowledge and creativity as and when needed in a transparent accounting of the Values involved.

Despite increasing efforts to impose top-down control and ‘surveillance’, the efforts to colonize the possibilities of emerging digital environment with frames and models of the past, will be displaced. The economics of the digital environment are a change in conditions of change that favor greater forms of self-organization for efficient and effective action . The clockwork universe that promises control has been shattered as the sciences of chaos and complexity have suggested.

Given the dissolution of a clockwork and predictable universe we are forced to attend more deeply to an understanding of language that enables institutions of conversation. Such institutions facilitate the ability of wayfinding through the evolving and embodied paradoxes of languaging as participants seek to understand each other. (See Harry Collins’ ‘Explicit and Tacit Knowledge’ – Collins studies how scientist actually work and share knowledge).

The context of sharing knowledge and values must also include the powerful scaffolds provided by frames, metaphors and narrative in establishing structures that form how people reason. Thus not only is it an inevitable condition that nothing is black and white but also that we have to move away from finding binary be-all and end-all Values. Everything evolves and is emergent. We have no idea where we will end up.

The final page – explores the power of metaphors to structure how we reason. Metaphors create an entailing logic. By listing common metaphors people use to describe ‘love’, the entailing logic of reasoning is illustrated. Another short example – even in math – the initial metaphor for numbers were ‘points on a line’ until Cantor developed another metaphor of sets (categories or buckets) with which to imagine and reason about ‘numbers’ (see Lakoff and Nunez, ‘Where Mathematics Comes From’).

Even more profound is that we inevitably must ‘colonize’ the unknown with metaphors that we are familiar with.  The reason being is that a metaphor is essentially a ‘cross-domain-mapping-of-knowledge’. Thus, metaphors/frames/narratives are necessary ways that enable humans to initially grasp new experiences, phenomena or realities.

The challenge of the emerging digital environment involves the problem of how we can align and account for value and values. A possible suggestion lies in the capacity to harness shared meaning by means of various sorts of folksonomy of crowdsourcing of perceptions. We can see such possibilities in the many ways that various platforms use participant accounts - such as reader reviews in Amazon, likes in Facebook-Twitter-Google+ and other platforms. These sorts of simple accounts of acknowledgement, provides a sort of accounting of consensual value, value creation and accounting of how people perceive Values being enacted.

The infosphere will eventually enable the accounting of almost all instances of value creation and therefore enable ways to credit and circulate new forms of value creation as currency. A currency arising in various forms of conversation of values. For example the emerging technology of the Blockchain (a massive distributed accounting ledger) holds incredible promise to disrupt the traditions of currency. However this sort of disruption faces cultural challenges that are almost mythical in nature.

Modern nostalgia is a mourning for the impossibility of mythical return, for the loss of an “enchanted world” with clear borders and values. It could be a secular expression of a spiritual longing, a nostalgia for an absolute, for a home that is both physical and spiritual, for the edenic unity of time and space before entry into history. The nostalgic is looking for a spiritual addressee. Encountering silence, he looks for memorable signs, desperately misreading them.

This modern nostalgia includes a yearning for ‘moral clarity’ of a binary, right and wrong - of simple concrete Values with clear opposites. Despite the 20th century’s long list of destruction of binary paradigms, the challenge of overcoming a binary worldview seems as difficult as ever.  There is also another contributing nuance to a cultural clinging to this sort of nostalgic perception. We must all contend with the zeitgeist of immanence - of displacement from our own pasts – the experience of being ever more refugees from our own childhood.


In the end, the only antidote for the dictatorship of nostalgia might be nostalgic dissidence. Nostalgia can be a poetic creation, an individual mechanism of survival, a countercultural practice, a poison, or a cure. It is up to us to take responsibility for our nostalgia and not let others “prefabricate” it for us. The prepackaged “usable past” may be of no use to us if we want to co-create our future. Perhaps dreams of imagined homelands cannot and should not come to life. Sometimes it is preferable (at least in the view of this nostalgic author) to leave dreams alone, let them be no more and no less than dreams, not guidelines for the future. While restorative nostalgia returns and rebuilds one’s homeland with paranoic determination, reflective nostalgia fears return with the same passion. Home, after all, is not a gated community. Paradise on earth might turn out to be another Potemkin village with no exit. The imperative of a contemporary nostalgic is to be homesick and sick of home—occasionally at the same time.

 Thus context of values in the 21st Century is an emerging condition of navigating paradoxes. Although we have been disciplined to think that science and logic precludes contradiction and paradox – the situation actually highlights how all apparent paradoxes call for a choice.

And choice remains very messy, because there is always a proliferation of facts. Facts are innumerable – making the choice of those that matter is more difficult than we often assume. Many time observations are contested – and/or have conflicting interpretations. Ultimately every determination of a fact is an act of choice of an aesthetic perspective. Even if all aspects of an experience or experiment were fully explicable (e.g. explicit knowledge) – we can’t include all of the explicit facts available. More importantly we have no way of knowing which explicable fact may be vital for others in order for them to understand and replicate an experiment (see Harry Collins – ‘Explicit and Tacit Knowledge’). We assume that knowing the ‘facts’ is equivalent to knowing the ‘TRUTH’.

… human and nonhuman interpretations, descriptions, and explanations of the world are very similar in many respects. They differ in the role of choices, difficult but possible for us, impossible for many others. Choices are key to driving scientific conversations forward. The most powerful and difficult choices cause scientific revolutions. Choices build the edifice of knowledge, beginning with a description and a question whose answer adds the next brick to the edifice.
Andreas Wagner - Paradoxical Life: Meaning, Matter and the Power of Human Choice – p.178

We understand the role of choice in the domain of quantum physics where observation interacts with matter. We are unable to know both the position and momentum of a particle because our modes of observation interferes with what we wish to observe. The questions we ask via experiment changes the reality that can provide an answer.

After thousands of years of eternal philosophical debates – fundamental paradoxes remain unvanquished – most often we simply mathmagically make them invisible. As George Ellis has noted – mathematics progresses when we get rid of infinity (and thus become unconsciously vulnerable to sensitivity to initial conditions). The irrevocable tension at the root of our realities is that which arises between the paradoxes – of single coins have two separate and co-creating sides (perhaps by incorporating a quantum based understanding we could include an edge as well as all three simultaneously).

For any scientific conversation, indeed for any question one asks, it is necessary to choose one of these perspectives, so focus either on the whole or on some of its parts. This paradox of whole and part is as fundamental as the famed paradoxes of physics.
Andreas Wagner - Paradoxical Life: Meaning, Matter and the Power of Human Choice – p.193

In this way we see that paradox presents a necessity of choice and in return enables a perspective for questioning any aspect of reality. But the cost is that we must accept that the result of that our choices of queries will always be a ‘partial’ truth – a one-sided knowledge of what we query.

To accept a paradoxical tension like that of part and whole as fundamental is to facilitate choice of perspectives that advance a conversation. Awareness of a paradox breeds the power to choose. This choice’s power is the power to create, to formulate powerful worldviews. Choices of perspective truly have power? Yes. Just recall where the choices of scientist have led in as little as a century: to technology – for better or for worse – that would have appeared sheer magic to our ancestors.
Andreas Wagner - Paradoxical Life: Meaning, Matter and the Power of Human Choice – p.193

Only by being mindful that we must choose, can we distinguish our questions from the entanglements of paradox while remaining aware that whatever choice we make, can only lead to partial truth – rather than any sort of ‘ultimate TRUTH’. By accepting the paradoxical nature of values, can we appreciate that our ‘laws of nature function as powerful sometime sophisticated metaphors. With our metaphors we can colonize the truly unknown – in ways that enable us to grasp what is familiar and eventually understand what is not. The value, and inherent values within our choice of perspectives and/or of metaphors, will always depend on the questions we ask.  

Biographies of Newton, for example, understandably focus more on physics than alchemy or theology. The impression we get is that his unerring judgment led him straight to truths no one else had noticed. How to explain all the time he spent on alchemy and theology? Well, smart people are often kind of crazy.

But maybe there is a simpler explanation. Maybe the smartness and the craziness were not as separate as we think. Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time. But that's because we know how things turned out. In Newton's day the three problems seemed roughly equally promising. No one knew yet what the payoff would be for inventing what we now call physics; if they had, more people would have been working on it. And alchemy and theology were still then in the category Marc Andreessen would describe as "huge, if true."

Newton made three bets. One of them worked. But they were all risky.

By accepting the deeply paradoxical reality of value and values, we are better able to be mindful of the responsibility and power of our active participation in co-creating of our world. Wagner notes that ‘Humans become truly human when absolute certainty and absolute truth dissipate’. The paradox of our freedom is that we can only embrace it through our active response-able choice and accepting that all choice results in an imperfect and partial knowledge. Thus we must embrace of uncertainty.

However - if the 21st century is the century of complexity - then it is also the century of paradox. Fundamental paradoxes enact ecologies of tensions embodied through values that inform our choices. These ecologies are dynamic. As social beings we make choices that mediate and wayfind through these ecologies by means of societal institutions of conversation. Paradoxes which entail choices include:
  • There can be no 'self' without the immediate simultaneous arising of other.
  • No sense of safety without corresponding issues of risk
  • No creation without requisite destruction
  • No part without whole
  • No selection without censoring/filtering/selection
  • No meaning without matter-as-media

These and many more have no objective 'right or wrong' solution. In fact, they have no real solution. They do however, present us with situations where we faced an imperative - the need to Choose to choose. With any choice there are entailing structures of reasoning and consequences. 

The Figure here, aims to illustrate a field of paradoxes creating a possible superposition of all their related ecologies of values. The need to choose to choose, collapses the superposition into particular ecologies of tensions. To navi-gotiate (navigate-negotiate) these ecologies to establish ‘honest accounts’ of value and values, we must develop and evolve institutions of conversation. Through our conversations we can become ‘accountable’ for the choices of what we value, how we value and what values we enact. The institutions of conversation we create and collectively steward enables us to formulate the conditions of our own becoming.

Today’s crisis claims we have suddenly entered a ‘Post-Truth’ era. For most reasonable people this seems self-evident. However, by scratching the surface we can see this crisis has been brewing for a long time as our traditional certainties have become ephemeral, and even the concept of identity has become an open-ended process and experience. 

These and many more have no objective 'right or wrong' solution. The do however present us all with a situation where we are faced with the need to Choose to choose – and the corresponding consequences and reasoning entailments.

While it is impossible to 'solve' a paradox – perhaps we can outgrow certain instances of a paradox we may be confronted with. In essence, we are faced with an eternal need to wayfind through the ecology of tension that is both the context and ground that we find ourselves in.

The most import paradoxes today seem to be the paradox of democracy - where a citizenry can actually elect a tyrant and the paradox of freedom - where an individual or group can freely choose to give up their freedom. In the face of the 21st Century, paradox is a deeply embodied - deeply widespread and integral civil conversation. Our conversations should proceed as means of probing, then sensing in order to inform our response-ability in a context of eternal solutioning – as our questions themselves evolve and adapt.

If we think of classic moral dilemmas where we are asked to choose a single life to save many lives (there are many of them – we tend to be misdirected so that we don’t see the choices presented as: 

being asked to choose between saving more life at the cost of something that makes life valuable in the first place, or preserving more of what is of value at the cost of more life. When we allow innocents to die to save more people overall, we are sacrificing some of the dignity and respect we have for human life in order to keep more humans alive. When we torture to save life, we allow more cruelty into the world in order to keep more people in it. When we choose multiple strangers over one loved one, we reject the special bonds of love so that others can have a chance to maintain theirs.

That’s why I believe most such thought experiments are never satisfactorily solved. Indeed, I would suggest that the best way to use them is not to see them as puzzles to be solved at all. If we ever face such situations in real life, we will be forced to choose, and will have to do so based on the very particular circumstances of each case. The only general lesson we learn from these thought experiments is that there is sometimes a tragic conflict between life and what makes life valuable in the first place.

While it is impossible to 'solve' a paradox – perhaps we can outgrow certain instantiations of a paradox. In essence, we are faced with an eternal need to wayfind through the ecology of tension that is both the context and ground that we find ourselves in. Without the claim of TRUTH to give us certainty we must depend on our institutions of conversation and faithful accountability to honest accounting of what we value and how we enact our values.

The 21st Century as the age of complexity means we live in a non-linear world and our challenge is to stop reasoning linearly and engage in multiple-forms of reasoning. The fundamental paradox is that a single human is unable to think non-linearly in a productive way. However, human collective intelligence mediated by 21st century digital environment is emerging in many obvious ways. And via collective intelligence enables us to be more than the sum of us – we become a non-linear, complex, conscious system for an environment of continual innovation and change.

The challenges of complexity, paradox and conflict require innovations in our institutions of conversation – ones that enable collaboration within increasing diversities of perspective, capability and aims find common purposes. For people to be civilized means building, safeguarding, evolving our institutions of conversation – it is through these institutions that people do the difficult work of establishing and teaching our accountability to shared value and values.

Understanding that there is no sound to one hand clapping - isn't the answer 
The answer is being able to live in a question