FILE: 'Alan Kay.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:40:23.491Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Alan Kay on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Alan-Kay
author: Alan Kay
---
Handling different points of view between different observers is a central theme in Alan Kay’s philosophy, spanning human cognition, software architecture, and distributed systems. The sources describe handling these differences through **context shifting**, **architectural decoupling (MVC)**, **message negotiation**, and **temporal synchronization**.

### 1\. Cognitive Handling: Context and "Stories"

Kay posits that human observers do not perceive reality directly; rather, they inhabit "stories" or "waking dreams" constructed by their brains\[1\]\[2\]. We project our beliefs onto the world, meaning that "we see things not as they are, but as we are"\[3\]\[4\].

• **The "80 IQ Points" Leverage:** Differences in observation are often resolved or exploited by changing the context. Kay famously states that "point of view is worth 80 IQ points"\[5\]. A problem that is difficult for an observer in one context (e.g., using Roman numerals for calculation) becomes simple in another (using Arabic numerals)\[9\].

• **Negotiation:** Because observers (humans or systems) live in "private universes," communication is fundamentally a process of negotiation to find a shared context or "overlap" in their internal theories\[10\]\[11\]. In science, this is the negotiation between an observer’s mental model and external phenomena\[12\].

### 2\. Architectural Handling: Model-View-Controller (MVC)

In the realm of software design, the specific mechanism invented to handle different points of view for the same underlying data is the **Model-View-Controller (MVC)** pattern, developed by Trygve Reenskaug at Xerox PARC\[15\]\[16\].

• **Decoupling:** The architecture separates the **Model** (the simulation/data) from the **View** (the presentation to the observer). This allows multiple different observers to view the same object simultaneously in different ways—for example, viewing a project plan as a Gantt chart, a logic network, or a list, all at the same time\[16\].

• **Synchronization:** Each view acts as an observer. When a change is made in one view (via a Controller), the Model updates and notifies all other Views to update themselves, ensuring consistency across different perspectives\[16\]\[18\].

### 3\. Interaction Handling: Messaging and Polymorphism

In Kay’s conception of Object-Oriented Programming (OOP), "observers" are handled through a linguistic model of requests rather than commands.

• **Receiver-Centric Meaning:** In true OOP, the "meaning" of a message is determined entirely by the _receiver_ (the observer), not the sender\[19\]. A message is a request/negotiation; the receiving object decides if and how to respond\[20\]\[21\].

• **Polymorphism:** This allows different observers to interpret the same message in ways appropriate to their own nature. A "print" message sent to a text object and a picture object will be handled differently by each, hiding the internal complexity from the sender\[22\]\[23\].

• **Universal Interface:** By using a common protocol of messages, objects can interact like "friendly aliens," negotiating meaning dynamically rather than relying on rigid, pre-shared structures\[24\]\[25\].

### 4\. Distributed Handling: TeaTime and Pseudotime

In distributed systems (like Croquet), where observers are on different computers, "points of view" involve problems of latency and state synchronization. These are handled through a protocol called **TeaTime**\[26\]\[27\].

• **Replicated Objects:** Objects are replicated across participating machines (observers). To keep them consistent, the system uses a "coordinated universal timebase" embedded in the protocol\[28\].

• **Pseudotime:** Computations occur in "pseudotime"—a logical progression of states—rather than raw CPU time. This allows observers to maintain their own "world-lines" of history\[29\].

• **Distributed Two-Phase Commit:** To handle the "consensus" of reality between different observers, the system uses a distributed two-phase commit. Computations are contingent on the completion of dependent behaviors at all sites; if they fail, the action is undone, ensuring all observers see a consistent reality\[27\]\[32\].

### 5\. Educational Handling: Multiple Mentalities

Finally, regarding human learning, Kay (referencing Jerome Bruner) notes that a single observer possesses multiple internal "mentalities"—**Enactive** (doing), **Iconic** (image/recognition), and **Symbolic** (reasoning)\[33\]\[34\]. A good user interface or learning environment handles these different internal points of view by providing multiple channels of interaction (e.g., "doing with images makes symbols") to prevent the learner from getting stuck in one mode\[35\]\[36\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [2] Alan Kay - The Center of Why.pdf
> [3] Alan Kay - The Center of Why.pdf
> [4] [Book] AlanKay - 70th Points of View.pdf
> [5] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [9] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [10] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [11] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [12] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [15] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [16] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [18] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [19] IsSoftwareEngineeringAnOxymoron.pdf
> [20] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [21] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [22] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [23] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [24] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [25] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [26] Croquet%20Collab%20Archi%202003.pdf
> [27] Croquet%20Collab%20Archi%202003.pdf
> [28] Croquet%20Collab%20Archi%202003.pdf
> [29] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [32] Croquet%20Collab%20Archi%202003.pdf
> [33] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [34] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [35] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf
> [36] Alan Kay - Quora 2023-11.pdf


FILE: 'Alicia Juarrero.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:40:47.663Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Alicia Juarrero on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Alicia-Juarrero
author: Alicia Juarrero
---
Based on the provided texts, particularly Alicia Juarrero’s work, the handling of different points of view marks a fundamental break from classical Newtonian science. In the classical framework, reality was viewed _sub specie aeternitatis_ (from the perspective of eternity)—a "View from Nowhere" where context, time, and the observer's position were irrelevant to the essential properties of things\[1\]\[2\].

Juarrero and the other authors replace this with a framework where points of view are **ontologically real**, **relational**, and **constraint-based**.

### 1\. From "Subjective" to "Relational"

Historically, properties that depended on an observer or an interaction (such as color, taste, or warmth) were dismissed as "secondary" or "subjective," meaning they were not fully real compared to primary properties like mass\[3\]\[4\].

• **Context-Dependence is Objective:** Juarrero argues that context-dependent properties are not "subjective" in the sense of being arbitrary or unreal; they are **objective but relational**\[5\].

• **The Hand-in-Water Example:** Whether a bucket of water feels hot or cold depends on the history of the observer's hand (whether it was previously in hot or ice water). This interaction is not a hallucination; it is a real physical state involving history and relation. The sensation is an "embodied record" of the interaction between the subject and the environment\[3\]\[6\].

### 2\. The Agent’s "Privileged Access" (Source vs. Receiver)

In the realm of human action, there is a fundamental asymmetry between the point of view of the **agent** (the source) and the **observer** (the receiver).

• **Information at the Source:** An action involves a "reduction of possibilities" at the source (the agent's mind). The agent selects one option from a specific "contrast space" of alternatives\[7\]\[8\].

• **Privileged Access:** Only the agent has direct access to knowing exactly which possibilities were considered and rejected. Therefore, the agent has "privileged access" to knowing whether their behavior was a deliberate action or a reflex (noise). The observer sees only the output and must infer the source\[9\]\[10\].

• **Reconstructing the Contrast Space:** To explain an action from the agent's point of view, an observer must reconstruct the agent's **contrast space**—the specific set of options the agent believed they had (e.g., "Why did you rob the bank?" "Because that's where the money is." The robber's contrast space was _rob bank vs. rob store_, not _rob vs. not rob_)\[11\].

### 3\. Hermeneutics: The Double Historicity of Observation

Because complex systems (people) are embedded in history, they cannot be explained by universal laws that apply everywhere equally. They require **hermeneutics** (interpretation), which acknowledges the point of view of the observer.

• **The Explainer is Embedded:** The observer is not a neutral, detached surveyor. The interpreter is also "situated within history, within a tradition," which biases how they interpret the agent's behavior\[14\].

• **The Hermeneutic Circle:** Understanding requires a dialectic tacking back and forth between the observer's perspective and the agent's context. Explanation is not a "view from nowhere" but a dialogue between two different historical contexts\[15\]\[16\].

### 4\. Intensionality: The Perspective of Mental States

In philosophy of mind, the difference in points of view is handled through the concept of **intensionality** (spelled with an _s_), which refers to the specific way an agent conceptualizes the world.

• **Opacity of Reference:** If Ann believes "John's wife is cheating," but does not know that "Mary is John's wife," we cannot simply substitute "Mary" into Ann's belief. From Ann's point of view, the two terms are not identical\[17\].

• **Indexicality:** Constraints create specific "here and now" perspectives. Thoughts and intentions are **indexical**—they are anchored to the specific space, time, and perspective of the agent\[18\].

### 5\. Biological "Point of View"

Even at the biological level, complex systems are described as having a primitive point of view because they are **self-referential**.

• **Autopoiesis:** Self-organizing systems (like a cell or an autocatalytic cycle) act to preserve their own organization. They "rule on the components' adequacy" by selecting only those that enhance the whole\[21\].

• **Incipient Selfhood:** Because these systems regulate their intake to maintain their own viability, they can be said to act "from their own point of view"\[22\]\[23\].

### 6\. Information Theory: Meaning is Relative to the Receiver

Lila Gatlin notes that the amount of information conveyed depends on the receiver's context.

• **Decoding Capacity:** A book in English conveys meaning to an English speaker but may convey zero meaning to a Chinese speaker, even though the physical object is identical\[24\]. Information is a "capacity" that is realized only in the relationship between the source and the specific receiver\[24\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [2] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [3] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [4] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [5] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [6] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [7] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [8] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [9] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [10] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [11] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [14] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [15] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [16] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [17] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [18] [Book] Jarrero - Context Changes Everything.pdf
> [21] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [22] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [23] [Book] Juarerro - Dynamics in Action.pdf
> [24] [Book] Gatlin - Information theory and the lving system.pdf


FILE: 'Barry Richmond.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:41:13.483Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Barry Richmond on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Barry-Richmond
author: Barry Richmond
---
Based on the sources provided, systems thinking approaches handle different points of view by treating them as essential data for understanding complexity, rather than as obstacles to be removed. The goal is often to convert implicit, private "mental models" into explicit, shared representations that can be examined, tested, and aligned.

Here are the specific methods and mechanisms described in the texts for handling diverse perspectives:

### 1\. Making Mental Models Explicit

The primary way systems thinking handles differing viewpoints is by forcing individuals to externalize their internal assumptions using a visual language (diagrams, maps, stocks, and flows).

• **Depersonalization:** Visual diagrams shift the debate from "who is right" to "does this diagram capture the dynamic?" By focusing on the diagram, systems thinking defuses defensiveness. Differing opinions are no longer viewed as "Marketing's view" versus "HR's view," but simply as different structural representations of the system\[1\].

• **Common Language:** Functional managers (e.g., in sales, manufacturing, or finance) often speak different professional "dialects." Systems thinking provides a "systems Esperanto"—a common visual language (stocks and flows) that allows these diverse groups to communicate their specific constraints and realities to one another\[2\],\[3\].

• **Clarifying Assumptions:** Tools like **Graphical Function Diagrams** are used to resolve conflicts where parties might be using different frames of reference. For example, two engineers might argue over whether an angle is 40 or 50 degrees, only to realize they are using different axes of reference. Explicit graphing forces these assumptions into the open\[4\],\[5\].

### 2\. Methodologies for Integrating Perspectives

Several formal methodologies are explicitly designed to integrate multiple viewpoints:

• **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM):** This approach, pioneered by Peter Checkland, assumes that problem definitions are not uniform. It treats individual "biases" not as errors but as information. By iterating through these different perceptions, the group moves toward learning and consensus, rather than forcing a single "correct" view from the start\[6\],\[7\].

• **Strategic Forums:** These are structured workshops where senior management teams align their objectives and mental models. Processes like **"3 in a Room"** are used to bridge gaps: two people from different functions explain a map to a facilitator. This "safe" teaching environment allows the facilitator to identify where the two managers have disconnected views of how the business works\[8\].

• **Companion Modeling:** This approach develops simulation models by explicitly integrating various stakeholders' points of view. The models are then used within a platform for collective learning, allowing stakeholders to negotiate and resolve conflicts\[9\].

• **Hierarchical Issue Method (HIM):** This method is specifically noted as being suitable for "multi-disciplinary, multi-viewpoint teams" to address complex, "knotty" issues where there is no consensus on the problem itself\[10\],\[11\].

### 3\. Simulation as a "Sanity Check"

Computer simulation is used to resolve disputes where intuition fails. Humans are generally poor at intuiting the behavior of complex feedback loops, meaning two people might agree on the structure but disagree on the outcome.

• **The "Stake in the Ground" Exercise:** In Strategic Forums, participants are asked to predict (put a stake in the ground) how a system will behave before running the model. When the simulation produces a different result, the disparity forces the group to resolve the inconsistency between their intuition and the model's logic. This moves the group from "denial" to "resolution"\[12\],\[13\].

• **Testing Hypotheses:** Because causal-loop diagrams cannot be simulated, they cannot be refuted, which makes them risky for inferring behavior. Converting these views into simulation models allows the group to rigorously test which viewpoint accurately predicts the system's behavior\[14\],\[15\].

### 4\. Creating a "Safe" Learning Environment

To handle the vulnerability required to share and change mental models, specific ground rules are often established:

• **Suspension of Judgment:** Participants are encouraged to hold each person's viewpoint as valid (acknowledging their right to hold it without necessarily agreeing) and to view their own assumptions as temporary\[16\].

• **Inquiry vs. Advocacy:** The focus is shifted from advocating for a specific solution to inquiring into the underlying reasoning. Tools like the **"Ladder of Inference"** help participants trace their conclusions back to the observable data, helping others see how they arrived at their specific point of view\[17\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Systems-Thinking-Tools-TRST01E.pdf
> [2] Richmond 1997 - The Strategic Forum - SD enable dialectics.pdf
> [3] Richmond - Systems Thinking four key questions.pdf
> [4] Systems-Thinking-Tools-TRST01E.pdf
> [5] Systems-Thinking-Tools-TRST01E.pdf
> [6] 111-116-1-PB(a).pdf
> [7] KV 277.pdf
> [8] Richmond 1997 - The Strategic Forum - SD enable dialectics.pdf
> [9] KV 277.pdf
> [10] hierarchical issue method revisited.pdf
> [11] hierarchical issue method revisited.pdf
> [12] Richmond 1997 - The Strategic Forum - SD enable dialectics.pdf
> [13] Richmond 1997 - The Strategic Forum - SD enable dialectics.pdf
> [14] Richmond 1994 systems thinking lets just get on with it.pdf
> [15] Richmond 1997 - The Strategic Forum - SD enable dialectics.pdf
> [16] Systems-Thinking-Tools-TRST01E.pdf
> [17] Systems-Thinking-Tools-TRST01E.pdf


FILE: 'Bob Williams.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:41:38.218Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Bob Williams on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Bob-Williams
author: Bob Williams
---
The provided sources outline a specific approach to handling different points of view, primarily grounded in **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)**, **Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH)**, and **dialectic processes**.

Instead of treating conflicting opinions as errors to be corrected or obstacles to be smoothed over with a quick consensus, systems thinking treats these differences as essential data. They are used to construct a richer understanding of the "messy" reality and to reveal the values driving different behaviors.

Here is how different points of view are handled:

### 1\. Validating Perspectives as "Holons" (Logic Models)

In this approach, a perspective is not just a loose opinion; it is treated as a rigorous mental model with its own internal logic.

• **Separation from Reality:** Practitioners distinguish between the "real world" (which is messy and complex) and "systems thinking" about the real world\[1\]\[2\].

• **The Holon:** A specific perspective is isolated and treated as a "holon"—a plausible, purposeful model of the system from _that specific point of view_\[3\]. For example, a hospital could be modeled as "a system to treat illness" (medical perspective) or "a system to employ local workers" (economic perspective).

• \*\* rigorous Definition (CATWOE):\*\* To handle these perspectives fairly, each one is fleshed out using the **CATWOE** mnemonic (Customers, Actors, Transformation, Worldview, Owner, Environment). This forces the observer to define the specific logic of their view: "If this is your **W**orldview, then who are the **V**ictims and who are the **O**wners?"\[4\]. This moves the debate from vague arguments to structured comparison.

### 2\. The Dialectic Approach (Managing Tension)

Rather than seeking immediate consensus, which can hide uncomfortable truths or marginalize weaker voices, the approach encourages a **dialectic process**.

• **Disagreement as a Resource:** Disagreements are used to generate new insights. The methodology manages the tension between the motivation to compete (adversarial) and the motivation to cooperate (consensual)\[7\]\[8\].

• **Comparison:** The core of the inquiry often involves building models based on these different perspectives and then comparing them against each other or against the "real world" situation\[9\]\[10\]. The differences reveal where the system is failing or where values are in conflict.

• **Option One-and-a-Half:** This technique is used to resolve the tension between an "ideal" world (held by one observer) and the "actual" world (held by another). Instead of compromising, the goal is to develop a solution that utilizes the best of the ideal within the constraints of the actual\[11\].

### 3\. Boundary Critique (Exposing Values and Power)

Handling different points of view ultimately requires addressing why those views differ. The sources argue this is usually due to different **boundary judgments**—decisions about what is relevant (included) and what is irrelevant (excluded)\[12\]\[13\].

• **Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH):** This method handles conflicting views by asking observers to make their value judgments explicit. It uses 12 questions asked in both the "Is" mode (current reality) and the "Ought" mode (ideal reality)\[14\]\[15\].

• **Interrogating Power:** By asking "Who _ought_ to be the beneficiary?" and "Who _ought_ to control the resources?", CSH exposes the political and ethical choices separating the observers\[16\]\[17\]. This prevents the dominant perspective from being accepted simply because it holds the most power.

• **The "Enemies":** The approach explicitly seeks out the views of those "outside" the system—those who are affected by it but have no decision-making power (the "witnesses" or "victims")\[18\]\[19\].

### 4\. Visualizing Differences (Rich Pictures and Diagrams)

To handle the complexity of multiple viewpoints simultaneously, practitioners use visual methods.

• **Rich Pictures:** Participants draw the situation as a "mess," embracing chaos and conflict rather than trying to structure it immediately. This allows emotional and cultural differences to be expressed non-verbally, often revealing dynamics that spoken language hides\[20\]\[21\].

• **Causal Loop Diagrams:** Different observers may draw different maps of cause-and-effect for the same problem. Comparing these diagrams (e.g., an "expert" map vs. a "community" map) reveals how different groups frame the problem and where they believe leverage points lie\[22\]\[23\].

### 5\. Moving from Consensus to Accommodation

The goal of handling these differences is not necessarily to prove one person right, nor is it always to achieve total consensus.

• **Accommodation:** The aim is often "accommodation"—finding a version of the situation that different people with different worldviews can live with, even if they do not fully agree on the underlying values\[24\]\[25\].

• **Synthesis:** By holding conflicting views in tension, the group can move from "either-or" thinking to "both-and" reasoning, creating a new, shared understanding that is more robust than any single individual's view\[26\]\[27\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Soft Systems Methodology.pdf
> [2] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [3] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [4] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf
> [7] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [8] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [9] Soft Systems Methodology.pdf
> [10] Soft Systems Methodology.pdf
> [11] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [12] 2015 - Wicked solutions a systems approach to complex problems - williams.pdf
> [13] CAP0901_37_ENG_DEF_LR Small.pdf
> [14] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [15] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [16] CAP0901_37_ENG_DEF_LR Small.pdf
> [17] Evaluation-2011-Hummelbrunner-395-403.pdf
> [18] System Diagrams.pdf
> [19] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [20] Soft Systems Methodology.pdf
> [21] System Diagrams.pdf
> [22] System Diagrams.pdf
> [23] System Diagrams.pdf
> [24] 118-The idea and practice of systems thinking and their rele.pdf
> [25] Systems thinking for evaluation.pdf
> [26] 118-The idea and practice of systems thinking and their rele.pdf
> [27] Bob Williams - SSM.pdf


FILE: 'C. West Churchman.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:41:59.227Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: C. West Churchman on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - West-Churchman
author: C. West Churchman
---
Based on the provided sources, the handling of different points of view between observers is a central theme in C. West Churchman’s work. He argues against the concept of a single, "disinterested observer" who sees absolute truth\[1\]\[2\]. Instead, he proposes that objectivity is achieved through the interplay of multiple, often conflicting, perspectives.

Here is how different points of view are handled across the different "Inquiring Systems" and methodologies described in the texts:

### 1\. The Lockean Approach: Consensus and Agreement

In a **Lockean inquiring system**, different points of view are handled by seeking consensus within a community.

• **Mechanism:** Validity is established through the "agreement" of a community of observers\[3\]. If observers disagree, the system attempts to resolve the discrepancy by re-presenting the stimulus or data until the "voice of dissent is lost" and a strong majority agrees\[4\].

• **Goal:** To create a "community of minds" that label sensory experiences in the same way\[5\]\[6\].

• **Limitation:** This approach can become conventional or "bureaucratic," suppressing the relationship between the data and the larger system\[7\]\[8\]. It may ignore relevant information simply because the community does not agree on it\[9\].

### 2\. The Kantian Approach: Multiple Models

In a **Kantian inquiring system**, different points of view are handled by representing the same data through different theoretical models (or "spectacles").

• **Mechanism:** The system recognizes that "pure" data does not exist; it is always interpreted through an _a priori_ framework (space, time, categories)\[10\]\[11\].

• **Handling Differences:** The system explicitly displays the same story from different points of view\[12\]. For example, one observer might view a checkers game through the lens of geometry, while another views it through the lens of game rules\[13\]\[14\].

• **Goal:** To see which model best "fits" the data or leads most easily to a solution\[15\].

### 3\. The Hegelian Approach: Dialectic and Conflict

The **Hegelian inquiring system** is designed specifically to handle and exploit strong conflict between observers.

• **Mechanism:** It operates on the premise that different worldviews (_Weltanschauungen_) will interpret the _same_ data in completely opposite ways\[16\]\[17\].

• **The Process:**

    1. **Thesis:** A strong conviction or plan is formed\[18\].    2. **Antithesis:** A "deadly enemy" or counter-plan is constructed that explains the same data but leads to a diametrically opposed conclusion\[19\]\[20\].    3. **Synthesis:** An "observer-of-the-subject" (a "bigger mind") observes the conflict between the thesis and antithesis to construct a new, broader worldview that explains the conflict itself\[21\].
• **Example:** Churchman illustrates this with a debate on the Vietnam War, where "hawks" and "doves" used the same economic data to argue for opposite policies\[20\]\[24\].

### 4\. The Singerian Approach: "Sweeping In" and Unfolding

The **Singerian inquiring system** handles different viewpoints by continuously expanding the system boundaries to include more perspectives, particularly ethical ones.

• **Sweeping In:** If observers disagree (e.g., in measuring a length), it is a signal to "sweep in" new variables (such as temperature or observer fatigue) to explain the discrepancy\[25\]\[26\]. Disagreement is not an error to be eliminated but an opportunity to deepen the inquiry\[27\].

• **Unfolding:** The inquirer must "unfold" the problem to include the perspectives of the client, the decision maker, and the designer\[28\]. This involves a continuous process of "is" versus "ought" analysis\[29\]\[30\].

• **Deception-Perception:** This principle states that the systems approach begins when "you first see the world through the eyes of another"\[31\]\[32\].

### 5\. The "Enemies" of the Systems Approach

Churchman argues that rational systems thinking is limited and that the "enemies" (Politics, Morality, Religion, and Aesthetics) represent necessary, non-rational viewpoints that must be included\[33\]\[34\].

• **Handling the Enemies:** The systems planner should not try to defeat these enemies but "make friends" with them or even "be the enemy" to understand the system's limitations\[35\].

• **Function:** These viewpoints enable the rational mind to "step outside itself" and view the system from a perspective that rational modelling cannot capture\[38\]\[39\].

### 6\. Soft Systems and Phenomenology

Later interpretations of Churchman’s work (e.g., by Checkland and Stowell) emphasize the subjectivity of the observer.

• **Subjectivity:** There are no problems "out there" in the world, only "perceptions of problems" held by specific observers\[40\].

• **Weltanschauung (Worldview):** To handle different views, one must explicitly identify the _Weltanschauung_ (W) that makes a particular system description meaningful to a specific observer\[41\].

• **Fusion of Horizons:** Inquiry involves a cycle of learning where participants move toward a "fusion of horizons"—a shared understanding or accommodation of views\[42\]\[43\].

In summary, different points of view are not obstacles to be removed but are the very raw material of inquiry. They are handled by structuring debates (Hegelian), sweeping in new variables (Singerian), and explicitly modeling the values and assumptions (Kant/Churchman) that lead different observers to see different realities in the same set of facts.

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Churchman-Challenge-Reason-1-223-1968.pdf
> [2] Churchman-Challenge-Reason-1-223-1968.pdf
> [3] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [4] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [5] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [6] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [7] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [8] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [9] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [10] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [11] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [12] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [13] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [14] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [15] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [16] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [17] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [18] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [19] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [20] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [21] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [24] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [25] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [26] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [27] [Book] Churchman - The Design of Inquiring Systems.pdf
> [28] Mason 2014 - Churchman Interview with Mason and Mitroff.pdf
> [29] Nelson 2003 - The Legacy of C West Churchman.pdf
> [30] Retmolds - Churchman and Maturana enriching the notion of self organization for social design.pdf
> [31] Assad 2011 C West Churchman.pdf
> [32] Gigch - 2006 - WISDOM , KNOWLEDGE , AND MANAGEMENT A Critique and Analysis of Churchman's Systems Approach - Unknown.pdf
> [33] Assad 2011 C West Churchman.pdf
> [34] The systems approach and its enemies - Churchman - abstarcts.pdf
> [35] Nelson 2003 - The Legacy of C West Churchman.pdf
> [38] The systems approach and its enemies - Churchman - abstarcts.pdf
> [39] [Book] Gigch - Wisdom, Knowledge, and Management A Critique and Analysis of Churchmans Systems Approach.pdf
> [40] Stowell - The Art of Systems Inquiry - retracing the footsteps of Churchman and Checkland.pdf
> [41] Stowell - The Art of Systems Inquiry - retracing the footsteps of Churchman and Checkland.pdf
> [42] Stowell - The Art of Systems Inquiry - retracing the footsteps of Churchman and Checkland.pdf
> [43] Stowell - The Art of Systems Inquiry - retracing the footsteps of Churchman and Checkland.pdf


FILE: 'Christopher Alexander.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-09T23:38:12.149Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: In Christopher Alexander’s work, the handling of d...
tags:
  - Christopher-Alexander
  - Perspective
---
In Christopher Alexander’s work, the handling of different points of view between observers evolved from an early attempt to **eradicate individual bias through logic** to a later theory that treats **human feeling as a precision measuring instrument** for objective reality\[1\].

### **1\. Eradicating Private Bias via Formalism**

In his early work, such as _Notes on the Synthesis of Form_, Alexander argued that designers often work from a "mental picture" of a problem that is "almost always wrong" or biased by irrelevant personal experiences\[2\]\[3\].

• **Logical Structures:** He proposed using mathematical structures (sets and graphs) to create a "formal picture of a mental picture"\[2\]\[4\]. This process was intended to "eradicate bias" and retain only the "abstract structural features" of a problem, which could then be examined through precise, open operations\[2\].

• **Consensus on Requirements:** Alexander asserted that while designers often disagree on the **relative importance** (weighting) of different requirements, they rarely disagree on the **existence of the requirements themselves**\[6\]\[7\]. By focusing on the "misfits" (specific failure points), he believed designers could reach an objective agreement on the contents of a design problem\[7\].

### **2\. Transitioning to a "Public Language"**

Alexander critiqued individual design languages as "essentially private" and identified this as a "fatal weakness" because they are never subjected to public scrutiny\[8\].

• **The Pattern Language:** He proposed the creation of a "public language" of solutions to environmental problems\[8\]. This formal pattern language was designed to be **readily communicable** and to use a format that **encourages criticism and feedback** from everyone involved—laypeople and professionals alike\[8\]\[9\].

• **User Agency:** He argued that the most reliable point of view comes from the people directly involved in a space, as they "know the most and have mastered the most local complexity"\[10\].

### **3\. Human Feeling as an Objective Instrument**

In his later theory, _The Nature of Order_, Alexander rejected the idea that aesthetic judgments are merely subjective opinions\[11\]\[12\].

• **Shared Judgments of "Life":** He proposed that different points of view can be reconciled by using the observer’s **"feeling of his or her own wholeness"** as a measuring tool\[1\]\[13\]. He argued that if a building or object enhances an observer's own sense of life, this is an objective "aesthetic fact," not an idiosyncratic preference\[1\]\[14\].

• **The Mirror of Self Test:** To handle different viewpoints, he developed tests where observers compare two objects and choose which one more closely mirrors their own inner self\[15\].

• **Experimental Verification:** Alexander provided evidence from cognitive experiments (such as sorting "symmetry strips") showing that observers from diverse backgrounds—including young children and Radcliffe students—demonstrated "excellent agreement" on which configurations possessed the most coherence and "life"\[18\]. He concluded that "perceived coherence is not an idiosyncratic subjective thing... It is seen roughly the same by everyone"\[18\].

### **4\. Critical Response to This Handling**

Critics have identified several challenges in how Alexander handles diverging viewpoints:

• **Rejection of Pluralism:** Some theorists, like Lionel March, argue that Alexander’s approach incorrectly "rejects pluralist values" and the "autonomy of social choice" in favor of a singular, universalizing worldview\[22\]\[23\].

• **Assumed Uniformity:** Critics note that Alexander problematically assumes all humans experience the same internal response to a given stimulus, potentially ignoring cultural and educational differences in value development\[22\].

• **Conflicts in Practice:** In practical applications, such as a housing project in Mexicali, Alexander's commitment to finding the "just right" solution sometimes led him to spend weeks on a single detail (like the color of a cornice), even when clients or staff members disagreed or found the detail unnecessary\[24\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Alexander - New Concepts In Complexity Theory.pdf
> [2] Thesis - Steenseon - architectures of information  christopher alexander  cedric price.pdf
> [3] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf
> [4] Thesis - Steenseon - architectures of information  christopher alexander  cedric price.pdf
> [6] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf
> [7] [Book] Alexander - Notes on the Synthesis of Form.pdf
> [8] 1106026_1_Alexander_1967_1970.pdf
> [9] 1106026_1_Alexander_1967_1970.pdf
> [10] A search for beauty a struggle with complexity Alexander.pdf
> [11] Alexander - Harmony seeking computations.pdf
> [12] Alexander - New Concepts In Complexity Theory.pdf
> [13] Alexander and a phenomenology of wholeness.pdf
> [14] Alexander - New Concepts In Complexity Theory.pdf
> [15] A search for beauty a struggle with complexity Alexander.pdf
> [18] A search for beauty a struggle with complexity Alexander.pdf
> [22] Alexanders a pattern language analysing mapping and classifying the critical response.pdf
> [23] Thesis - Steenseon - architectures of information  christopher alexander  cedric price.pdf
> [24] Alexanders a pattern language analysing mapping and classifying the critical response.pdf


FILE: 'Claude Shannon.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:42:21.757Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Claude Shannon on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Claude-Shannon
author: Claude Shannon
---
Based on the provided sources, the handling of different points of view between observers is addressed through several frameworks, ranging from mathematical data fusion to semiotic interpretation and consciousness theory.

The methods for handling these differences depend on whether the goal is **resolving conflict** (finding a single answer), **validating truth** (reducing error), or **establishing communication** (sharing meaning).

### 1\. Resolving Conflict: Data Fusion and Belief Functions

In the context of information retrieval and expert finding systems, different "observers" are treated as sensors (e.g., text sensors, citation sensors) that may yield conflicting rankings of the same data\[1\]. When these sensors disagree, the sources recommend the following mathematical approaches to fuse the viewpoints:

• **Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence:** Unlike traditional probability theory, which assigns probabilities to atomic hypotheses, this framework assigns "degrees of belief" to sets of hypotheses. This allows the system to distinguish between uncertainty and ignorance\[2\]. It is specifically used to manage conflicting evidence provided by different sensors\[3\].

• **Shannon’s Entropy as a Weighting Mechanism:** To resolve disagreements without relying on human judgment, the system calculates the Shannon entropy for each sensor to measure its uncertainty. Sensors with lower entropy (less uncertainty) are assigned a higher degree of belief\[4\]\[5\]. This allows the system to discount unreliable observers and fuse the data into a "more accurate and reliable final ranking list"\[1\]\[6\].

• **Voting Protocols:** The sources also describe "rank aggregation" methods where observers "vote" on candidates. These include **Borda Count** (points based on rank position) and **Condorcet Fusion** (pairwise comparisons where a winner is determined by beating all others in head-to-head counts)\[7\].

### 2\. Validating Truth: Redundancy and "Fact-Checking"

In the semiotic and scientific context described by Deacon, differences between observers are used to detect error and triangulate reality.

• **Second-Order Interpretation:** To check for accuracy, an investigator compares reports from independent observers (e.g., witnesses to a crime). This process utilizes the "redundancy of interpretive consequences"\[10\].

• **Independence is Key:** The validity of this method relies on the observers being _independent_ sources. If multiple uncorrelated sources point to the same conclusion, the probability of interpretive error drops significantly\[10\]\[11\].

• **Increasing Entropy:** Paradoxically, using multiple observers initially _increases_ the entropy (complexity) of the signal because each observer adds their own idiosyncrasies ("noise"). However, this signal diversity allows the investigator to filter out the noise and identify the common constraints (the "truth") shared by all accounts\[12\].

### 3\. Establishing Meaning: Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Perspectives

The sources distinguish sharply between how Information Theory and Integrated Information Theory (IIT) handle the observer's role in establishing meaning.

• **Shannon Information (Extrinsic):** In classical information theory, meaning is not intrinsic to the message. An external observer must provide a "codebook" or context to interpret the symbols\[13\]\[14\]. Observers can design channels to extract only "relevant variables" (e.g., ignoring all data except whether a face is present), effectively curating the point of view to answer specific questions\[15\]\[16\].

• **Integrated Information Theory (Intrinsic):** IIT posits that meaning is internal to the observer (the "complex," such as a brain). For two observers (e.g., Alice and Bob) to share a point of view or understand a message, they must share a structural similarity in their internal "cause-effect structures"\[17\].

    ◦ **Communication Failure:** If the observers have different internal architectures (different "wiring"), the same signal will trigger different meanings. Miscommunication occurs when the structure triggered in the receiver does not match the structure in the sender\[18\]\[19\].    ◦ **Individual Differences:** Because every observer has a unique history of development and learning, intrinsic meanings will always differ slightly from person to person. Communication of meaning is therefore always approximate\[20\].
### 4\. Fidelity and Error Correction

In technical communication systems, a "correction channel" can be used to handle discrepancies between what was sent and what was observed.

• **The Observer Mechanism:** Shannon describes a theoretical "observer" who sees both the original message and the received (noisy) message. This observer calculates the errors and transmits data over a secondary channel to the receiver to correct the discrepancies\[21\]\[22\].

• **Fidelity Criteria:** The "badness" of a discrepancy between two points of view (input vs. output) is measured by a "fidelity criterion" or "distance function," which quantifies how undesirable it is to receive message Y when message X was sent\[23\]\[24\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Finding Academic Experts on a MultiSenor Approach.pdf
> [2] Finding Academic Experts on a MultiSenor Approach.pdf
> [3] Finding Academic Experts on a MultiSenor Approach.pdf
> [4] Finding Academic Experts on a MultiSenor Approach.pdf
> [5] Finding Academic Experts on a MultiSenor Approach.pdf
> [6] Finding Academic Experts on a MultiSenor Approach.pdf
> [7] Finding Academic Experts on a MultiSenor Approach.pdf
> [10] tw deacon - shanon boltzmann darwin - redefining information part II.pdf
> [11] 2008 - Shannon -Boltzmann — Darwin Redefining information (Part I) Re-conceptualizing information - Deacon - Cognitive Semiotics.pdf
> [12] tw deacon - shanon boltzmann darwin - redefining information part II.pdf
> [13] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [14] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [15] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [16] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [17] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [18] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [19] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [20] Shannon Information and Integrated Information - Message and meaning.pdf
> [21] SHANNON.PDF
> [22] [Book] Shannon - Collected Papers of Claude E. Shannon.pdf
> [23] SHANNON.PDF
> [24] [Book] Shannon - Mathematical Theory of Communication.pdf


FILE: 'Colin Eden.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:38:47.873Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Colin Eden on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Colin-Eden
  - Perspectives
author: Colin Eden
---
Based on the provided sources, different points of view between observers are handled by treating reality as a **subjective** and **negotiated** construction rather than an objective fact. The goal is not to determine who is "right," but to manage the **"inter-subjectivity"** of the group to reach a workable consensus or a "new negotiated order"\[1\],\[2\].

Here is how these different viewpoints are handled throughout the process:

### 1\. Acknowledging Subjectivity

The approach assumes that different individuals interpret the same situation differently based on their own beliefs, values, and experiences\[3\],\[4\]. For example, one person might see a decline in market share as an advertising problem, while another sees it as a pricing issue\[5\]. Consequently, the process aims to capture these **idiosyncratic** views rather than forcing an early, simplified consensus\[6\],\[7\].

### 2\. Elicitation: Capturing Individual Perspectives

To handle diversity, the methodology uses specific techniques to surface individual views before they are diluted by group dynamics:

• **Individual Interviews:** Interviews allow individuals to express their personal "theories-in-use" without the influence of peer pressure or "group think"\[8\],\[9\]. This protects the richness of individual wisdom\[10\].

• **Anonymity in Groups:** When working in a group setting (using Group Support Systems or networked computers), **anonymity** is used to allow participants to express honest, blunt, or controversial views without fear of retribution or "role casting"\[11\],\[12\],\[13\]. This levels the playing field between dominant and quieter personalities\[14\].

• **Simultaneous Contribution:** Techniques like the Oval Mapping Technique (OMT) or computer-supported workshops allow participants to "speak" (write or type) simultaneously, ensuring that everyone's view is captured, not just those who shout the loudest\[11\],\[15\].

### 3\. Merging and Aggregating Views

Once individual views are captured (as cognitive maps), they are merged into a single **group map** or **strategy map**. This process requires careful handling of differences:

• **Contextual Meaning:** When merging concepts from different people, the facilitator looks at the **context** (the arrows coming in and going out) rather than just the words. For example, two people might use the term "regular readers," but the surrounding links reveal they mean completely different things (e.g., weekly buyers vs. monthly readers). In such cases, the concepts are **not** merged but kept separate to preserve the distinct meanings\[16\],\[17\].

• **Retaining Conflict:** Contradictory views are explicitly retained in the model. If one person believes "A leads to B" and another believes "A leads to negative B," both are included. This reveals areas of conflict that the group must negotiate, rather than ignoring them\[18\],\[19\].

• **Aggregated Wisdom:** The resulting map represents the "aggregated wisdom" of the group, allowing individuals to see their own views within the context of others'\[20\],\[10\].

### 4\. The Map as a "Transitional Object"

The constructed map serves as a **"transitional object"** or a negotiative device\[21\],\[22\].

• **Depersonalization:** By projecting conflicting views onto a public screen or wall, the conflict is depersonalized. Participants can discuss the validity of a link on the map without attacking the person who suggested it\[23\],\[24\].

• **Shifting Ownership:** As the group works on the map—editing, moving, and linking concepts—ownership shifts from the individual to the group. Participants often forget who originally contributed an idea and begin to defend the group's emerging view\[25\],\[26\],\[27\].

### 5\. Negotiation and Closure

The final handling of different viewpoints involves **social and psychological negotiation** to reach an agreement that is politically feasible\[28\],\[29\].

• **Procedural Justice:** The process ensures that even if a participant's specific view is not adopted, they feel the process was fair because their view was listened to, captured, and considered. This "procedural justice" increases emotional commitment to the final outcome\[30\],\[31\],\[32\].

• **Synthesis:** The facilitator helps the group find a synthesis that creates a new way of looking at the problem, often generating new options that bridge different perspectives\[33\],\[34\]. The goal is to achieve a **"new negotiated order"** where the group agrees to act together despite their differing starting positions\[2\],\[35\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Eden et al - 1979 - Thinking in organizations - Macmillan.pdf
> [2] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [3] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [4] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [5] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [6] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [7] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [8] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [9] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [10] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [11] Ackermann - Extending the scope of problem structuring methods.pdf
> [12] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [13] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [14] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [15] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [16] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [17] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [18] [Book] Eden et al - 1979 - Thinking in organizations - Macmillan.pdf
> [19] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [20] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [21] Ackermann - Extending the scope of problem structuring methods.pdf
> [22] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [23] [Book] Eden et al - 1979 - Thinking in organizations - Macmillan.pdf
> [24] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [25] [Book] Eden et al - 1983 - Messing about in problems - Pergamon Press.pdf
> [26] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [27] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [28] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [29] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [30] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [31] [Book] Ackermann et al - 2005 - The practice of making strategy - SAGE.pdf
> [32] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [33] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [34] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf
> [35] [Book] Eden,Ackermann - 1998 - Making strategy - Sage Publications.pdf


FILE: 'Dave Snowden.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-27T20:18:58.927Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Dave Snowden on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Dave-Snowden
  - Perspectives
author: Dave Snowden
---
Handling different points of view between observers is a central tenet of the Cynefin framework and its associated methods. Rather than seeking to eliminate differences or averaging them out to find a single "truth," the approach utilizes distributed cognition and "requisite diversity" to detect weak signals, avoid groupthink, and navigate complexity.

Different points of view are handled through the following specific mechanisms and principles:

### 1\. Distributed Cognition and Human Sensor Networks

In complex systems, reliance on a single expert or a small group of leaders is dangerous because of "entrained thinking"—the tendency to see only what one expects to see based on past experience\[1\],\[2\]. To counter this, the framework utilizes **Human Sensor Networks**, which treat the workforce or population as a distributed network of observers\[3\],\[4\].

• **Independence is Critical:** To harness the "wisdom of crowds," observers must make their assessments independently without consulting one another\[5\]. If agents communicate before deciding, they influence each other, leading to herd behavior or "groupthink" rather than a true aggregate of diverse perspectives\[6\],\[7\].

• **Weak Signal Detection:** By aggregating independent views, organizations can identify "outliers"—perspectives held by a minority (the "17%") that may indicate a looming crisis or opportunity that the majority (the "83%") has missed\[6\]. This prevents the "invisible gorilla" effect where obvious risks are ignored because focus is elsewhere\[8\].

### 2\. Self-Signification and Disintermediation

Traditional research methods involve an expert interpreting the stories or data provided by subjects, which introduces the expert's own cognitive bias\[9\],\[10\]. To handle different points of view objectively, the Cynefin approach uses **self-signification**.

• **The Subject is the Expert:** Instead of an analyst tagging a narrative, the person who told the story interprets its meaning using high-abstraction metadata tools (such as triangles or dyads)\[11\],\[12\]. For example, rather than asking if a leader is "good" or "bad," a respondent might place a dot in a triangle labeled "Assertive," "Analytical," and "Altruistic"\[13\].

• **Disintermediation:** This process removes the filter of the intermediary analyst. Decision-makers are presented with visual landscapes of these self-interpreted narratives, allowing them to interact directly with the raw data (the distinct points of view) rather than a sanitized report\[10\],\[14\],\[15\].

### 3\. The Domain of "Disorder" and Conflict

In the Cynefin framework, the central domain is **Disorder**, which represents the state of not knowing which domain (Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic) applies\[16\]. This domain is critical for identifying and handling conflicting points of view.

• **Conflict as a Diagnostic:** When a group attempts to contextualize issues onto the framework, they often agree on the extremes but disagree on the center. Different observers will pull an issue toward their preferred domain based on their professional bias: bureaucrats see a failure of process (Simple), experts see a need for analysis (Complicated), and politicians seek a network solution (Complex)\[17\],\[18\].

• **Resolution:** The method for handling this is to break the situation down into constituent parts until the group can agree on where each part fits, thereby reducing the size of the Disorder domain\[19\],\[18\].

### 4\. Ritualized Dissent

To manage different points of view during strategy or decision-making sessions, a technique called **Ritual Dissent** is employed. This method is designed to enforce listening and depersonalize criticism.

• **The Process:** A spokesperson presents an idea to a group. The spokesperson then turns their back to the group (or wears a mask) and listens in silence while the group attacks or critiques the idea. The spokesperson cannot respond or defend the idea during the critique\[20\],\[21\].

• **Outcome:** This forces the presenter to listen without preparing a rebuttal, and it allows the observers to be ruthless with the _idea_ rather than the _person_, ensuring that diverse and critical perspectives are fully heard\[20\].

### 5\. Multi-Ontology Sense-Making

The framework acknowledges that different observers may legitimately perceive the same situation differently because they are operating from different ontological paradigms.

• **Contextual Differences:** In one example involving government agencies, a prosecution agency viewed a dataset as requiring evidence and causality (Ordered), while an intelligence agency viewed the same data as requiring pattern recognition without concrete proof (Complex)\[22\].

• **Handling the Difference:** The approach does not force these groups to agree on a single view but allows them to understand _why_ their perspectives differ. This reduces miscommunication by revealing the different frames of reference through which different observers view data\[22\],\[23\].

### 6\. MassSense and Real-Time Feedback

For large-scale issues, methods like **MassSense** allow a network of human agents to interpret infographics, texts, or videos in real-time. This provides a "landscape" of perspectives that reveals where consensus exists and where the population is fractured\[24\]. This allows leaders to see the "evolutionary potential" of the present—identifying which clusters of opinion are stable and which are malleable\[25\],\[26\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 27036324 HBR snowden leaders decision making.pdf
> [2] Snowden - Complex Acts of Knowing.pdf
> [3] Dave-Snowden-IEA14.pdf
> [4] EU Managing Complexity (and chaos) in Times of Crisis.pdf
> [5] [Book] Broughham - The Cynefin Mini-Book.pdf
> [6] EU Managing Complexity (and chaos) in Times of Crisis.pdf
> [7] Snowden - Good fences make good neighbors 2011.pdf
> [8] Snowden - As through the glass darkly a complex systems approach to futures.pdf
> [9] 100816 Narrative-Research_Snowden FINAL.pdf
> [10] 100816 Narrative-Research_Snowden FINAL.pdf
> [11] 044_ Making Sense of Human Systems an interview with Professor Dave Snowden.pdf
> [12] Snowden 2011 - Naturalising sense-making.pdf
> [13] Rettig.Snowden-ComplexityTheoryAndNarrativeResearch_notes.pdf
> [14] Snowden - Good fences make good neighbors 2011.pdf
> [15] Snowden - Perspectives Around Emergent Connectivity Sensemakimg and Asymmetric Threat Managmenet 2006.pdf
> [16] 27036324 HBR snowden leaders decision making.pdf
> [17] kurtz snowden - IBM Sys Journal.pdf
> [18] snowden the new dynamics of strategy.pdf
> [19] 27036324 HBR snowden leaders decision making.pdf
> [20] Snowden & Boone HBR Leaders Framework.pdf
> [21] The-Cynefin-Mini-book-online.pdf
> [22] Snowden - Anticipatory Models for Counter-Terrorism.pdf
> [23] snowden multi-ontology sense making 578-1421-1-PB.pdf
> [24] EU Managing Complexity (and chaos) in Times of Crisis.pdf
> [25] Snowden 2011 - Naturalising sense-making.pdf
> [26] Snowden 2011 - Naturalising sense-making.pdf


FILE: 'David L Abel.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-09T23:57:35.604Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: In David Lynn Abel’s framework, different points o...
tags:
  - David-L-Abel
  - Perspective
---
In David Lynn Abel’s framework, different points of view between observers are handled by distinguishing between **subjective epistemology** (the observer's knowledge and measurements) and **objective ontology** (the actual physical and formal reality of the system)\[1\].

Abel's approach to varying observer perspectives includes the following principles:

### **1\. The Observer-System Divide**

Abel cites John von Neumann’s principle that the world must always be divided into two distinct parts: the **observed system** and the **observer**\[4\]. This division is central to handling different points of view, as it recognizes that an observer's description of a system is not the same as the system itself\[7\].

### **2\. The Epistemic Cut and Complementarity**

Following Howard Pattee, Abel utilizes the **Epistemic Cut**, which handles different perspectives by separating:

• **Description:** The symbolic representation created by an observer\[7\].

• **Construction:** The actual physical manifestation of the system\[7\].

• **Complementarity:** This principle handles these incompatible views by acknowledging that both symbolic descriptions and physical modes are required to provide comprehensive explanatory power, as neither mode alone is sufficient\[10\].

### **3\. Rejection of Purely Observer-Dependent Information**

Abel strongly critiques the view that information only exists when there is a human "knower" or "observer" to measure it\[14\].

• **Objective Genetic Instructions:** He argues that biological **Prescriptive Information (PI)** is ontological, meaning it functioned objectively for 99.9% of life's history before any human observers existed to perceive it\[14\].

• **Critique of Shannon Information:** He contends that Shannon uncertainty measures are often just reflections of an **observer's "surprisal"** or lack of knowledge, which he finds inadequate for explaining the objective, purposeful programming found in cells\[1\].

### **4\. Correcting "Category Errors" in Perspectives**

Abel handles conflicting viewpoints in scientific literature (which he describes as a "chaos of its own") by identifying **category errors**\[22\]. He argues that many observers mistakenly view formal properties (like organization and choice) as purely physical properties (like order and necessity)\[25\]. To resolve these differences, he advocates for:

• **Precise Definitions:** Clearly distinguishing between terms like "self-ordering" (physical) and "self-organization" (formal) to prevent fallacious inferences\[28\].

• **Falsifiable Null Hypotheses:** Using the scientific method to test the validity of an observer's claims, specifically by inviting falsification of the idea that purely physical processes can generate formal organization\[31\].

### **5\. Investigator Involvement**

Abel warns that many observers inadvertently smuggle their own **subjective intent** into "naturalistic" models through experimental design\[35\]. He handles these biased points of view by auditing "Materials and Methods" sections to reveal where an investigator's "artificial selection" steered the results toward a desired goal\[39\].

In summary, Abel handles different points of view by demanding that scientists distinguish between what they **subjectively perceive or imagine** and what is **objectively required** for a system to perform formal, cybernetic work\[43\].

Does this distinction between an observer's subjective measurement and a system's objective programming help clarify Abel’s critique of modern information theory?

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Abel - Is Life Reducible to Complexity.pdf
> [4] Abel - The Cybernetic Cut Progressing from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory.pdf
> [7] Abel - The Cybernetic Cut Progressing from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory.pdf
> [10] Abel - The Cybernetic Cut Progressing from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory.pdf
> [14] Abel - The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity.pdf
> [22] Abel - Is Life Reducible to Complexity.pdf
> [25] Abel - Self organisation vs self ordering events in Life origin models.pdf
> [28] Abel - Self organisation vs self ordering events in Life origin models.pdf
> [31] Abel - Self organisation vs self ordering events in Life origin models.pdf
> [35] Abel - Assembly theory in life-origin models a critical review.pdf
> [39] Abel - Constraints vs Controls.pdf
> [43] Abel - Assembly theory in life-origin models a critical review.pdf


FILE: 'Dee Hock.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:41:02.602Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Dee Hock on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Dee-Hock
  - Perspectives
author: Dee Hock
---
Based on the provided sources, handling different points of view in a chaordic system involves a fundamental shift from trying to "control" or "standardize" perspectives to actively inviting, integrating, and navigating them. The sources address this through theoretical frameworks, practical planning tools, and historical examples from the formation of VISA.

Here is how different points of view are handled:

### 1\. Theoretical Foundation: Inseparability and Internal Models

In Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST), the traditional separation between the "objective observer" and the "system" is rejected.

• **Observer and Observed are One:** Unlike traditional Open Systems Thinking, where an observer objectively analyzes a system from the outside, CST posits that the change agent (observer) and the system are "mutually co-defined aspects of the same reality"\[1\]. You cannot separate the observer from what is observed; therefore, different viewpoints are inherent parts of the system's reality, not external errors to be corrected\[1\],\[2\].

• **The Internal Model of Reality:** Dee Hock argues that every individual constructs an "internal model of reality"—a mental edifice built from experience, habit, and belief\[3\]. This model acts like a "fun-house mirror," distorting everything we perceive\[4\]. Handling different viewpoints requires the difficult work of recognizing that our own perspective is a distortion and being willing to change this internal model\[5\],\[6\].

### 2\. Practical Application: The Chaordic Stepping Stones

In the design of meetings and organizations, specific tools are used to manage and utilize diverse perspectives:

• **Invite Diversity:** The "Inviting" phase of the Chaordic Stepping Stones emphasizes identifying all stakeholders—those with authority, those with information, and those affected by the work\[7\],\[8\]. You must actively check for bias to ensure you are not excluding people based on habit or fear, as diverse perspectives are essential for understanding the whole system\[7\],\[9\],\[10\].

• **Parking Lots:** During planning, concerns and conflicting viewpoints should be captured in "parking lots"—visible spaces (like flip charts) where issues are noted to be addressed later\[11\],\[12\]. This ensures that opposing views are heard and valued without derailing the immediate process\[11\],\[13\].

• **Confronting Limiting Beliefs:** Divergent views often stem from "limiting beliefs" (unchecked assumptions and fears)\[14\],\[15\]. Groups are encouraged to engage in inquiry-based practices to surface these assumptions (e.g., "Can we know for sure that this feared outcome will happen?")\[16\],\[17\]. This transforms "I am right and you are wrong" into a collective exploration of fear and possibility.

• **Participatory Harvesting:** When capturing the results of work (Harvesting), the process must be "Participatory." Meaning should be generated by the group, not interpreted solely by a facilitator or leader, ensuring that the collective insight—rather than a single dominant view—is recorded\[18\].

### 3\. Interaction Mechanisms: Dialogue and Multilogue

To process different viewpoints, the sources recommend specific modes of communication:

• **Deep Dialogue:** To develop a shared "organizational mind," participants engage in dialogue rather than debate. Dialogue is defined as a "stream of meaning flowing among and through a group of people"\[19\]. It slows down the thought process to help individuals identify their own assumptions and inconsistencies, allowing a collective meaning to emerge\[19\],\[20\].

• **Multilogue:** This is a comprehensive event where groups of stakeholders with different positions interact. Through prolonged interaction and active listening, new ideas are created from the friction between these different positions\[21\].

### 4\. Governance and Structure: The VISA Example

Dee Hock’s experience with VISA provides a case study in structuring an organization to handle conflicting interests (e.g., thousands of competing banks operating under different laws and cultures):

• **Distributive Governance:** Power must be distributed so that no single individual, institution, or group can dominate deliberations\[22\],\[23\]. In VISA, this meant multiple boards where no part knew the whole, but the system self-regulated\[24\].

• **Blending Competition and Cooperation:** The system was designed to harmonize "competition and cooperation"\[25\]. Members were free to compete fiercely on products and pricing while cooperating on the essential systems (like the transaction network) that allowed them to exist\[26\],\[27\].

• **The Grace to Compromise:** When faced with irreconcilable differences during the formation of VISA, the organizing committee adopted a core principle: "The will to succeed, the grace to compromise"\[28\]. This acknowledged that while perspectives differed, the shared purpose was paramount.

• **Agreement as Organization:** Hock defines organization simply as "agreement." Agreement presumes difference; if there were no differing views, there would be nothing to agree upon\[29\]. Therefore, organization is the process of clarifying and reconciling these differences to achieve a common purpose\[29\].

### 5\. Leadership Stance

Finally, dealing with diverse views requires a specific leadership approach:

• **Manage Self First:** A leader’s primary responsibility (50% of their time) is managing their own integrity, character, and temperament\[30\],\[31\].

• **Educing vs. Compelling:** Leaders should not compel behavior (which suppresses different views) but "educe" (draw out) the latent potential and shared values of the community\[32\],\[33\].

• **Listen to What is Not Said:** Leaders must listen carefully to silence as well as sound, as a great deal of perspective is revealed by what people _do not_ say\[34\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [2] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [3] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [4] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [5] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [6] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [7] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [8] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [9] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [10] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [11] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [12] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [13] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [14] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [15] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [16] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [17] Chaordic Stepping Stones Design Planning - Overview 2025.pdf
> [18] Chaordic Stepping Stones w.Template Harvest 2025.pdf
> [19] Vaneijnatten 2004 chaordic systems thinking - learning organization.pdf
> [20] Chaordic Systems Thinking for organizational holnic renewal.pdf
> [21] Vaneijnatten 2004 chaordic systems thinking - learning organization.pdf
> [22] Dee Hock - The Chaordic Organization Review.pdf
> [23] Hock - Institutions in the Age of Mindcrafting.pdf
> [24] Dee Hock - The Chaordic Organization Review.pdf
> [25] Dee Hock - The Chaordic Organization Review.pdf
> [26] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [27] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [28] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [29] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [30] Hock - Institutions in the Age of Mindcrafting.pdf
> [31] the_art_of_chaordic_leadership_hock.pdf
> [32] [Book] Hock - One from Many VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization.pdf
> [33] the_art_of_chaordic_leadership_hock.pdf
> [34] the_art_of_chaordic_leadership_hock.pdf


FILE: 'Derek Cabrera.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-04T22:47:20.395Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Derek Cabrera on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Derek-Cabrera
  - Perspectives
author: Derek Cabrera
---
In the approach presented in the sources, different points of view between observers are handled by treating **perspectives as a formal, universal cognitive structure** composed of two co-implying elements: a **Point** (the observer or focal standpoint) and a **View** (that which is being focused upon or seen)\[1\].

### The Centrality of the Observer

A fundamental principle in this framework is that **systems are mental constructs dependent on an observer**, rather than objective realities\[5\]\[6\]. Consequently, different investigators or stakeholders will conceptualise the same system differently based on their specific roles, experiences, and positions\[7\]. Handling these differences involves acknowledging that **any definition of reality requires an observer** and that what one person sees as a "simple" or "complex" system is actually a description afforded by that observer’s own standards\[5\]\[6\].

### Tools and Heuristics for Handling Multiple Perspectives

To manage the diversity of viewpoints, the sources suggest several metacognitive "jigs" and methodologies:

• **The Perspective Circle (P-Circle):** This is a cognitive jig used to create a "circle of perspectives" around a specific item, situation, or system\[10\]\[11\]. It allows a group to look at a single **View** from multiple **Points** simultaneously to surface how each stakeholder sees the system differently\[12\]\[13\].

• **Concept Mapping:** This is a participatory methodology that enables diverse groups to develop **shared conceptual frameworks**\[14\]. It allows shared meaning to emerge through collective brainstorming and sorting while **preserving individuality and diversity** in the final visual map\[14\]\[15\].

• **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM):** This approach uses a facilitator to help stakeholders build "conceptual models" of real-world problems from their unique viewpoints\[16\]\[17\]. The goal is to promote **mutual understanding** and debate to arrive at a consensus or accommodation for improvement\[18\]\[19\].

### Conflict Resolution and Boundary Critique

When different observers hold conflicting views, this approach utilizes **boundary critique**\[20\]\[21\]. Conflict often arises because parties frame a phenomenon using different boundaries—deciding differently what is "in" and what is "out"\[22\]. Handling these differences involves:

• Supporting parties in identifying their **core and peripheral concerns**\[23\]\[24\].

• Promoting **mutual understanding** by making the "otherness" (what has been excluded by one's own perspective) explicit\[23\]\[25\].

• Using **multivalent logic**, which moves beyond binary "right vs. wrong" thinking to recognize multiple outcomes and "shades of grey" in observers' interpretations\[26\]\[27\].

### Intersubjectivity and Reality Alignment

The goal of handling these different points of view is typically **intersubjectivity**—a shared understanding that allows for coordinated human action—rather than a search for a single objective truth\[19\]. By using the **ST/DSRP Loop**, observers can iteratively test their mental models against the real world and the models of others, receiving feedback that helps them **evolve their thinking** to better approximate the material complexity of the environment\[28\]. This process encourages observers to take **conceptual perspectives** as well (e.g., viewing a problem from an "economic" or "historical" lens) to move beyond purely anthropomorphic or "with eyes" viewpoints\[31\]\[32\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [5] Dialogues on Systems Thinking and Complexity Theory.pdf
> [6] Dialogues on Systems Thinking and Complexity Theory.pdf
> [7] Balan - how to improve systems thinking in aid.pdf
> [10] Cabrera - DSRP Script.pdf
> [11] Cabrera - Developing Personal Mastery in Systems Thinking.pdf
> [12] Cabrera - Developing Personal Mastery in Systems Thinking.pdf
> [13] Cabrera - From One Cause to Webs of Causality.pdf
> [14] Cabrera - The Complexity of Concept Mapping.pdf
> [15] Cabrera - The Complexity of Concept Mapping.pdf
> [16] Cabrera Cabrera 2019 Reference Work Entry - What Is Systems Thinking.pdf
> [17] Cabrera Cabrera 2019 Reference Work Entry - What Is Systems Thinking.pdf
> [18] Balan - how to improve systems thinking in aid.pdf
> [19] Cabrera - The Four Waves of Systems Thinking.pdf
> [20] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [21] Cabrera - Relationships Organize Information in Mind and Nature.pdf
> [22] Cabrera - Relationships Organize Information in Mind and Nature.pdf
> [23] 2020 A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition.pdf
> [24] Cabrera - Summary of DSRP Research Findings.pdf
> [25] Cabrera - Summary of DSRP Research Findings.pdf
> [26] Cabrera - Systems Thinking Flash Cards.pdf
> [27] Cabrera - Systems Thinking Flash Cards.pdf
> [28] Cabrera - Developing and Validating a Measurement of Systems Thinking - The Systems Thinking and Metacognitive Inventory.pdf
> [31] Cabrera - Developing and Validating a Measurement of Systems Thinking - The Systems Thinking and Metacognitive Inventory.pdf
> [32] Cabrera - Frameworks for Transdisciplinary Research.pdf


FILE: 'Donella Meadows.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:14:26.735Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Donella Meadows on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Donella-Meadows
author: Donella Meadows
---
Handling different points of view between observers in a systems inquiry involves acknowledging that all knowledge is based on models, making those internal models explicit, and integrating diverse perspectives to form a more complete understanding of the system.

The sources outline the following specific strategies for managing and utilizing conflicting viewpoints:

### 1\. Expose and Challenge Mental Models

The most fundamental step is recognizing that "everything you know, and everything everyone knows, is only a model"\[1\]. No single observer possesses the absolute truth; they only hold a representation of it derived from their own perspective\[1\].

• **Make assumptions explicit:** Observers should express their internal assumptions in words, lists, pictures, or arrows. Getting a model "out there where it can be shot at" invites others to challenge it and add their own perspectives\[1\],\[2\].

• **Collect multiple hypotheses:** Instead of championing a single explanation, investigators should collect as many explanations as possible from different observers. All should be considered plausible until evidence rules them out. This reduces the emotional attachment to a specific viewpoint, making it easier to admit when a hypothesis is wrong\[1\],\[2\].

### 2\. Use Formal Models to Unify Assumptions

While mental models are essential, they are often fuzzy, incomplete, and imprecise\[3\]. Formal models (such as computer simulations) serve as a tool to bridge differences between observers.

• **Precision and Criticism:** Formal models require assumptions to be written in a precise, mathematical form. This makes the model open to inspection and criticism by all observers, preventing the ambiguity often found in verbal debates where terms may be defined differently by different people\[4\],\[5\].

• **Resolving Complexity:** When many variables interact, the human brain cannot intuitively track the results. A formal model allows observers to see the logical implications of their combined assumptions without error, shifting the debate from "what I think will happen" to "what our combined assumptions imply"\[3\],\[5\].

### 3\. Integrate Disciplinary Lenses

Systems are often too complex for a single academic discipline to understand. Handling different views requires integrating insights from various fields (e.g., economics, chemistry, psychology)\[6\].

• **Defy disciplines:** Investigators must follow the system wherever it leads, regardless of academic boundaries. This requires penetrating the jargon of different disciplines and discarding the distortions caused by their narrow lenses\[6\],\[7\].

• **Learning mode:** Effective interdisciplinary communication happens when participants are more committed to solving the problem than to being "academically correct." They must be willing to admit ignorance and be taught by each other\[7\],\[8\].

### 4\. Recognize Space and Time Perspectives

Different observers often disagree simply because they are focused on different scales of space and time\[9\].

• **The Space-Time Graph:** Human concerns fall on a graph of space (family to world) and time (next week to future generations). Most people focus on immediate, local concerns (lower left of the graph), while systems problems often reside in the long-term, global sector (upper right)\[10\],\[11\].

• **Aligning Horizons:** To resolve these differences, it is necessary to lift the horizons of observers, encouraging them to consider longer timeframes and broader geographical scopes to see how local actions affect the whole system\[12\],\[13\].

### 5\. Navigate Paradigms

At the deepest level, disagreements stem from "paradigms"—the shared, unstated assumptions about the nature of reality (e.g., "growth is good" or "one can own land")\[14\],\[15\].

• **Paradigm Awareness:** Observers must realize that these deep beliefs are not universal truths but social agreements. Recognizing that "no paradigm is true" allows observers to choose the mindset that best serves the purpose of the system rather than fighting over whose worldview is "correct"\[16\],\[17\].

• **Changing Paradigms:** Resolving conflicts at this level often requires pointing out the anomalies and failures of the old paradigm and loudly articulating the new one, or inserting people with the new paradigm into places of visibility\[18\],\[19\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Meadows.pdf
> [2] Meadows.pdf
> [3] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [4] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [5] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [6] Meadows.pdf
> [7] Meadows.pdf
> [8] Meadows.pdf
> [9] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [10] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [11] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [12] [Book] Meadows - The Limits to Growth.pdf
> [13] Meadows.pdf
> [14] D Meadows Places To Intervene 1997.pdf
> [15] Leverage_Points.pdf
> [16] D Meadows Places To Intervene 1997.pdf
> [17] Leverage_Points.pdf
> [18] D Meadows Places To Intervene 1997.pdf
> [19] Leverage_Points.pdf


FILE: 'Fred Emery.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:42:10.308Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Fred Emery on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Fred-Emery
  - Perspectives
author: Fred Emery
---
Handling different points of view between different observers within the framework of Emery’s Open Systems Theory (OST\[E\]) involves specific theoretical assumptions about reality and practical methodologies for negotiation and planning. The approach distinguishes itself from "consensus" models or "constructivist" views by grounding resolution in a shared, objective environment and the structural conditions of the observers.

**1\. Grounding in Objective Reality (Realism)**OST(E) handles different viewpoints by assuming a shared, concrete reality rather than competing, equally valid "mental models."

• **Naive Realism:** The theory posits that the world is objectively ordered and open to all participants\[1\]. It assumes that "things are what they appear to be" and that if two observers were similarly placed, they would see the same thing\[1\]\[2\].

• **Pointing vs. Verbalizing:** Because the environment is shared, the fundamental operation when differences arise is to "point or demonstrate" to the external object or event, rather than to verbalize inner private representations\[3\]\[4\]. Disagreements are treated as public matters capable of resolution by referencing the common environment\[3\].

• **The ABX Model:** In an interpersonal situation (ABX), where A and B are persons and X is an object of mutual concern, a "mutually shared field" emerges\[5\]\[6\]. Differences in view are often attributed to differences in position or interest rather than fundamental differences in reality; acknowledging these differences can lead to a desire for deeper knowledge\[7\].

**2\. The Role of Ideals**When observers hold different values or immediate interests, OST(E) handles this by elevating the discourse to the level of **ideals**.

• **Transcending Conflict:** While individuals may disagree on specific goals or means, they share the capacity to be "ideal seeking"\[8\]. Ideals (such as Homonomy, Nurturance, Humanity, and Beauty) have overriding significance for all members of a field\[9\].

• **Stability of Direction:** When people collectively seek ideals, these ideals take precedence over individual differences, creating stability of direction and allowing the alignment of diverse systems\[8\]. This transformation simplifies a turbulent field\[10\].

**3\. Methodologies for Handling Conflict (The Search Conference)**In practical applications like the Search Conference, specific mechanisms are used to manage divergent views without forcing artificial unanimity.

• **Rationalization of Conflict:** OST(E) explicitly rejects "consensus" or "unanimity" as necessary goals\[11\]. Instead, it uses a process called the "rationalization of conflict"\[11\]\[12\].

• **The Disagreed List:** Participants work to establish common ground. If a disagreement cannot be resolved after debate, the item is placed on a "disagreed list" and removed from further work. This allows the community to proceed based on the common ground that _does_ exist, respecting the conflict rather than suppressing it\[13\]\[14\].

• **Puzzle Learning:** Because the environment is treated as a "puzzle" (where the full picture is not yet known) rather than a "problem" (which implies a known solution), different observers contribute different "pieces" of the puzzle. Validity is determined by whether the pieces fit the objective picture, not by who holds the view\[15\]\[16\].

**4\. Structural Determinants (Design Principles)**OST(E) argues that the _structure_ of the organization determines how viewpoints are handled.

• **Bureaucracy (DP1):** In Design Principle 1 structures (hierarchy), differences are often amplified into "personality conflicts" or "them and us" dynamics\[17\]\[18\]. Communication is asymmetrical and egocentric ("I want"), leading to distorted viewpoints to protect individual interests\[19\]\[20\].

• **Democracy (DP2):** In Design Principle 2 structures (self-managing groups), relationships are symmetrical and between peers\[21\]. Differences are handled through negotiation rather than dominance\[22\]. Viewpoints are shared to coordinate the whole task, and errors or differences are treated as feedback for learning rather than grounds for blame\[23\].

**5\. Contrast with Other Systems Schools**The OST(E) approach to observer differences contrasts sharply with other systems theories (such as Soft Systems Methodology or Critical Systems Thinking).

• **Realism vs. Constructivism:** While a Critical Systems thinker (like Bob Flood) might view mental models as "pictures of reality" and handle differences by exploring multiple constructed realities and power dynamics\[24\]\[25\], OST(E) practitioners view the environment as "intensely real" and accessible\[26\]\[27\].

• **Resolution:** For OST(E), the resolution of different viewpoints is found in the "concept of the organizing gestalt," which unites the observers in a common purposeful relationship with the environment\[28\]\[29\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Emery - A choice of futures.pdf
> [2] [Book] Emery - A choice of futures.pdf
> [3] [Book] Emery - A choice of futures.pdf
> [4] [Book] Emery - A choice of futures.pdf
> [5] [Book] Emery - A choice of futures.pdf
> [6] [Book] Emery - A choice of futures.pdf
> [7] [Book] Emery - A choice of futures.pdf
> [8] Emery 2000 - The Current Version of Emerys Open Systems Theory.pdf
> [9] Emery - The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments.pdf
> [10] Emery - The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments.pdf
> [11] Emery 2000 - The Current Version of Emerys Open Systems Theory.pdf
> [12] Emery Open or Closed Systems.pdf
> [13] The Search Conference - Rehm on Emery.pdf
> [14] The Search Conference - Rehm on Emery.pdf
> [15] The Search Conference - Rehm on Emery.pdf
> [16] Emery Open or Closed Systems.pdf
> [17] Emery - The Far Reaching Effects of the Design Principles.pdf
> [18] Emery - The Participative Design Workshop.pdf
> [19] Emery - The Far Reaching Effects of the Design Principles.pdf
> [20] [Book] Emery - A choice of futures.pdf
> [21] Emery - The Far Reaching Effects of the Design Principles.pdf
> [22] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [23] Emery - The Far Reaching Effects of the Design Principles.pdf
> [24] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [25] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [26] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [27] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [28] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf
> [29] A matruing of systems thinking Barton Emery Flood et al.pdf


FILE: 'Geoffrey Vickers.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:43:01.271Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Geoffrey Vickers on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Geoffrey-Vickers
author: Geoffrey Vickers
---
Based on the provided sources, different points of view between different observers are not treated as errors to be corrected by finding a single "objective" truth. Instead, they are viewed as inherent to the human condition, arising from the unique **"appreciative settings"** of each individual or group. Handling these differences is a central task of governance, management, and social life.

Here is how these differences are understood and handled within this framework:

### 1\. The Root of Divergence: Appreciative Settings

Different observers hold different views because they do not perceive the world directly. They perceive it through a filter called an **appreciative system** or **appreciative setting**\[1\].

• **Selective Perception:** "Facts" are not objective data waiting to be picked up; they are "mental artifacts" created by the observer\[6\]\[7\]. We notice only what our interests and values condition us to notice. For example, a housing development might be viewed by one person as a "solution to homelessness," by another as a "threat to the Green Belt," and by a third as an "increase in traffic"\[8\]\[9\]. All are valid "facts" within their respective appreciative settings.

• **Tacit Norms:** Our judgments of reality (what is) and value (what ought to be) are guided by tacit norms that are often unstated and unconscious\[10\].

### 2\. Handling Differences through Communication

The primary mechanism for managing divergent views is **communication**, which Vickers describes not merely as the transfer of information, but as the process of changing the appreciative settings of the participants\[11\].

• **Mutual Persuasion:** This involves trying to change how another person _sees_ (classifies) or _values_ a situation\[15\]. It is an attempt to align the "inner worlds" of the participants so they can agree on a common definition of the situation\[16\]\[19\].

• **Dialogue:** This is the highest level of communication. In true dialogue, parties suspend their own judgments and engage in a joint effort to reach a common appreciation\[20\]. The goal is not just to manipulate the other, but to learn and potentially change one's own view in the process\[21\]\[22\].

• **Meta-communication:** Sometimes parties must stop discussing the issue at hand and discuss _how_ they are communicating (e.g., clarifying the meaning of words or concepts) to resolve misunderstandings before they can address their substantive differences\[23\]\[24\].

### 3\. Seeking "Accommodation" rather than Consensus

A crucial distinction in this approach is the goal of **accommodation** rather than total consensus.

• **Living with Differences:** It is not always possible (or necessary) for everyone to agree on the same values or ultimate goals. Accommodation is finding a course of action that different parties can accept ("live with"), even if they do so for different reasons or motives\[25\].

• **Integrative Solutions:** The ideal outcome is an "integrative solution" where the situation is redefined in a way that satisfies the diverse claims of contestants without requiring mere compromise\[28\]\[29\].

• **Example:** Vickers cites the Quaker business meeting, where the goal is to find the "sense of the meeting"—a shared agreement on the right course of action that transcends individual voting\[30\].

### 4\. The Role of Roles and Institutions

In large-scale systems where personal dialogue is impossible between everyone, **roles** and **institutions** manage differences by stabilizing expectations\[31\].

• **Mutual Expectations:** Roles (e.g., teacher, doctor, citizen) create a "net of expectations"\[34\]\[35\]. Even if two people have different personal views, they can cooperate because they know what to expect from each other's role\[36\]\[37\].

• **Institutional Constraints:** Institutions mediate conflicting demands (e.g., creating a budget that balances competing needs for roads vs. schools) by establishing rules and procedures that contain conflict within acceptable limits\[34\].

### 5\. Methodological Approaches

Specific methodologies have been developed to explicitly handle these multiple viewpoints:

• **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM):** This approach explicitly models the different _Weltanschauungen_ (worldviews) of stakeholders. It uses these models not to represent the "real world," but to structure a debate that can lead to accommodation\[40\].

• **Scenario Planning:** This technique uses "strategic conversation" to surface and share diverse perceptions. By exploring alternative future scenarios, an organization can challenge "group-think" and align different mental models\[26\].

• **Pluralist Function Interrogation:** This method uncovers the explicit and unacknowledged beliefs people hold about the function of an object or practice (e.g., a safety procedure). By juxtaposing these different beliefs (e.g., manager vs. operator), it exposes the diversity of views that shape practice\[45\].

In summary, different points of view are handled by acknowledging that there is no single "correct" view, and then using **dialogue**, **role definition**, and **institutional frameworks** to align expectations and find a practical way forward (accommodation) despite inherent differences in values and perceptions.

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Blackmore - Laerning for communication about climate change using Vickers apprecative inquiry.pdf
> [6] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [7] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [8] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [9] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [10] Lewis 1991 - The decision making basis for information systems the contribution of Vickers appreciation.pdf
> [11] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [15] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [16] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [19] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [20] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [21] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [22] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [23] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [24] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [25] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf
> [26] Heijden 2008 - Towards a framework to understand purpose in futures studies the role of Vickers Appreciative System.pdf
> [28] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [29] [Book] Vickers - The Art of Judgment - A Study of policy making.pdf
> [30] [Book] Vickers - Rethinking the Future.pdf
> [31] Appreciative systems.pdf
> [34] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [35] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [36] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [37] [Book] Vickers - The Vickers Papers.pdf
> [40] Brocklesby 2007 - The Theoretical Underpinnings of Soft Systems Methodology - Comparing the work of Geoffrey Vickers and Humberto Maturana.pdf
> [45] Pluralistic functions in safety analysis - aka Vickers analysis.pdf


FILE: 'George Lakoff.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:33:29.655Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: George Lakoff on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - George-Lakoff
  - Perspectives
aliases:
  - "Based on the provided texts, the handling of diffe..."
linter-yaml-title-alias: "Based on the provided texts, the handling of diffe..."
author: George Lakoff
---

# Based on the provided texts, the handling of diffe...

导出时间: 30/01/2026, 10:33:29

---

Based on the provided texts, the handling of different points of view between observers depends heavily on whether one adopts the traditional "Objectivist" paradigm or the "Experientialist" (cognitive) paradigm proposed by the authors. The sources argue that human understanding is not a direct reflection of an objective world, but is mediated by the body, brain, and conceptual systems.

**1\. The Rejection of the "God's Eye View"**The sources explicitly reject the "Objectivist" view, which assumes there is a single, objectively correct description of reality—a "God's Eye view"—that exists independent of any observer\[1\],\[2\].

• **Truth is Relative to Understanding:** The texts argue that truth is not absolute but is "relative to understanding"\[3\]. A statement is true if a person's understanding of the statement fits their understanding of the situation closely enough for their purposes\[4\].

• **Multiple Valid Conceptualizations:** It is normal for observers to have multiple, sometimes inconsistent ways of understanding the same reality\[5\],\[6\]. For example, physicists may conceptualize electricity as a fluid for some problems and as a crowd of electrons for others; both are valid within their specific contexts\[7\],\[8\].

• **Putnam’s Theorem:** Citing Hilary Putnam, the sources argue that it is logically impossible to have exactly one true and complete description of the way the world is. Therefore, observers cannot access reality from an external, neutral perspective; they can only know it from an "internalist" perspective based on their functioning within the world\[9\],\[2\].

**2\. Handling Political Disagreements: Frames and Biconceptualism**In the political sphere, different points of view arise from conflicting moral worldviews (specifically the "Strict Father" vs. "Nurturant Parent" models)\[10\],\[11\].

• **Biconceptualism:** Many observers hold both conservative and progressive worldviews in their brains simultaneously. These views are mutually inhibitory; activating one suppresses the other\[12\],\[13\]. Different points of view are handled within a single individual by applying different moral frames to different issues (e.g., a person might be conservative on foreign policy but progressive on education)\[14\].

• **Reframing vs. Negation:** When confronting an opposing political viewpoint, one should not negate the other observer's frame (e.g., saying "I am not a crook"), because negating a frame actually activates it in the listener's brain\[15\]. Instead, observers should "reframe" the issue using their own values and language\[16\],\[17\].

• **Empathy:** Understanding a different political point of view requires empathy, which allows observers to "put oneself in someone else’s shoes." This capability is biologically rooted in the brain's mirror neuron system\[18\],\[19\].

**3\. Objectivity and Communication**The sources argue that rejecting absolute truth does not mean embracing total relativism where "anything goes"\[20\]. Instead, handling different points of view requires a new definition of objectivity.

• **Experientialist Objectivity:** Being objective does not mean having a "God's eye view," but rather having the ability to rise above individual bias. This requires knowing that one has a specific conceptual system, knowing what it is, and being able to entertain alternative conceptual systems\[21\],\[22\].

• **Negotiation of Meaning:** When observers do not share the same culture or knowledge, mutual understanding is achieved through the "negotiation of meaning." This requires flexibility, patience, and the "metaphorical imagination" to communicate relevant parts of unshared experiences\[23\],\[24\].

• **Shared Embodiment:** Despite differences, observers share a "common conceptualizing capacity" because they share the same types of bodies and brains. Universal experiences (like verticality or containment) create shared "image schemas" that allow for cross-cultural stability and communication\[25\],\[21\].

**4\. Mathematical and Scientific Disagreements**Even in mathematics, which is often viewed as purely objective, different points of view exist as distinct, self-consistent subject matters.

• **Mutually Inconsistent Systems:** Mathematicians can create different, equally valid forms of mathematics based on different metaphors. For instance, in Euclidean geometry, parallel lines never meet, whereas in projective geometry, parallel lines meet at infinity\[26\]. These are not contradictory theories of a single reality, but different subject matters defined by different metaphorical assumptions\[27\].

• **Discretization:** Mathematicians often must manage two contradictory conceptualizations of space: naturally continuous space (based on everyday motion) and discretized space (where space is a set of points). Professional mathematicians learn to operate with both, switching between these metaphors as necessary\[28\],\[29\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [2] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [3] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [4] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [5] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [6] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [7] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [8] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [9] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [10] [Book] Lakoff - Dont Think of an Elephant Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives.pdf
> [11] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [12] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [13] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [14] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [15] [Book] Lakoff - Dont Think of an Elephant Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives.pdf
> [16] [Book] Lakoff - Dont Think of an Elephant Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives.pdf
> [17] [Book] Lakoff - Dont Think of an Elephant Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives.pdf
> [18] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [19] [Book] Lakoff - The Political Mind A Cognitive Scientists Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics.pdf
> [20] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [21] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [22] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [23] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [24] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [25] [Book] Lakoff - Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things What Categories Reveal about the Mind.pdf
> [26] [Book] Lakoff - Where Mathematics Come From How The Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being.pdf
> [27] [Book] Lakoff - Where Mathematics Come From How The Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being.pdf
> [28] [Book] Lakoff - Where Mathematics Come From How The Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being.pdf
> [29] [Book] Lakoff - Where Mathematics Come From How The Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being.pdf


FILE: 'Gregory Bateson.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-27T20:17:28.302Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Gregory Bateson on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Gregory-Bateson
  - Perspectives
author: Gregory Bateson
---
Different points of view between observers are handled not by choosing one as "true" and the other as "false," but by combining them to generate a higher order of insight or **"double description."**\[1\],\[2\],\[3\],\[4\] This approach is rooted in the understanding that a single perspective is necessarily limited and that "two descriptions are better than one."\[5\],\[3\],\[4\]

The handling of divergent viewpoints involves several key methodological and epistemological strategies:

### 1\. Double Description and Binocular Vision

Bateson uses the physiological phenomenon of **binocular vision** as a primary metaphor for handling different viewpoints.\[2\],\[6\],\[7\],\[8\] When one eye perceives an object, it provides a monocular view; the other eye provides a slightly different monocular view.\[2\],\[9\] When these two different views are combined in the brain, the result is not merely the addition of information (1 + 1 = 2) but the creation of a new species of information: **depth perception**.\[10\],\[11\],\[12\],\[8\]

• **The Bonus of Insight:** The difference between the information provided by one source and that provided by another is itself information of a different, higher **logical type**.\[10\],\[13\],\[12\] This "bonus" of understanding allows the observer to perceive an extra dimension of the phenomenon that neither source could provide alone.\[14\],\[15\],\[16\]

• **Application to Relationships:** This logic extends to human relationships. A relationship is not internal to a single person but is a product of double description, requiring the combined view of both parties to be understood.\[17\]

### 2\. Inclusion of the Observer

In cybernetics and post-normal science, the observer is not separate from the system being observed but is an integral part of it.\[18\],\[19\],\[20\],\[21\]

• **Subjectivity and Bias:** Objectivity is often a myth; every observation contains the bias and epistemology of the observer.\[22\],\[23\],\[24\],\[25\],\[26\] Consequently, different observers will naturally punctuate the stream of events differently based on their own context and learning histories.\[27\],\[28\],\[29\]

• **Second-Order Cybernetics:** This approach explicitly includes the observer within the description of the observed, acknowledging that descriptions are relative to the observer's standpoint.\[19\],\[30\],\[31\],\[32\] The goal is to understand the "understanding of others" rather than judging their views against a singular objective reality.\[33\]

### 3\. Abduction and Metaphor

To bridge the gap between different realms of knowledge or different observers, Bateson proposes the use of **abduction**.\[1\],\[34\],\[35\]

• **Lateral Comparison:** Abduction involves looking for similar patterns or formal rules in widely different contexts (e.g., comparing the anatomy of a crab to a lobster, or a man to a horse).\[36\],\[37\],\[38\] By identifying the "pattern which connects" different cases, observers can construct a shared understanding or a "syllogism in grass."\[39\],\[40\]

• **Metaphor as Interface:** Metaphor allows for the mapping of relations from one system to another, facilitating communication and understanding across different contexts.\[41\],\[42\],\[43\]

### 4\. Moiré Patterns and Interference

Bateson uses the concept of **Moiré patterns** to explain how combining repetitive patterns (or viewpoints) generates a third, distinct pattern.\[44\],\[45\],\[46\] Just as two screens placed over one another create a new visual effect, the interaction of different descriptions or redundancies creates a new level of complexity and information that "jumps out" from the interface.\[47\],\[48\],\[49\]

### 5\. Interaction and Negotiation of Meaning

In the social and linguistic realm, meaning is not static but is negotiated between observers through interaction.

• **Co-construction:** Meaning is an interactive process, a "collaborative work" where participants build the context and relevance for one another.\[50\],\[51\],\[52\]

• **Dialogical Reality:** Instead of stating "A means B," a rigorous observer should state, "I interpret A to mean B to C," acknowledging that meaning is relative to the specific observer and their relationship to the object.\[53\],\[54\]

• **Handling Conflict:** In social systems, different points of view can lead to **schismogenesis** (progressive escalation). If interactions are symmetrical (boasting met with boasting) or complementary (dominance met with submission), they can escalate to collapse unless there is a shift in the relationship or context.\[55\],\[56\],\[57\],\[58\]

### 6\. The Necessity of Multiple Perspectives

Because the total universe is too complex to be seen from a single position, any single description is necessarily incomplete and selective.\[59\],\[60\],\[61\],\[62\] Therefore, **multiple perspectives** are not just helpful but essential for maintaining a "budget of flexibility" and achieving "systemic wisdom."\[1\],\[63\],\[64\] Acknowledging the validity of different "worlds" or "Umwelten" allows for a multiverse of understandings rather than a forced consensus.\[65\],\[66\]

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [2] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [3] Tognetti - Gregory Bateson and the origins of post-normal science.pdf
> [4] [Book] Bateson Gregory - Mind and Nature.pdf
> [5] Bateson_MindNature.pdf
> [6] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [7] Bateson_MindNature.pdf
> [8] [Book] Bateson Gregory - Mind and Nature.pdf
> [9] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [10] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [11] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [12] Bateson_MindNature.pdf
> [13] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [14] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [15] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [16] Bateson_MindNature.pdf
> [17] [Book] Bateson Gregory - Mind and Nature.pdf
> [18] Bateson - The poisition of humor in human communications.pdf
> [19] Bateson and Ramage.pdf
> [20] Harries-Jones Peter - A Recursive Vision Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson 1995.pdf
> [21] bateson mind and nature.pdf
> [22] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [23] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [24] Bateson 1991 - Cybernetic Explanation.pdf
> [25] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [26] [Book] Bateson - Steps to an Ecology of Mind_ Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology.pdf
> [27] Bateson 1972 - Llogical categories of learning and communication.pdf
> [28] Gregory Batesons Theory of Mind - Learning I-II-III.pdf
> [29] [Book] Gregory Bateson - Steps to an Ecology of Mind.pdf
> [30] Gregory Bateson Niklas Luhmann and Ecology.pdf
> [31] Krippendorff - The Dialogical Reality of Meaning.pdf
> [32] The_logical bateson learning paper.pdf
> [33] Krippendorff - The Dialogical Reality of Meaning.pdf
> [34] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [35] [Book] Bateson Gregory - Mind and Nature.pdf
> [36] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [37] A Legacy for Living Systems - Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics.pdf
> [38] Hui 2008 - Batesons method double description what is it how does it work what do we learn.pdf
> [39] Batesons serach for patterns which connect Ecology and Mind - his thinking on metaphors.pdf
> [40] Hawkins A centennial tribute to Gregory Bateson.pdf
> [41] Harries-Jones Peter - A Recursive Vision Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson 1995.pdf
> [42] Harries-Jones Peter - A Recursive Vision Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson 1995.pdf
> [43] Harries-Jones Peter - A Recursive Vision Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson 1995.pdf
> [44] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [45] Hui 2008 - Batesons method double description what is it how does it work what do we learn.pdf
> [46] [Book] Hoffmeyer - A Legacy for Living Systems Batesons Method Double Description.pdf
> [47] Bioentropy aesthetics and meta-dualism the transdisciplinary ecology of Gregory Bateson.pdf
> [48] Harries-Jones Peter - A Recursive Vision Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson 1995.pdf
> [49] Harries-Jones Peter - A Recursive Vision Ecological Understanding and Gregory Bateson 1995.pdf
> [50] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [51] [Book] Hoffmeyer - A Legacy for Living Systems Batesons Method Double Description.pdf
> [52] [Book] Hoffmeyer - A Legacy for Living Systems Batesons Method Double Description.pdf
> [53] Krippendorff - The Dialogical Reality of Meaning.pdf
> [54] Krippendorff - The Dialogical Reality of Meaning.pdf
> [55] 656342.pdf
> [56] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [57] Palmer - Think differently to avoid extinction.pdf
> [58] [Book] Gregory Bateson - Steps to an Ecology of Mind.pdf
> [59] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [60] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [61] Batesons Process Ontology for Psychological Practice.pdf
> [62] Tognetti - Gregory Bateson and the origins of post-normal science.pdf
> [63] (Biosemiotics 2) Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (auth.), Associate Professor Jesper Hoffmeyer (eds.) - A Legacy for Living Systems_ Gregory Bateson as Precursor to Biosemiotics-Springer Netherla.pdf
> [64] Bateson_Gregory_Steps_to_an_Ecology_of_Mind.pdf
> [65] Ison - Fruits of BAtesons Epistemological Crisis.pdf
> [66] The Pattern which connects Gregory Bateson.pdf


FILE: 'Harish Jose.md'
---
exported: '2026-02-09T20:58:00.055Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: In the framework presented in the sources, differe...
tags:
  - Harish-Jose
  - Perspective
---
In the framework presented in the sources, different points of view are handled through **pluralism, second-order observation, and active perspective-taking**, rather than by seeking a single "objective" truth\[1\]. Because "anything said is said by an observer," reality is viewed as a construction where each individual’s perspective is shaped by their unique history, biases, and goals\[4\].

Here is how these differences are practically managed:

### **1\. Embracing Pluralism and Anekantvada**

Instead of seeing opposing views as "wrong," this approach utilizes **pluralism**, which recognizes that multiple perspectives can be valid within their specific contexts\[1\]\[3\].

• **Anekantvada:** This concept of "many-sidedness" suggests that truth is complex; no single observer can see the "whole elephant" alone\[7\]\[8\].

• **Cognitive Non-violence:** Handling differences requires being non-hostile to others' ideas, realizing that your own version of reality is inevitably incomplete\[7\]\[9\].

### **2\. Second-Order Observation**

When observers disagree, the solution is often to move to a **second-order level**—observing the act of observation itself\[10\]\[11\].

• **Revealing Blind Spots:** A first-order observer cannot see their own blind spots, but a second-order observer can see the **distinctions** the first person is making and why they see what they see\[11\]\[12\].

• **Self-Reflection (Hansei):** Individuals are encouraged to use the "Socratic method" on themselves to identify internal contradictions in their own beliefs\[13\]\[14\].

### **3\. Dialogue and "The Fusion of Horizons"**

Handling conflict is not about one opinion overriding another, but about a **transformation of both viewpoints**\[15\].

• **Fusion of Horizons:** Inspired by Hans-Georg Gadamer, this is the process where two different "horizons" of understanding overlap, creating a new, shared meaning that neither person held before\[16\]\[17\].

• **Active Listening:** True understanding requires an "openness to meaning," where you let the other person's perspective speak to you rather than immediately trying to correct it\[18\]\[19\].

### **4\. Structural Consensus (Nemawashi)**

In organizational settings, differences are handled through **Nemawashi**, the process of "digging around the roots" to build consensus before a formal decision is made\[20\]\[21\].

• **Informal Alignment:** By holding one-on-one casual chats, a proposer can polish an idea based on separate feedback from different stakeholders, ensuring that **group harmony (Wa)** is maintained\[21\].

• **The Tenth Man:** To prevent "groupthink," some organizations use a policy where if nine people agree, the tenth person is **obligated to take the opposite side** to surface hidden risks\[24\].

### **5\. Ethical Imperatives**

Finally, handling different points of view is guided by Heinz von Foerster's **ethical imperative**: "Act always so as to increase the total number of choices"\[25\]\[26\]. Leaders are encouraged to treat others as co-observers whose input is essential, rather than as objects to be managed or corrected\[27\]\[28\].

When you encounter someone with a radically different viewpoint, do you typically try to find the "middle ground," or do you find it more useful to look for the "blind spot" that their unique perspective might be revealing?

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Harish Jose.md
> [3] Harish Jose.md
> [4] Harish Jose.md
> [7] Harish Jose.md
> [8] Harish Jose.md
> [9] Harish Jose.md
> [10] Harish Jose.md
> [11] Harish Jose.md
> [12] Harish Jose.md
> [13] Harish Jose.md
> [14] Harish Jose.md
> [15] Harish Jose.md
> [16] Harish Jose.md
> [17] Harish Jose.md
> [18] Harish Jose.md
> [19] Harish Jose.md
> [20] Harish Jose.md
> [21] Harish Jose.md
> [24] Harish Jose.md
> [25] Harish Jose.md
> [26] Harish Jose.md
> [27] Harish Jose.md
> [28] Harish Jose.md


FILE: 'Harold Nelson.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:15:15.714Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Harold Nelson on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Harold-Nelson
author: Harold Nelson
---
Handling different points of view between observers is a central challenge in systemic design. The sources reject the notion of a single, objective "God's eye view" in favor of an approach that acknowledges the inevitability of subjectivity and seeks to integrate diverse perspectives through **mediation**, **dialogue**, and **systemic frameworks**.

### 1\. The Primacy of the Observer

The foundation for handling different viewpoints is the recognition that "Anything said is said by an observer"\[1\]\[2\]. Objectivity is considered impossible because every observation is an act of imagination and interpretation, filtered through the observer’s cognitive frames\[3\].

• **Appreciative Settings:** Different observers possess different "appreciative settings" (a concept from Geoffrey Vickers). These settings determine what an observer notices, values, and judges as relevant\[4\]\[5\]. Because these settings vary based on experience and norms, different observers will inevitably generate different judgments about what is "real" (facts) and what is "valuable" (norms)\[4\].

• **Station Points:** The sources use the metaphor of a building to explain why multiple views are necessary. One cannot see a whole building from the front door; one must move between different "station points" to appreciate the whole. Complex phenomena reveal contradictory images (paradoxes) when viewed from different positions, much like light appearing as a particle or a wave depending on the observer's stance\[6\].

### 2\. Methodologies for Integrating Perspectives

To cope with these inevitable differences, systemic design employs specific frameworks to ensure a holistic view is constructed rather than a fragmented one.

• **The TOP Model:** Harold Linstone’s schema is cited as a primary method for ensuring multiple viewpoints are handled. It requires looking at a system through at least three distinct lenses:

    ◦ **Technical (T):** Focuses on data, models, and optimization.    ◦ **Organizational (O):** Focuses on process and institutional action.    ◦ **Personal (P):** Focuses on individual intuition and response\[7\]\[8\].    ◦ This list is often expanded in design to include **Ethical**, **Political**, **Economic**, and **Spiritual** perspectives\[9\].
• **Perspective Shifting:** This involves the deliberate effort to see the world from another person's point of view, essentially practicing empathy. It moves beyond replicating one perspective to representing multiple ones to avoid "perspective collision"\[10\]\[11\].

### 3\. Mediation: The Alternative to Compromise

When points of view conflict, the goal in systemic design is **mediation**, not compromise.

• **Mediation vs. Compromise:** Compromise results in a "gray" average where distinct qualities are lost. Mediation, however, retains the integrity of the differences while bringing them together into a new relationship\[12\].

• **Emergence:** Through mediation, the designer connects diverse elements (or viewpoints) to create a functional assembly where "emergent qualities" appear—qualities that did not exist in the parts alone\[13\].

• **The "Mean":** Drawing on Aristotle, mediation is described as judging the "mean"—such as the mediation between justice and mercy resulting in compassion. It creates a new understanding rather than picking a winner\[14\]\[15\].

### 4\. Creating "Trading Zones" and Boundary Objects

To physically and intellectually handle diverse views, practitioners create specific spaces and artifacts that facilitate collaboration without requiring everyone to think exactly alike.

• **Trading Zones:** These are metaphorical or literal spaces where different disciplines (e.g., engineers and anthropologists) can collaborate. In a trading zone, parties do not need to agree on everything or share the same global meanings; they only need to agree on specific joint purposes and partial shared meanings to conduct "trade"\[16\].

• **Boundary Objects:** These are representations (such as maps, prototypes, or diagrams) that are robust enough to maintain a common identity across different communities but flexible enough to be interpreted differently by each group. They serve as a "stage" for situated collaborative work, allowing different observers to point to and discuss features based on their own knowledge\[17\].

• **Visual Mapping:** Techniques like **GIGA-mapping** and **layered scenario mapping** are used to create "information clouds" that capture the complexity of real-life problems. These maps allow teams to visualize relationships and share insights, helping to bridge the gap between individual tacit knowledge and a shared team understanding\[18\].

### 5\. Dialogue and "Uncommon" Understanding

Handling different views requires a communication process that moves deeper than simple information exchange.

• **From Conversation to Graphologue:** The sources outline a progression from **conversation** (building trust) to **dialogue** (finding common ground/shared meaning) to **graphologue** (letting a thing be seen through its image). Graphologue allows for "uncommon understanding," where creative insights and new possibilities can be communicated beyond the limitations of shared language\[21\].

• **Both/Neither Logic:** Instead of forcing a choice between two opposing views (binary logic), observers are encouraged to use "both/neither" logic. This allows for ambiguity and paradox, acknowledging that two conflicting perspectives can both be true in a complex system\[24\]\[25\].

### 6\. The Service Relationship

Finally, the difference in viewpoints between the **designer** and the **client** is handled through a "service relationship."

• **Not Servitude:** The designer does not simply do whatever the client asks (servitude) nor do they impose their own will (art).

• **Listening/Notitia:** The designer uses _notitia_—an act of complete, uncompromising attention—to hear what the client desires but cannot yet articulate. The designer serves the client's "desiderata" (desires/intentions) rather than just their stated problems, bridging the gap between the client's view and the designer's expertise\[26\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Dubberly, Design - 2014 - A Systems Literacy Manifesto - Unknown.pdf
> [2] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [3] Collaborating for Comprehensivity by CJ Fearnley.pdf
> [4] Luras - Systems Intertwined a systemic view of the design situation.pdf
> [5] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [6] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [7] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [8] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [9] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [10] Collaborating for Comprehensivity by CJ Fearnley.pdf
> [11] Collaborating for Comprehensivity by CJ Fearnley.pdf
> [12] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [13] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [14] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [15] [Book] Nelson - The Design Way intentional change in an unpredictable world.pdf
> [16] Friedman - Foundations for the future.pdf
> [17] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [18] mafiadoc.com_systemic-design-in-complex-contexts_59f6fecb1723dd464e46a48f.pdf
> [21] Design as Being in Service.pdf
> [24] Collaborating for Comprehensivity by CJ Fearnley.pdf
> [25] Collaborating for Comprehensivity by CJ Fearnley.pdf
> [26] Design as Being in Service.pdf


FILE: 'Herb Simon.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:42:42.600Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Herb Simon on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Herb-Simon
author: Herb Simon
---
Based on the provided sources, particularly _Administrative Behavior_ and _Reason in Human Affairs_ by Herbert A. Simon, the handling of different points of view between observers is a central problem in both organizational management and scientific methodology.

The sources suggest that different points of view are handled through **authority**, **structural factorization** (breaking problems apart), **standardization**, and **adversary proceedings**.

### 1\. The Root Cause: Bounded Rationality and Selective Perception

Simon argues that different observers hold different views because human rationality is "bounded." Individuals cannot grasp the complexity of the whole world; they must filter it.

• **Selective Perception:** Observers do not see the objective reality; they see a "representation" of reality based on their specific role and goals. In an experiment involving the "Castengo Steel Company," executives from different departments (sales, production, accounting) read the same case study but identified entirely different "most important problems" based on their departmental loyalties\[1\],\[2\].

• **Identification:** Individuals identify with their specific subgroup (e.g., a bureau or department). Consequently, a fire chief views the city in terms of fire hazards, while a social worker views it in terms of social welfare. These differing "inner environments" lead to honest but conflicting disagreements on policy\[3\],\[4\].

### 2\. Handling Disagreement within Organizations

Organizations are designed specifically to integrate these differing limited viewpoints into a coherent course of action.

**A. Authority and the "Last Word"**When different observers (e.g., a subordinate and a superior) disagree on a decision, and the disagreement cannot be resolved by persuasion or evidence, it is settled by **authority**.

• **The Right to the Last Word:** Authority is defined as the power to make decisions that guide the actions of another. When a disagreement is not resolved by discussion, it must be decided by the authority of one participant to prevent paralysis\[5\].

• **Suspension of Judgment:** The subordinate "holds in abeyance his own critical faculties" and allows the decision of the superior to serve as the premise for his behavior, ensuring coordination even in the absence of agreement\[6\],\[7\].

**B. Jurisdictional Resolution (Adjudication)**When two parties of equal standing disagree (e.g., a purchasing agent wants cheaper paper, a line officer wants higher quality), the conflict is handled by a common superior.

• **Deciding "Who" rather than "What":** The superior often does not decide the merits of the specific case (which paper is best) but decides the **jurisdictional** question: "Who has the authority to decide paper specifications?"\[8\],\[9\].

• **Information Gathering:** These disputes are actually useful to the organization; they force differing expert views upward, preventing important issues from being decided on the basis of a single, narrow viewpoint\[10\].

**C. Internalization and Training**To prevent conflicting points of view from arising in the first place, organizations use training and manuals to standardize the "premises" of decision-making.

• **Indoctrination:** The organization "injects into the very nervous systems" of its members the specific criteria they should use to decide. By standardizing the criteria (e.g., "always prioritize safety"), the organization ensures that different observers will independently reach the same conclusion\[11\],\[12\].

### 3\. Handling Disagreement in Society

In the broader social context, where there is no single hierarchy to enforce a view, Simon suggests other mechanisms.

**A. Adversary Proceedings**Systems like the courts rely on the fact that different observers have partial information and different goals.

• **Pooling Biased Views:** No single observer is expected to be impartial. Instead, the system relies on an "adversary proceeding" where each party presents their biased view and evidence. A third party (judge/jury) synthesizes these partial views to reach a conclusion. This protects against neglecting relevant facts that a single "unbiased" expert might miss\[13\].

**B. Markets**Markets allow different observers to act on their own private information and values without needing to agree with others.

• **Information Economy:** A consumer does not need to know the manufacturer's problems; the manufacturer does not need to know the consumer's dietary goals. The "price" acts as a summary statistic that allows them to coordinate their behavior without resolving their different points of view\[14\].

### 4\. Handling Disagreement in Science

In the realm of physics and hard science, different points of view (reference frames) are handled by seeking **invariants**.

• **Transformation of Coordinates:** In Newtonian mechanics, mass might appear different to observers in different reference frames. The scientific method handles this by finding mathematical transformations that allow an observer to calculate what the situation looks like from another's viewpoint. If a property (like the mass ratio of two bodies) remains constant across these transformations, it is considered "objective" or physically real\[15\],\[16\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [2] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [3] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [4] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [5] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [6] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [7] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [8] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [9] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [10] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [11] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [12] [Book] Simon - Administrative Behavior.pdf
> [13] [Book] Simon - Reason in Human Affairs.pdf
> [14] [Book] Simon - Reason in Human Affairs.pdf
> [15] [Book] Simon - Models of Discovery And Other Topics in the Methods of Science.pdf
> [16] [Book] Simon - Models of Discovery And Other Topics in the Methods of Science.pdf


FILE: 'Horst Rittel.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:27:10.465Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Horst Rittel on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Horst-Rittel
  - Perspectives
author: Horst Rittel
---
Handling different points of view between observers requires a fundamental epistemological shift from seeking a single, objective truth to acknowledging multiple, constructed realities. The sources provided, particularly the works of Krippendorff and Rittel, reject the traditional scientific approach of treating divergent views as "errors" or "biases" to be eliminated. Instead, they propose methods based on **second-order understanding**, **argumentation**, and **coordination**.

### 1\. From Objectivity to Second-Order Understanding

In the traditional "positivist" or "naturalistic" paradigm, differences between observers are treated as failures to see the one true reality\[1\],\[2\]. In contrast, the systems and cybernetic view posits that "anything said is said _to_ an observer," meaning reality is co-constructed by the observer\[3\].

• **Abandoning the "God’s Eye View":** One must abandon the illusion that reality can be observed without an observer\[4\],\[5\]. Instead of asserting "A means B" (which implies an objective fact), one must assert "A means B _to me_" or, more complexly, "I interpret A to mean B to C"\[6\],\[7\].

• **Second-Order Understanding:** This is the capability to understand someone else's understanding. It involves recursively embedding another person's reality into one's own, even if those understandings contradict one another\[8\],\[9\]. This approach grants others the same cognitive autonomy the observer claims for themselves, recognizing that others construct their worlds differently\[10\],\[11\].

### 2\. Handling Differences in Design and Planning (Wicked Problems)

In the context of design and complex social issues ("wicked problems"), different points of view are handled through **argumentation** and the recognition that expertise is distributed.

• **Symmetry of Ignorance:** Rittel argues that for wicked problems, there is no single expert who knows everything. Knowledge is distributed among all participants (stakeholders, users, planners). Therefore, there is a "symmetry of ignorance," and no individual has the authority to claim their judgment is superior to others\[12\],\[13\].

• **Objectification:** To handle differing judgments, participants must engage in "objectification." This does not mean making things "objective" in the scientific sense, but rather making the basis of one's judgment explicit and communicable. By explaining _why_ one thinks a plan is "great" or "lousy," one stimulates doubt and helps identify the specific issues where disagreement lies\[14\].

• **Design as Argumentation:** The process of design is an argumentative process. It involves debating issues, developing competing positions, and weighing pros and cons. The solution is not derived from a formula but formed through judgment and negotiation\[15\],\[16\].

### 3\. Communication as Coordination, Not Sharing

A critical distinction in handling different viewpoints is the move from "sharing" to "coordination."

• **Rejecting "Sharing":** The metaphor of communication as a "container" (where meaning is packed in and unpacked) implies that successful communication results in everyone having the exact same thoughts ("sharing"). Krippendorff argues this is empirically impossible to establish and sociologically dangerous, as it treats differences as deviance\[17\],\[18\],\[19\].

• **Coordination:** Instead of sharing a mental state, communication allows different observers to **coordinate** their practices. Two people (e.g., a pilot and a ground controller, or two debaters) can interact successfully while maintaining entirely different, distinct understandings of the situation, provided their actions fit together (are viable)\[20\],\[21\],\[22\]. Agreement is not a check of mental similarity but an indication that "understanding is sufficiently coordinated... to move on"\[23\].

### 4\. Multilogue and I-Thou Relations

The sources distinguish between different ways observers relate to one another, which dictates how viewpoints are treated.

• **I-It vs. I-Thou:** In an **I-It** relationship, the observer treats the other as a predictable object or a "trivial machine" to be manipulated\[24\],\[25\]. In an **I-Thou** relationship, the observer acknowledges the other as a sovereign being. The viewpoints are freely interchangeable, and neither imposes their categories on the other\[26\],\[27\].

• **Multilogue:** To handle diverse logics without imposing a single "meta-logic," Krippendorff proposes the concept of **multilogue**. This allows several distinct, even incommensurate worlds to exist side-by-side. The goal is not to merge them into one coherence but to create spaces where different worlds can expand and "be-with" each other\[28\],\[29\].

### 5\. Research and Content Analysis

In formal research, handling different viewpoints involves specific methodological steps regarding **reliability** and **validity**.

• **Reliability (Agreement):** When multiple observers (coders) look at the same text, their level of agreement is measured (e.g., using Krippendorff's α). High reliability indicates that the data can be trusted as a representation of a shared reality, whereas low reliability suggests the data are artifacts of individual idiosyncrasies\[30\],\[31\].

• **Validity (Truth):** Reliability does not guarantee validity; observers can be reliably wrong (sharing the same biases)\[32\]. Validity requires checking findings against evidence outside the observers' consensus, such as correlating findings with established facts or the behaviors of the people being studied\[33\],\[34\].

• **Semantic Validity:** This involves checking if the analyst's categories (their viewpoint) match the meanings held by the actual users or sources of the text. If the analyst's view diverges from the user's view, the analysis may lack semantic validity\[35\], .

In summary, dealing with different points of view requires abandoning the search for a single objective truth in favor of a **dialogical** approach. This involves respecting the **cognitive autonomy** of others\[10\], engaging in **argumentation** to expose the basis of judgments\[14\], and seeking **coordination** of actions rather than the identity of thoughts\[21\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [2] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [3] Krippendorff - A second-order Cybernetics of Otherness.pdf
> [4] Krippendorff - A second-order Cybernetics of Otherness.pdf
> [5] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [6] Krippendorff - The Dialogic Reality of Meaning.pdf
> [7] Krippendorff - The Dialogic Reality of Meaning.pdf
> [8] Krippendorff - The Dialogic Reality of Meaning.pdf
> [9] [Book] Krippendorff - The Semantic Turn a new foundation for design.pdf
> [10] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [11] [Book] Krippendorff - The Semantic Turn a new foundation for design.pdf
> [12] Rittel-Planning-Crisis-First-Second-Generation-1972.pdf
> [13] Rittel-Planning-Crisis-First-Second-Generation-1972.pdf
> [14] Rittel-Planning-Crisis-First-Second-Generation-1972.pdf
> [15] Rittel - The Reasoning of Designers.pdf
> [16] Rittel - The Reasoning of Designers.pdf
> [17] Krippendorff - A second-order Cybernetics of Otherness.pdf
> [18] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [19] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [20] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [21] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [22] [Book] Krippendorff - The Semantic Turn a new foundation for design.pdf
> [23] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [24] Krippendorff - A second-order Cybernetics of Otherness.pdf
> [25] Krippendorff - A second-order Cybernetics of Otherness.pdf
> [26] Krippendorff - A second-order Cybernetics of Otherness.pdf
> [27] Krippendorff - A second-order Cybernetics of Otherness.pdf
> [28] Krippendorff - A second-order Cybernetics of Otherness.pdf
> [29] [Book] Krippendorff - On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information.pdf
> [30] [Book] Krippendorff - Content Analysis An Introduction to Its Methodology.pdf
> [31] [Book] Krippendorff - Content Analysis An Introduction to Its Methodology.pdf
> [32] [Book] Krippendorff - Content Analysis An Introduction to Its Methodology.pdf
> [33] [Book] Krippendorff - Content Analysis An Introduction to Its Methodology.pdf
> [34] [Book] Krippendorff - The Semantic Turn a new foundation for design.pdf
> [35] [Book] Krippendorff - Content Analysis An Introduction to Its Methodology.pdf


FILE: 'Humberto Maturana.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:43:35.769Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Humberto Maturana on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Humberto-Matruana
author: Humberto Maturana
---
Handling different points of view between observers is a central theme in this collection. The sources approach this problem by first establishing the **biological roots** of how an observer constructs reality, and then offering **methodological tools** (like Soft Systems Methodology) to manage these differences in social contexts.

Here is how different points of view are handled, ranging from the biological to the ethical and practical levels.

### 1\. The Epistemological Stance: "Multiversa" vs. Universe

The most fundamental distinction in handling different viewpoints lies in the observer's epistemological stance—how they believe they know what they know.

• **Objectivity-without-Parenthesis (The Path of Obedience):** If an observer assumes they have access to an independent, objective reality (a single Universe), they will treat a differing viewpoint as a mistake, a lie, or madness\[1\]. In this path, a claim of knowledge effectively becomes a "demand for obedience," because if something is "objectively true," the other person _must_ accept it or be deemed irrational\[2\]\[3\]. Disagreements here result in mutual negation\[4\].

• **Objectivity-in-Parenthesis (The Path of Mutual Acceptance):** If an observer accepts that reality is constituted by their own biological distinctions (structural determinism), they recognize that they cannot reference a reality independent of themselves to settle an argument\[5\]\[6\]. This leads to the acceptance of a **Multiversa**—many equally legitimate domains of reality brought forth by different observers\[7\]. In this path, a different point of view is not a mistake but a legitimate existence in a different domain of reality\[3\].

### 2\. Biological Mechanism: Structural Determinism

Because human beings are "structure-determined systems," you cannot simply transfer a point of view from one person to another like data.

• **No Instructive Interaction:** You cannot "instruct" another observer to see what you see. You can only "perturb" or "trigger" a change in them. The result of the interaction is determined by the internal structure of the receiving observer, not by the information you provided\[8\]\[9\].

• **Perception vs. Illusion:** Biologically, an observer cannot distinguish in the immediate experience between a "perception" (valid) and an "illusion" (invalid). We only classify a view as an "illusion" _after_ comparing it with a different experience or another observer's view\[10\]\[11\]. Therefore, validating a viewpoint is a social process, not a biological one.

### 3\. Practical Methodology: The "Cylinder" of Worldviews

To handle divergent viewpoints in practical problem solving (specifically within Soft Systems Methodology or SSM), the sources propose specific devices and attitudes:

• **The Cylinder of Weltanschauungen:** To manage the "subjective chaos" of infinite possible worldviews (_Weltanschauungen_), the authors propose visualizing a cylinder where each "slice" represents a stakeholder's worldview. When proposing a solution or change, you map it against this cylinder to see where it falls in terms of "Systemic Desirability" and "Cultural Feasibility" for _each_ stakeholder\[12\]\[13\].

• **Accommodation vs. Co-ontogenic Drift:**

    ◦ **Accommodation:** Checkland’s SSM often settles for "accommodation," where stakeholders agree to a course of action even if they do not share the same worldview\[14\].    ◦ **Critique of Accommodation:** Maturana’s theory suggests accommodation can be dangerous if it masks "hypocrisy"—where stakeholders act _as if_ they agree but internally hold emotions of rejection. This creates an unstable, non-social system\[14\]\[15\].    ◦ **The Goal:** The aim should be to trigger a **"co-ontogenic structural drift,"** where stakeholders undergo congruent structural changes over time, eventually creating a shared consensual domain rather than just tolerating each other\[16\]\[17\].
### 4\. Ethical Handling: The "Enemy" and The "Biology of Love"

Handling different viewpoints ultimately becomes an ethical task.

• **The Biology of Love:** A truly "social" system only exists if the interactions are based on the emotion of **love** (defined as mutual acceptance). If viewpoints are handled through coercion, tolerance without acceptance, or indifference, the system is non-social\[18\]\[19\].

• **Seduction vs. Reason:** Because you cannot force a rational argument on someone who does not accept your basic premises, the only way to genuinely change a viewpoint is through "seduction"—inviting the other into a different domain of reality through mutual acceptance\[3\]\[20\].

• **Valuing the "Enemy":** Drawing on Churchman, the sources argue for the importance of the "enemy" or "witness"—the stakeholder who creates discomfort by holding a conflicting worldview\[21\]\[22\]. Responsible handling of viewpoints requires listening to these "enemies" to avoid the trap of "group-think" and ensuring the system is ethically sound\[23\].

### Summary Table: Modes of Handling Viewpoints

| Mode | Underlying Stance | Outcome |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Objectivity-without-parenthesis | One Truth ("Universe") | Demand for obedience; negation of the other; declaration of "error." |
| Objectivity-in-parenthesis | Many Truths ("Multiversa") | Mutual acceptance; listening; legitimate disagreement. |
| Accommodation (Standard SSM) | Pragmatic compromise | Action proceeds, but potential for hypocrisy or unstable relations. |
| Structural Coupling (Maturana) | Biological drift | Shared consensual domain created over time through recurrent interaction. |

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [2] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [3] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [4] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [5] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [6] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [7] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [8] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [9] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [10] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [11] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [12] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [13] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [14] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [15] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [16] A bridge for 2 views checklnds ssm maturana ontology of the observer.pdf
> [17] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [18] A bridge SSM and Maturanas Ontology of the Observer 12March2019.pdf
> [19] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [20] Maturana 1988 - The search for objectivity.pdf
> [21] Retmolds - Churchman and Maturana enriching the notion of self organization for social design.pdf
> [22] Retmolds - Churchman and Maturana enriching the notion of self organization for social design.pdf
> [23] Retmolds - Churchman and Maturana enriching the notion of self organization for social design.pdf


FILE: 'Hylton Boothroyd.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:25:25.832Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Hylton Boothroyd on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Hylton-Boothroyd
  - Perspectives
author: Hylton Boothroyd
---
Based on the provided sources, particularly the work of Hylton Boothroyd and subsequent commentators like Checkland, Clark, and Majone, different points of view between observers are handled not by attempting to merge them into a single "correct" objective truth, but by acknowledging them as distinct, valid, and often conflicting interpretations of reality.

Here is a detailed breakdown of how these viewpoints are conceptualized and handled:

### 1\. The Principle of "Differential Regard"

Boothroyd establishes that the significance of any single action depends entirely on the "action programme" (the stream of conduct and beliefs) from which it is viewed\[1\]. This concept is termed **"differential regard"**\[2\].

• **No Universal "Best":** It is impossible to specify a pair of actions where one is preferable to the other in _all_ conceivable action programmes. Therefore, "best" is not an absolute property of an action but an attribute of the specific programme viewing it\[3\],\[4\].

• **Vector of Measures:** Instead of reducing different viewpoints to a single measure (such as a monetary value or a cost-benefit ratio), the analyst must handle a "vector of measures"—a list containing a separate measure for each programme involved\[3\].

• **Incommensurability:** In pluralistic situations, it is unlikely that potential proposals will benefit all parties. Progress entails modifying the motivating symbols and effects for at least some of the pluralities involved\[5\].

### 2\. The Role of Language and Articulation

Disagreements often arise because the symbols (words/concepts) used in arguments are "fuzzy" and induce different images in different minds\[6\].

• **Clarification:** One of the standard activities of the "articulate intervener" is the clarification of meaning to reveal these differences\[6\].

• **Exposing Latent Views:** The intervener helps participants make "latent" (hidden or unspoken) theories and proposals explicit. By raising these to the level of language, they become accessible for critique and debate\[7\],\[8\].

• **Avoiding Forced Consensus:** The goal is not to produce a superordinate source of symbols that overrides individual views, but to produce "mutual clarity"\[9\]. The analyst must acknowledge that they may have to "live with dissent"\[6\].

### 3\. Methodologies for Managing Multiple Viewpoints

The sources highlight several specific methodologies designed to handle subjective and conflicting viewpoints:

**A. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)**

• **Weltanschauungen (Worldviews):** Peter Checkland’s SSM explicitly recognizes that human activity systems can be validly described in many ways (e.g., a prison can be viewed as a punishment system, a rehabilitation system, or a storage system). These descriptions depend on the observer's _Weltanschauung_\[10\].

• **Ideal Types:** The analyst builds models not of the real world, but of "pure perceptions" of the world. These models are then compared against the problem situation to structure a debate among the different observers\[11\],\[10\].

**B. Critical and Pluralistic Appraisal**

• **Role-Based Criteria:** Clark and Majone argue that different "roles" (e.g., scientist, policymaker, interest group) inevitably use different criteria to evaluate the same inquiry. For example, a scientist may value methodological rigor, while a policymaker values timeliness and utility\[12\],\[13\].

• **Mutual Comprehension:** Attempting to combine these into a single critical standard is rejected. Instead, the objective is "mutual comprehension" of the different critical perspectives\[12\],\[14\].

**C. Ethnography and "Bricolage"**

• **Uncovering Logics:** Horlick-Jones and Rosenhead demonstrate how ethnographic observation can reveal the underlying political or cultural logic behind seemingly technical disagreements (e.g., a dispute over "downsizing" a carnival crowd was actually a clash between safety planning and political freedom)\[15\],\[16\].

• **Creating Negotiation Space:** By identifying these underlying viewpoints, analysts can use "methodological bricolage" (improvising tools) to create a space for negotiation, such as moving the debate from specific details to abstract shapes or generic options to break political logjams\[17\],\[18\].

### 4\. The Shift from Optimization to Learning

Handling diverse viewpoints requires a shift from the traditional "hard" science paradigm (which assumes a single objective reality) to a "soft" or learning paradigm.

• **Instrumental Theories:** Theories and models are treated as instrumental and temporary. They are not absolute truths but tools to facilitate understanding among actors\[19\].

• **Participative Aim:** The focus shifts from a "normative aim of optimization" (finding the right answer) to a "participative aim of supporting deliberation"\[20\].

• **The Intervener as Participant:** The analyst is not a remote, objective observer but a participant who creates a third "intervention programme" by interacting with the client's programme. The analyst must accept that their own views are just one set of theories among many\[21\],\[22\].

### 5\. Ethical Handling of the "Other"

Boothroyd proposes a direct ethical approach to handling the views of others, rejecting abstract utility values. His fundamental proposal is: "You should pay concerned and imaginative attention to the other, so that by paying attention to all that he does, and by imagining yourself in his place, you can cooperate with him to your mutual benefit"\[23\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [2] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [3] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [4] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [5] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [6] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [7] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [8] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [9] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [10] [Book] Tomlinson - Rethinking the Process of Operational Research  Systems Analysis.pdf
> [11] [Book] Tomlinson - Rethinking the Process of Operational Research  Systems Analysis.pdf
> [12] Clark And Majone 1985 - The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications.pdf
> [13] Clark And Majone 1985 - The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications.pdf
> [14] Clark And Majone 1985 - The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications.pdf
> [15] Rosenhead 2006 - The uses of observation combining problem syructuring methods and ethnography.pdf
> [16] Rosenhead 2006 - The uses of observation combining problem syructuring methods and ethnography.pdf
> [17] Rosenhead 2006 - The uses of observation combining problem syructuring methods and ethnography.pdf
> [18] Rosenhead 2006 - The uses of observation combining problem syructuring methods and ethnography.pdf
> [19] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [20] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [21] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf
> [22] Boothroyd Scanned.pdf
> [23] 2010 Articulate Intervention Revisited.pdf


FILE: 'Ian Mitroff.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:31:12.686Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Ian Mitroff on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Ian-Mitroff
  - Perspectives
author: Ian Mitroff
---
Based on the provided texts, handling different points of view between different observers involves moving away from the pursuit of a single "objective" truth or forced consensus and toward methods that explicitly structure, debate, and integrate conflicting perspectives.

Here is an overview of how different points of view are handled:

### 1\. Rejecting "Objectivity" and Forced Consensus

The sources argue that in complex (ill-structured) systems, there is no single "right" view because "truth" is not independent of the observer.

• **The Myth of Objectivity:** The idea that an observer can stand apart and objectively describe a system is rejected as a "silly and empty claim"\[1\]. A "datum" (fact) is meaningless by itself; it only becomes intelligible when coupled with a specific worldview or model\[2\].

• **Critique of Consensus:** Traditional methods (like the "Lockean" inquiry or extreme versions of the Delphi method) try to force agreement by eliminating "outliers" or maverick views\[3\]. This is dangerous because it suppresses the insights of those who see the world differently, creating an illusion of certainty\[4\],\[5\].

• **Inevitability of Distortion:** Because every observer uses a "filter" (model, theory, or background) to process information, partial views and distortions are inevitable\[6\],\[7\].

### 2\. The Multiple Perspectives Concept (TOP)

To handle divergence, the analyst must deliberately view the system through three distinct "lenses" or perspectives. This ensures that technical data does not dominate human and political realities.

• **Technical (T):** Views the problem through data, models, and cause-and-effect relationships\[8\]. It seeks optimization and validation\[9\].

• **Organizational (O):** Views the problem through the lens of institutional power, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and maintaining stability\[10\],\[9\].

• **Personal (P):** Views the problem through the eyes of the unique individual, focusing on intuition, charisma, self-interest, and leadership\[11\],\[12\].

• **Integration:** These perspectives are not just assembled like a jigsaw puzzle; they "cross-cue" each other\[13\]. Handling these views is analogous to a jury trial: the decision-maker (like the jury) hears different "witnesses" (perspectives) and performs a subjective integration to reach a verdict\[14\],\[15\].

### 3\. Dialectical Inquiry (Managing Conflict)

For complex problems, conflict between observers is seen as the "guarantor" of truth rather than an impediment.

• **Structured Debate:** The dialectical approach sets up a debate between two opposing views (Plan vs. Counterplan)\[16\].

• **Same Data, Different Assumptions:** Crucially, both sides must argue their case using the _same_ data\[17\]. This forces the observers to realize that their disagreements are not about the numbers, but about the _assumptions_ they use to interpret the numbers\[18\],\[19\].

• **Synthesis:** The goal is not for one side to win, but for the decision-maker to witness the conflict and form a "synthesis"—a new, more comprehensive world view that incorporates elements of both sides\[20\],\[21\].

### 4\. Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST)

When observers disagree, it is often because they hold different assumptions about the stakeholders involved.

• **Stakeholder Analysis:** Observers are asked to list all parties affecting or affected by the decision\[22\]. Differences often arise because groups identify different stakeholders or ascribe different motives to them (e.g., assuming physicians are price-sensitive vs. quality-conscious)\[23\].

• **Assumption Mapping:** Assumptions are plotted on a chart based on their **Importance** and **Certainty**\[24\],\[25\]. Critical disagreements are found where one group believes an assumption is certain and another believes it is uncertain or false\[26\].

• **Negotiation:** Groups are asked to "soften" their assumptions to find a zone of compromise or to restate them to achieve a synthesis\[27\].

### 5\. Jungian Personality Framework

Disagreements often stem from the fundamental psychological types of the observers.

• **Different Inputs and Decisions:** Observers gather data differently (Sensing types look for specific facts; Intuitive types look for whole systems/possibilities) and make decisions differently (Thinking types use impersonal logic; Feeling types use personal values)\[28\],\[29\].

• **Grouping by Type:** To handle this, organizations can group individuals by personality type (e.g., all "Sensing-Thinkers" together) to define the problem. This allows each group to project its natural view without interference, after which the radically different definitions are compared\[30\],\[31\].

### 6\. Communication Techniques

Finally, handling different points of view requires tailoring communication to the specific perspective.

• **Fitting the Medium to the Message:** The **T** perspective communicates via technical reports; the **O** and **P** perspectives require interviews, oral briefings, and narratives\[32\],\[33\].

• **Skilled Interviewing:** Obtaining the **P** (Personal) perspective requires skilled interviewers who can listen for "off the record" remarks and empathy, rather than just collecting data\[34\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [2] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [3] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [4] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [5] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [6] [Book] Linstone - Multiple Perspectives for Decision Making.pdf
> [7] [Book] Linstone - Multiple Perspectives for Decision Making.pdf
> [8] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [9] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [10] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [11] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [12] [Book] Linstone - Multiple Perspectives for Decision Making.pdf
> [13] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [14] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [15] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [16] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [17] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [18] [Book] Mitroff - Technology Run Amok Crisis Management in the Digital Age.pdf
> [19] [Book] Mitroff,Linstone - 1993 - The unbounded mind - Oxford University Press.pdf
> [20] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [21] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [22] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [23] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [24] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [25] [Book] Mitroff - Business Strategies for a Messy World Tools for Systemic Problem-Solving.pdf
> [26] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [27] [Book] Mitroff - Creating a dialectical social science - concepts methods and models.pdf
> [28] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [29] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [30] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [31] [Book] Mitroff - Smart Thinking for Crazy Times.pdf
> [32] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [33] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf
> [34] [Book] Linstone - Decision Making for Technology Executives.pdf


FILE: 'James Ladyman.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:44:01.028Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: James Ladyman on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - James-Ladyman
author: James Ladyman
---
Based on the provided sources, the handling of different points of view between observers is a central theme in both the metaphysical and complexity-science texts. The approaches range from the physical and mathematical (scale relativity) to the philosophical and relational (lensing and intermodulation).

Here is an analysis of how these differences are handled across the collection:

### 1\. Scale Relativity of Ontology (The "Real Patterns" Approach)

In the framework of **Information-Theoretic Structural Realism**, advocated by Ladyman, Ross, and Collier, different points of view are handled through the concept of **scale relativity**. There is no single "correct" level of description; rather, what exists depends on the scale at which an observer is measuring the system.

• **Ontology is Scale-Dependent:** Different observers tracking the world at different scales (e.g., a quantum physicist vs. a biologist) will identify different "individuals" and patterns. For example, a "tiger" exists as a real pattern at the biological scale, but at the quantum scale, there are no tigers, only particles\[1\]. Both viewpoints are valid relative to their specific scale of resolution.

• **Physically Possible Perspectives:** A pattern is considered "real" (rather than just a useful fiction) if it can be tracked or projected by a **physically possible observer** (or computer)\[2\]. This moves the definition of reality away from anthropocentric (human-only) viewpoints to a broader definition based on information carrying capacity\[3\].

• **Locators:** To handle references to objects from different perspectives, the authors introduce **"locators"**. A locator functions as an address system (like grid references on a map) that allows observers to "tag" or fix their attention on a region of spacetime to extract information\[4\]\[5\]. This allows observers with different cognitive structures to establish common reference points\[6\].

### 2\. Relational Lensing and "Worldtwisting" (The Networkological Approach)

Christopher Vitale’s work frames the handling of viewpoints through **relational philosophy**. Here, a "point of view" is an active interpretation or "lensing" of the world, not a passive reception of data.

• **Lensing:** Every concept or model functions as a **lens** that foregrounds certain aspects of the world while backgrounding others\[7\]. There is no "God’s Eye view" that sees the whole world simultaneously\[8\]; all understanding is partial, local, and relative\[9\].

• **Parallax:** Differences between observers are handled through **parallax**—comparing different sensory modalities or models against one another. For example, we know bees see colors we cannot because we cross-check visual data with data from instruments; we evaluate the "blindspots" of one lens by using another\[10\].

• **Intermodulation and Negotiation:** When viewpoints differ, systems engage in **intermodulation**, a process of negotiation where different signals (viewpoints) amplify, inhibit, or transform one another\[11\]. In social systems, this negotiation replaces the search for absolute "Objectivity" with a search for **consensus** within a community\[12\].

• **Worldtwisting:** The relationship between an observer (experiencer) and the world is non-orientable (like a Möbius strip). The world "twists" into the observer to produce experience, and the observer "twists" experience back out into action. Handling different viewpoints requires recognizing this recursive, co-constitutive relationship\[13\]\[14\].

### 3\. Coarse-Graining and Information Theory

In complexity science, dealing with different observer viewpoints often involves the mathematical process of **coarse-graining**.

• **Level of Description:** An observer chooses a level of description (fine-grained vs. coarse-grained). For instance, one observer might model a gas using the position of every molecule (fine-grained), while another uses pressure and temperature (coarse-grained). The "emergence" of laws like the Ideal Gas Law depends on ignoring the micro-details visible to the first observer\[15\]\[16\].

• **Information Processing:** The distinction between a system and its environment, or between signal and noise, is often **observer-dependent**. Ladyman and Wiesner note that interpreting a system as "processing information" can be heuristic and based on how an observer projects notions of information onto the physical world\[17\]\[18\].

### 4\. Handling Disagreement in Scientific Practice

The sources also touch upon how conflicting viewpoints are handled socially within the scientific community.

• **Conflict and Consensus:** In the case of the Blue Brain Project, a conflict arose between the simulation-heavy approach of Henry Markram and the experimental views of others in the neuroscience community. This viewpoint clash was handled through social mechanisms: critics wrote public letters and published alternative approaches in journals to challenge the dominant narrative\[19\].

• **Pragmatic Relativism:** Vitale argues for a **"pragmatic relativism"**. Since we cannot step outside our models to compare them to "reality as it really is," we evaluate viewpoints based on their **values** and **consequences**—does adopting this viewpoint lead to results we value (e.g., better predictions, more ethical outcomes)?\[20\]\[21\].

### Summary

Different points of view are handled by acknowledging that **no single perspective captures the whole of reality**. In physics, this is formalized through reference frames and scale relativity; in philosophy, through the recognition that all understanding is a partial "lensing" or "coarse-graining" of a complex, interconnected world. Objectivity is achieved not by eliminating the observer, but by finding **robust patterns** that persist across multiple different perspectives\[22\]\[23\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Ladyman - Every Thing Must Go Metaphysics Naturalized.pdf
> [2] [Book] Ladyman - Every Thing Must Go Metaphysics Naturalized.pdf
> [3] [Book] Ladyman - Every Thing Must Go Metaphysics Naturalized.pdf
> [4] [Book] Ladyman - Every Thing Must Go Metaphysics Naturalized.pdf
> [5] [Book] Ladyman - Every Thing Must Go Metaphysics Naturalized.pdf
> [6] [Book] Ladyman - Every Thing Must Go Metaphysics Naturalized.pdf
> [7] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [8] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [9] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [10] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [11] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [12] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [13] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [14] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [15] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [16] [Book] Ladyman - What Is a Complex System.pdf
> [17] Ladyman - What is a Complex System.pdf
> [18] Ladymanetal.-2011-Whatisacomplexsystem.pdf
> [19] EU brain failed project d41586-020-03462-3.pdf
> [20] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [21] [Book] Vitale - Logics of Emergence Relational Philosophy.pdf
> [22] [Book] Ladyman - Every Thing Must Go Metaphysics Naturalized.pdf
> [23] [Book] Ladyman - Every Thing Must Go Metaphysics Naturalized.pdf


FILE: 'James Wilk.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:23:01.111Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: James Wilk on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - James-Wilk
  - Perspectives
author: James Wilk
---
Based on the provided texts, the "new epistemology" (E2) handles different points of view not as conflicting opinions about a single, static world, but as valid, objective slices of a multi-dimensional reality. The author rejects the idea that there is one "Official View" or a single "City of Truth" where all answers must fit together\[1\]\[2\].

Here is how different points of view are handled within this framework:

**1\. Reality as a "Symposium of Points of View"**The texts describe reality as a "symposium of points of view" (a phrase borrowed from Arthur Eddington)\[3\].

• **No Unitary Coherence:** Reality does not form a cohesive system. Instead, there are an "infinity of mutually irrelevant and only coincidentally connected ways things are"\[6\].

• **Question-Relativity:** A point of view is defined by the specific question being asked. Change the question, and you change the reality of "how it is"\[3\]\[6\]. Therefore, two observers can have different points of view that are both objectively "real" because they are answering different questions or attending to different aspects of an infinitely re-describable universe\[7\]\[8\].

**2\. "Cake Theory": Subjective is Objective**The author introduces "Cake Theory" to explain that a person's subjective point of view is not merely a picture "in their head," but a real, objective slice of the world\[9\]\[10\].

• **The Territory-as-Mapped:** A person's viewpoint is the "territory-as-mapped-by-them." It is a selection from the infinite possibilities of the objective world\[11\]\[12\].

• **Real Slices:** Just as a slice of cake is a real part of the cake, a subjective view is a real part of the objective world. The text asserts, "Your subjective reality is... a real slice of cake you can taste and eat right now"\[9\].

• **Compatibility:** Because reality is infinite, the fact that one person sees "strawberry cheesecake" (their slice) does not invalidate another person seeing "chocolate" (their slice). There is "always more cake," meaning there are infinite valid ways to construe the situation\[13\]\[14\].

**3\. Resolving "Contradictions" via Logic of Question and Answer**Drawing on R.G. Collingwood, the texts argue that apparent contradictions between observers often arise because we assume they are answering the same question when they are not\[15\].

• **Identifying the Question:** To understand a different point of view, one must uncover the specific, often implicit question the person is answering\[16\]. No two propositions can contradict one another unless they are answers to the _same_ question\[15\].

• **No "Sides":** In conflict resolution, this view abandons the "Collision Theory" (forces crashing into each other). Instead of negotiating issues, one negotiates "realities," often finding that the conflict dissolves once the specific design constraints of each party are understood in their own terms\[17\]\[18\].

**4\. Relationality in Physics and Interaction**This approach aligns with "relational quantum mechanics," where the properties of an object exist only in relation to another system or observer\[19\]\[20\].

• **Interactional Reality:** What we think of as entities are "ephemeral nodes in the web of interactions," and their properties are relative to the point of view of the interaction\[21\].

• **Recursive Interaction:** In human interaction, person A’s point of view includes their anticipation of person B’s response, which is based on B’s anticipation of A. Reality is the "interference pattern" produced by the interplay of these diverse narratives\[22\].

**5\. Practical Application: Utilization**In practice (such as therapy or consulting), one handles a different point of view not by correcting it, but by **utilizing** it\[25\].

• **Validating the Logic:** The intervener must think the other person's thoughts until they see how, from that person's specific vantage point, "nothing else makes sense"\[26\]\[27\].

• **Translation:** The intervener acts as a translator, using the client’s own language and view of the world to steer them toward a solution that fits _their_ reality, rather than imposing an external "objective" view\[25\]\[28\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] James Wilk.pdf
> [2] James Wilk.pdf
> [3] James Wilk.pdf
> [6] James Wilk.pdf
> [7] James Wilk.pdf
> [8] James Wilk.pdf
> [9] James Wilk.pdf
> [10] James Wilk.pdf
> [11] James Wilk.pdf
> [12] James Wilk.pdf
> [13] James Wilk.pdf
> [14] James Wilk.pdf
> [15] James Wilk.pdf
> [16] James Wilk.pdf
> [17] James Wilk.pdf
> [18] James Wilk.pdf
> [19] James Wilk.pdf
> [20] James Wilk.pdf
> [21] James Wilk.pdf
> [22] James Wilk.pdf
> [25] James Wilk.pdf
> [26] James Wilk.pdf
> [27] James Wilk.pdf
> [28] James Wilk.pdf


FILE: 'John Flach.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:16:06.012Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: John Flach on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - John-Flach
author: John Flach
---
Based on the provided sources, the handling of different points of view between different observers is a central theme of General Systems Thinking and Cognitive Systems Engineering. The material argues that because there is no single, objective "God's eye view" of a complex system, reality can only be understood by integrating multiple, bounded perspectives.

Here is how different points of view are handled, organized by theoretical principles and practical applications.

### 1\. The Core Principle: The "System" is a Perspective

The sources emphasize that a "system" does not exist objectively in the world; it is a mental model created by an observer to make sense of complexity.

• **A Choice, Not a Fact:** Citing Gerald Weinberg, a system is defined as "a way of looking at the world"\[1\]\[2\]. It is a representation that makes some relations salient while hiding others\[1\]\[3\].

• **The Blind Men and the Elephant:** The sources frequently use this parable to explain why multiple viewpoints are necessary. Each observer (e.g., driver, mechanic, pedestrian) sees a different "system" when looking at the same object (e.g., a car). No single perspective is complete; one must "move around the elephant" to understand the whole\[4\].

• **Objectivity as Delusion:** Citing Heinz von Foerster, the sources argue that "objectivity is the delusion that observations could be made without an observer"\[7\]\[8\]. Every observation is shaped by the observer's position, intentions, and tools.

### 2\. Theoretical Frameworks: Integrating Perspectives

To handle these differences scientifically, the sources propose specific epistemological frameworks that move beyond simple "right vs. wrong" debates.

• **Pluralistic Epistemology:** Instead of forcing a choice between being a "Discoverer" (objective outsider) or an "Inventor" (subjective participant), the sources advocate for a pluralistic approach\[9\]\[10\]. This involves using multiple perspectives to converge on the truth, acknowledging that each view offers unique insights while hiding others\[11\]\[12\].

• **Triadic Semiotics:** Meaning is not found solely in the head (Subjective) or solely in the world (Objective). Meaning emerges from the **coupling** of the two. Different observers (e.g., a spider vs. a human) will perceive different affordances in the same physical space because their capabilities and goals differ. Both experiences are "real"\[13\].

• **The "Surprise" Version of 20 Questions:** Citing John Wheeler, the sources describe reality not as a pre-existing object waiting to be found, but as something that emerges from the questions asked. The observer and the phenomenon are partners in a dialogue; the "reality" is shaped by the interaction\[16\]\[17\].

### 3\. Practical Tools: Mapping Differences

In the context of work and organizations, different points of view are handled using specific analytical tools.

• **The Abstraction Hierarchy (AH):** This framework is used to map the "deep structure" of a system, explicitly organizing different valid perspectives.

    ◦ **Vertical Integration:** Different stakeholders operate at different levels of abstraction. A CEO views the system in terms of **Functional Purposes** (profit, viability), while an operator views it in terms of **Physical Function** (valves, switches)\[18\]\[19\]. Both views are correct but partial. The AH connects these views via means-ends relations\[20\]\[21\].    ◦ **Object Worlds:** In complex systems like hospitals, different professions (doctors, nurses, admins) live in different "object worlds." They view the same work domain through different professional lenses. Cognitive Work Analysis explicitly models these overlapping views to understand how actions in one "world" propagate to others\[22\]\[23\].
### 4\. Management Strategies: Muddling Through & Friction

Handling conflicting viewpoints in sociotechnical systems requires specific management strategies.

• **Essential Friction:** Conflict between viewpoints (e.g., a CFO prioritizing efficiency vs. a physician prioritizing patient safety) is not viewed as a failure but as a necessity\[24\]\[25\]. This "friction" keeps the system stable and prevents it from drifting into failure. Stability is maintained not by optimizing one view, but by "satisficing" across levels through negotiation\[26\]\[27\].

• **Distributed Authority (Subsidiarity):** Because central authorities cannot access the local information possessed by observers at the "sharp end," authority should be distributed\[28\]\[29\].

    ◦ **The Local Knowledge Problem:** Citing Hayek, the sources note that knowledge is dispersed. A central planner cannot see what the "man on the spot" sees\[30\]\[31\].    ◦ **Federalism:** Large systems should function as a "federation of systems" where central command provides resources and intent, but local subsystems (with their unique viewpoints) retain the authority to decide _how_ to act\[32\]\[33\].
• **Diversity and "The Crowd":** Group decision-making is most effective when individuals contribute unique, independent observations. If social pressure causes observers to suppress their unique view to align with the majority ("cascading"), the collective intelligence of the group collapses\[34\]\[35\].

### 5\. Design Implications: Visual Momentum

In interface design, the challenge is to help a single observer manage multiple perspectives (e.g., zooming in for detail vs. zooming out for context).

• **Visual Momentum:** Techniques such as "visual momentum" are used to help observers transition between different views (e.g., macro vs. micro) without losing the context of the whole\[36\]\[37\].

• **Ecological Interface Design:** The goal is to create interfaces that make the "deep structure" (the constraints shared across different views) visible, allowing different observers to ground their debates in the functional realities of the system\[38\]\[39\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [2] Do Systems Exist - a Conversation.pdf
> [3] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [4] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [7] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [8] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [9] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [10] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [11] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [12] [Book] Walls - Do systems exist - A conversation Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [13] Flach 1998 - The Reality of Experience Gibsons way.pdf
> [16] Flach - Playing twenty questions with nature the surprise version.pdf
> [17] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [18] Flach 2015 - The Semiotic contxt for Systems Engineering.pdf
> [19] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [20] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [21] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [22] Naikar - Work Domain Analysis.pdf
> [23] Naikar - Work Domain Analysis.pdf
> [24] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [25] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [26] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [27] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [28] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [29] Do systems exist A conversation - Adam Walls John Flach.pdf
> [30] Do Conversations Exist.pdf
> [31] Flach 2011 - Complexity learning to muddle through.pdf
> [32] Norman 2015 - DesignX Complex sociotechnical systems.pdf
> [33] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [34] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf
> [35] [Book] Flach - What Matters 2017.pdf
> [36] [Book] Flach - Display and Interface Design.pdf
> [37] [Book] Flach - Display and Interface Design.pdf
> [38] Flach 2015 - The Semiotic contxt for Systems Engineering.pdf
> [39] [Book] Flach - A Meaning Processing Approach to Cognition What Matters.pdf


FILE: 'John Warfield.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:39:54.169Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: John Warfield on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - John-Warfield
  - Perspectives
aliases:
  - "Based on the provided sources, handling different ..."
linter-yaml-title-alias: "Based on the provided sources, handling different ..."
author: John Warfield
---

# Based on the provided sources, handling different ...

导出时间: 30/01/2026, 10:39:54

---

Based on the provided sources, handling different points of view between observers is not treated as a mere administrative task, but as the central challenge of dealing with complexity. The sources assert that in any complex situation, "Spreadthink" (widely divergent views) is inevitable, and standard discussion methods fail to resolve it\[1\]\[2\].

The handling of these diverse viewpoints is managed through **Interactive Management (IM)** and its specific methodologies, primarily the **Nominal Group Technique (NGT)** and **Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)**.

### 1\. Acknowledging and Revealing Divergence (Spreadthink)

The methodology assumes that at the outset, no single individual possesses the full knowledge required to resolve a complex issue\[3\]. Furthermore, the "Law of Diverse Beliefs" states that group members will inevitably have different beliefs and will not share a common linguistic domain\[4\].

• **Spreadthink:** Empirical data shows that when a group votes on the importance of ideas, their views are literally "spread all over the map"\[5\].

• **The Error of "Importance":** The sources argue that trying to reach consensus based on the "importance" of items is futile because individual rankings are uncorrelated\[6\]\[7\]. Therefore, the process focuses on _relationships_ rather than _importance_ to achieve convergence\[8\].

### 2\. Protecting Individual Viewpoints (NGT)

The **Nominal Group Technique (NGT)** is used first to generate and clarify ideas while protecting individual autonomy.

• **Silent Generation:** Participants generate ideas silently in writing. This prevents dominant personalities from influencing others and ensures that minority viewpoints are captured\[9\]\[10\].

• **Clarification:** A specific phase is dedicated solely to clarifying what is meant by each idea. Criticism or debate is strictly prohibited during this phase\[11\]. This step is critical for establishing a shared "linguistic domain" so that participants actually understand what others are saying\[12\]\[13\].

• **Autonomy and Authenticity:** In variations like Structured Democratic Dialogue (SDD), the "Law of Requisite Autonomy and Authenticity" is invoked to ensure that observers can draw distinctions without their views being distorted by the group\[14\].

### 3\. Synthesizing Views through Structure (ISM)

Once ideas are clarified, the **Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)** process is used to integrate these diverse views into a coherent structure.

• **Shift to Relationships:** Instead of arguing over which idea is "better," the group focuses on how ideas relate to one another (e.g., "Does Problem A aggravate Problem B?")\[15\].

• **Focused Dialogue:** The computer presents only one pair of items at a time. This forces the group to focus their discussion on a specific relationship, preventing wandering debates\[16\]\[17\].

• **Majority Voting on Logic:** Consensus is built incrementally. A "Yes/No" vote is taken on each relationship. If a majority agrees a relationship exists, it is entered into the model\[8\]\[18\].

• **Computer Assistance:** The computer handles the logic and transitivity (if A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C), which ensures consistency across the different views held by observers\[19\]\[20\].

### 4\. Structural Learning and Resolution

The process is designed to facilitate "Structural Thinking," which transforms individual divergent views into a group consensus.

• **Zero Correlation (Pre- vs. Post-):** Research indicates there is often _zero correlation_ between what individuals thought was important before the ISM process and the structural view they accepted afterward\[6\]. This proves that the process facilitates deep mutual learning rather than just averaging opinions\[21\]\[22\].

• **The Problematique:** The final output is a graphical structure (Problematique) that represents the collective view. Because every relationship in the map was voted on by the group, the final structure represents a majority consensus on the _system_, even if individuals disagreed on the _parts_ initially\[8\]\[23\].

### 5\. The Role of the Facilitator

The facilitator is essential but must remain "linguistically neutral" regarding the content.

• **Process Authority:** The facilitator manages the methodology and group dynamics but never injects their own opinion on the subject matter\[24\]\[25\].

• **No Abuse:** The facilitator ensures "group symmetry," meaning every participant is treated equally and protected from abuse by more powerful members\[26\]\[27\].

In summary, different points of view are handled by first validating and clarifying them individually (NGT), and then mathematically integrating them through a disciplined, computer-assisted dialogue about relationships (ISM), which allows the group to "learn their way" to a shared structural understanding\[21\]\[22\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [2] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [3] Warfield - Measuring Complexity.pdf
> [4] Warfield 1999 - Twenty Laws of Complexity science applicable in organisations.pdf
> [5] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [6] Warfield 1999 - Twenty Laws of Complexity science applicable in organisations.pdf
> [7] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [8] warfield 1996 - structural thinking.pdf
> [9] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [10] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [11] Dialogic Design Science An Approach for Co-Creating Visionary Anticipation.pdf
> [12] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [13] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [14] Dialogic Design Science An Approach for Co-Creating Visionary Anticipation.pdf
> [15] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [16] 17071793.pdf
> [17] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [18] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [19] Janes 1988 - Interpretive structural modelling a methodology for structuring complex issues.pdf
> [20] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [21] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [22] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [23] warfield 2007 - Spreadthink explaining ineffective groups.pdf
> [24] 17071793.pdf
> [25] Warfield 2004 - Linguistic adjustments.pdf
> [26] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf
> [27] [Book] Warfield - An Introduction to Systems Science.pdf


FILE: 'MC Jackson.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:37:43.742Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: MC Jackson on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - MC-Jackson
  - Perspectives
author: MC Jackson
---
Handling different points of view between observers is a central concern in systems thinking, particularly distinguishing "soft" and "critical" approaches from "hard" traditions. The sources detail several distinct mechanisms for managing these differences, ranging from seeking accommodation to utilizing conflict for creativity.

**The Shift from "Truth" to "Worldviews"**Traditional or "hard" systems approaches (like Systems Engineering or traditional OR) generally assume a single objective reality where different points of view are often treated as distortions or errors to be corrected in favor of an optimal solution\[1\],\[2\]. In contrast, "soft" and "critical" systems approaches accept that social reality is socially constructed. Consequently, multiple valid perceptions of reality exist, driven by different values, beliefs, and interests\[3\],\[4\],\[5\]. These approaches shift the focus from modeling the world "as it is" to managing the "myths and meanings" that people attribute to their situation\[6\],\[7\].

**Mechanisms for Handling Diverse Viewpoints**

Different methodologies employ specific strategies to manage these differing perspectives:

• **Constructing and Comparing Models (Soft Systems Methodology - SSM):**SSM handles different viewpoints by explicitly modeling them as "human activity systems" based on a declared _Weltanschauung_ (worldview)\[8\],\[9\].

    ◦ **The Mechanism:** Practitioners create "Root Definitions" and "Conceptual Models" that represent a specific, pure point of view (e.g., viewing a prison as a "rehabilitation system" versus a "punishment system")\[10\],\[11\]. These are intellectual devices, not descriptions of the real world\[12\].    ◦ **The Goal:** These models are compared against the real-world problem situation to structure a debate\[13\],\[14\]. The objective is not necessarily to find a "consensus" (which Checkland regards as rare) but to find an "accommodation"—a version of the situation that people with conflicting views can nonetheless live with\[15\],\[16\],\[17\].
• **Dialectical and Adversarial Debate (Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing - SAST):**SAST handles differing views by maximizing the conflict between them to generate synthesis. It assumes organizations learn best when cherished assumptions are challenged\[18\].

    ◦ **The Mechanism:** Participants are divided into groups that maximize the similarity _within_ groups and the difference _between_ groups\[19\]. Each group identifies the "stakeholders" and "assumptions" underpinning their specific worldview\[20\],\[21\].    ◦ **The Process:** A "dialectical debate" is staged where groups act as adversaries, challenging the assumptions of opposing groups\[22\],\[23\].    ◦ **The Goal:** To move from a thesis and antithesis to a higher-level synthesis that bridges the gap between opposing strategies\[22\],\[24\],\[25\].
• **Idealized Design (Interactive Planning - IP):**Ackoff’s approach handles different views by dissolving conflict through the design of a desirable future\[26\].

    ◦ **The Mechanism:** Stakeholders are asked to design an "idealized" future system\[27\].    ◦ **The Theory:** Ackoff argues that conflict is often over means rather than ends; by focusing on ultimate values (ends), stakeholders with different views can often find a "community of interest" and dissolve their disagreements\[27\],\[28\].    ◦ **Critique:** Critics argue this approach assumes a consensus worldview and fails to handle fundamental conflicts of interest or coercion\[27\],\[29\].
• **Boundary Critique (Critical Systems Heuristics - CSH):**CSH handles different views by exposing the inevitable partiality of any single perspective. It distinguishes between those "involved" (decision-makers) and those "affected" (witnesses)\[30\],\[31\].

    ◦ **The Mechanism:** It uses 12 "boundary questions" asked in both an "is" mode (current reality) and an "ought" mode (ideal) to reveal value judgments\[32\],\[33\].    ◦ **The Tool:** It employs the "polemical employment of boundary judgments." This allows laypeople or marginalized observers to challenge experts by showing that expert views are based on subjective boundary judgments (values) rather than objective facts\[34\],\[35\],\[36\].    ◦ **The Goal:** To ensure that the views of the "affected but not involved" are not marginalized by the "involved," shifting the burden of proof onto the planners to justify their selectivity\[35\],\[37\].
• **Structural Democracy (Team Syntegrity):**This approach handles diverse views by using a geometric structure (the icosahedron) to organize communication, ensuring no single group dominates\[38\],\[39\].

    ◦ **The Mechanism:** The "protocol" ensures that views "reverberate" around the entire structure\[40\],\[41\].    ◦ **The Process:** Participants act as "critics" to teams other than their own to introduce tension and ensure different perspectives are integrated\[42\],\[43\].
**Handling Incommensurability at the Meta-Level**

When dealing with the "System of Systems Methodologies" (SOSM) or "Critical Systems Practice" (CSP), the challenge is handling the conflict between entire paradigms (e.g., functionalist vs. interpretive).

• **Discordant Pluralism:** Rather than trying to merge these different theoretical lenses into one, CSP advocates "discordant pluralism." This involves managing the critique _between_ paradigms\[44\],\[45\].

• **Reflective Conversation:** The practitioner allows different paradigms to confront one another (e.g., viewing a situation as a "machine" vs. a "political system") to see what insights each offers, accepting that they are irreconcilable but equally necessary for a comprehensive understanding\[46\],\[47\],\[48\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [2] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [3] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [4] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [5] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [6] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [7] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [8] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [9] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [10] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [11] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [12] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [13] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [14] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [15] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [16] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [17] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [18] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [19] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [20] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [21] [Book] Jackson - Systems Approaches to Management.pdf
> [22] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [23] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [24] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [25] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [26] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [27] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [28] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking - A practitioners guide.pdf
> [29] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [30] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [31] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [32] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [33] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [34] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [35] [Book] Jackson - Creative Problem Solving - Total Systems Intervention.pdf
> [36] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [37] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [38] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [39] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [40] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [41] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf
> [42] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [43] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [44] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking - A practitioners guide.pdf
> [45] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [46] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking - A practitioners guide.pdf
> [47] [Book] Jackson - Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity Responsible Leadership for a Complex World.pdf
> [48] [Book] Jackson - Systems Thinking - creative holism for managers.pdf


FILE: 'MOM.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:18:41.121Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: MOM on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - MOM
author: MOM
---
Based on the conversations within the "Meeting of Minds" (MoM) group, different points of view are handled not as obstacles to be removed, but as the fundamental reality of dealing with complex systems. The group operates on the premise that "systems" are mental constructs, meaning the system _is_ the observation, and cannot be separated from the observer\[1\]\[2\].

Here is how the group conceptualizes and handles different points of view:

### **1\. The Theoretical Stance: Observer Dependency**

The group aligns with **Second-Order Cybernetics**, asserting that "anything said is said by an observer"\[3\].

• **Systems as Mental Models:** Systems do not exist in the real world as independent entities; they are constructs created by observers to make sense of reality\[4\]\[5\]. Therefore, there is no single "true" system, only different perspectives on a situation\[6\].

• **POSIWID (The Purpose Of The System Is What It Does):** This principle is used to distinguish between _intended_ purpose (what a designer says a system is for) and _emergent_ purpose (what an observer sees the system actually doing). Different observers will attribute different purposes to the same system based on their perspective\[7\].

• **Partial Truths:** The group adheres to the Critical Systems Thinking (CST) view that "all truths are partial." Because complex situations are beyond the scope of any single discipline or person, multiple viewpoints are required to get a handle on events\[10\].

### **2\. Practical Methods for Handling Conflict and Diversity**

To manage these differing views practically, the group advocates for specific methodologies that structure the debate rather than forcing a single solution.

• **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM):** This is frequently cited as a key tool for handling multiple worldviews. It allows practitioners to build conceptual models based on different "Root Definitions" (perspectives) and compare them to the real world to find accommodations\[11\]\[12\]. It emphasizes that individuals hold multiple worldviews simultaneously\[13\].

• **Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA):** This approach uses cognitive mapping to capture individual perspectives. In a group setting, these individual maps are clustered and chained to produce a "collective causal map," allowing the group to manage the merging logic collaboratively rather than fighting over a single truth\[14\].

• **Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH):** This is used to expose the selectivity of a system. By asking boundary questions (e.g., "Who benefits?", "Who is the victim?", "What is the measure of success?"), practitioners can make the conflict between different views explicit. It helps identify which perspective is dominating\[15\].

• **The "Brick" Thought Experiment:** Roger James illustrates perspective handling with a simple scenario: If he drops a brick on your foot, did _gravity_ cause the pain, or did _he_ cause the pain? The "positivist" blames gravity (physical law); the social observer blames the person (intent). Handling the point of view requires deciding which boundary of responsibility is useful for the inquiry\[18\]\[19\].

### **3\. Accommodation vs. Consensus**

The group distinguishes between finding _consensus_ (everyone agrees) and finding _accommodation_ (everyone can live with the decision).

• In messy, human situations, total consensus is often impossible due to conflicting values. The goal of systems practice is to find an accommodation that allows action to be taken despite differing worldviews\[20\]\[21\].

• The group critiques methods that try to force a single view (like the "Vanguard Method" or "Six Sigma") as being reductionist because they assume a single, correct definition of the system exists (usually defined by the customer or management)\[22\].

### **4\. Critique of "Single Truth" Approaches**

A significant portion of the group's discussion involves critiquing "gurus" (specifically Dave Snowden and John Seddon) who they perceive as handling different points of view by attacking them or claiming superior, exclusive knowledge.

• **Rejection of "The One Way":** The group argues that claiming to have the "definitive" systems theory (as attributed to Derek Cabrera) is an oxymoron because it denies the multi-perspectival nature of systems\[25\].

• **The "Language Game":** They argue that different approaches (like Systems Dynamics vs. Soft Systems) are simply different "language games." Handling different views requires recognizing which language game is being played and selecting the right one for the context, rather than trying to prove one is universally right\[26\]\[27\].

### **5\. Tools for Dialogue**

To facilitate the handling of these views, the group suggests specific communication techniques:

• **Clean Language:** Using questions that strip away the practitioner's metaphors to allow the stakeholder's own mental models to surface without contamination\[28\]\[29\].

• **Buberian Dialogue:** Referenced as an OD (Organizational Development) technique to facilitate group sessions on polar constructs, allowing for genuine exchange rather than "I-It" objectification\[30\]\[31\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] mom-all-csv.csv
> [2] mom-all-csv.csv
> [3] mom-all-csv.csv
> [4] mom-all-csv.csv
> [5] mom-all-csv.csv
> [6] mom-all-csv.csv
> [7] mom-all-csv.csv
> [10] mom-all-csv.csv
> [11] mom-all-csv.csv
> [12] mom-all-csv.csv
> [13] mom-all-csv.csv
> [14] mom-all-csv.csv
> [15] mom-all-csv.csv
> [18] mom-all-csv.csv
> [19] mom-all-csv.csv
> [20] mom-all-csv.csv
> [21] mom-all-csv.csv
> [22] mom-all-csv.csv
> [25] mom-all-csv.csv
> [26] mom-all-csv.csv
> [27] mom-all-csv.csv
> [28] mom-all-csv.csv
> [29] mom-all-csv.csv
> [30] mom-all-csv.csv
> [31] mom-all-csv.csv


FILE: 'Max Boisot.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T17:44:46.724Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Max Boisot on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Max-Boisot
author: Max Boisot
---
Based on the provided sources, different points of view between observers are handled through a process of **corroboration, triangulation, and negotiation** designed to filter out noise and move knowledge from the realm of the "possible" to the "plausible."

Here is how different perspectives are managed within the frameworks described:

### 1\. The "Vantage Point" (v) Filter

In the context of a chaordic investigation or "Global Neighborhood Watch" (GNW), individual observations are treated as subjective "dots" or data points. To determine if a specific observation is meaningful (signal) or irrelevant (noise), it must be cross-referenced with other observers:

• **From Possible to Plausible:** A single observer establishes only the _possibility_ of a pattern or threat. To establish _plausibility_, the system requires corroboration from independent observers located at different **vantage points (**v**)**\[1\],\[2\].

• **Triangulation:** If a pattern makes sense from the "situated" perspectives of multiple agents (triangulation), it gains credibility. This v\-filter helps retrieve relevant transactions that one agent might have missed but another picked up, while filtering out random false positives generated by a single observer's specific context\[2\],\[3\].

### 2\. Managing Cognitive Filters and Context

Different observers perceive the world differently because they operate **tunable filters** shaped by their unique past experiences, values, and knowledge\[4\].

• **The Bias of Experience:** Relying solely on past experience can narrow an observer's focus, causing them to miss novel threats (as in the 9/11 intelligence failure) or see threats that do not exist (as in the 2003 Iraq war)\[5\].

• **Construct Theory:** Individuals construct their own versions of reality (personal constructs). While we may share data, we do not necessarily share the same interpretation of it. Communication and coordination require finding an overlap between these differing constructs\[6\].

• **Emic vs. Etic Perspectives:** In anthropology and social science, observers must distinguish between the "emic" view (the insider's subjective understanding) and the "etic" view (the outsider's objective description). Valid knowledge often requires integrating both discourses rather than allowing one to dominate the other\[7\],\[8\],\[9\].

### 3\. Creation of "Interlaced Knowledge"

In complex scientific collaborations, such as the ATLAS experiment at CERN, different groups (observers) hold different technical perspectives and priorities. These differences are handled through **trading zones** and **boundary objects**:

• **Trading Zones:** Groups with different aims and beliefs establish zones where they can "trade" information and negotiate constraints (e.g., luminosity vs. detection capability)\[10\].

• **Interlaced Knowledge:** Through continuous negotiation and justification of claims in review panels, the distinct knowledge sets of different groups begin to overlap. This creates "interlaced knowledge"—a collective structure that allows dispersed groups to coordinate heedfully even when specifications are not fully defined\[11\],\[12\].

• **Boundary Objects:** Physical or virtual objects (like the ATLAS detector simulations) serve as common reference points. These allow actors with different points of view to coordinate their actions without needing to share the exact same mental models or interact directly\[13\],\[14\].

### 4\. Moving from Subjective to Intersubjective

The goal of handling different viewpoints is to move from subjective belief to **intersubjective objectivity**:

• **Reality Testing:** Divergent subjective probability estimates can gradually converge through "reality testing." If a deviant or idiosyncratic view is testable, reality will eventually "kick back," forcing the observer to align their view with objective outcomes\[15\],\[16\].

• **Codification and Abstraction:** To share a point of view with a wider audience (diffusion), an observer must strip away the unique, context-specific details (shedding data) and structure the information through codification and abstraction. This makes the viewpoint communicable to those who do not share the observer's immediate context\[17\],\[18\].

In summary, individual points of view are treated as **hypotheses**\[4\]. They are handled by checking for **coherence** (does it make sense to others?) and **correspondence** (does it match the external evidence seen by others?)\[19\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 2006 Boisot, McKelvey(06)-Counter-terrorism as Neighborhood Watch.pdf
> [2] 2006 Boisot, McKelvey(06)-Counter-terrorism as Neighborhood Watch.pdf
> [3] 2006 Boisot, McKelvey(06)-Counter-terrorism as Neighborhood Watch.pdf
> [4] 2006 Boisot, McKelvey(06)-Counter-terrorism as Neighborhood Watch.pdf
> [5] 2006 Boisot, McKelvey(06)-Counter-terrorism as Neighborhood Watch.pdf
> [6] [Book] Boisot - 1995 - Information space - Routledge.pdf
> [7] [Book] Boisot - 1995 - Information space - Routledge.pdf
> [8] [Book] Boisot - 1995 - Information space - Routledge.pdf
> [9] [Book] Boisot - 1995 - Information space - Routledge.pdf
> [10] [Book] Boisot - Collisons and Collaboration - 2011.pdf
> [11] [Book] Boisot - Collisons and Collaboration - 2011.pdf
> [12] [Book] Boisot - Collisons and Collaboration - 2011.pdf
> [13] [Book] Boisot - Collisons and Collaboration - 2011.pdf
> [14] [Book] Boisot - Knowledge, Organization, and Management Building on the Work of Max  Boisot.pdf
> [15] [Book] Boisot - 1995 - Information space - Routledge.pdf
> [16] [Book] Boisot - Explorations in Information Space.pdf
> [17] Boisot - exploiting the information space - a strategic perspective on information systems.pdf
> [18] [Book] Boisot - Collisons and Collaboration - 2011.pdf
> [19] 2006 Boisot, McKelvey(06)-Counter-terrorism as Neighborhood Watch.pdf


FILE: 'Mike McMaster.md'
---
tags:
  - Mike-McMaster
  - Nutshell
  - Perspectives
title: Mike McMaster on 💬Perspectives
author: Mike McMaster
---
Based on the sources provided, handling different points of view between different observers is a central theme in McMaster’s work. He addresses this challenge on two distinct levels: the **interpersonal level** (using communication techniques to align individual "maps" of reality) and the **organizational level** (using complexity theory and technology to integrate distributed intelligence).

Here is how different points of view are handled:

1. Interpersonal Level: Aligning "Maps of the World"

McMaster posits that individuals do not operate in the "real" world, but rather in their own internal representations or **"maps" of the world**. Differences in view arise because people have different backgrounds and experiences, meaning no two people share the exact same map. To handle these differences, the sources recommend:

• **Establishing Rapport (Pacing):** You cannot force someone to change their view. You must first establish **rapport**, which is the experience of sharing a common world view. This is achieved by **pacing**—matching the other person’s behavior, language, or emotional state to demonstrate that you understand their world. You must validate their experience (which is true for them) even if you disagree with their conclusions.

• **Pacing and Leading:** Once you have validated the observer's viewpoint (pacing), you can move to **leading**. This involves introducing new information or a different perspective _after_ rapport is established. Leading allows you to guide the observer toward a new shared understanding without creating resistance.

• **Reframing:** Differences often arise because observers place events in different **contexts** (e.g., seeing a task as "menial work" vs. "building a cathedral"). To handle this, a manager uses **reframing** to change the context of the event, thereby changing its meaning for the observer.

• **Precision Questions:** When viewpoints differ due to vague language (e.g., "They never listen"), the **Precision Model** uses specific questions (e.g., "Who specifically?" or "Never?") to recover the specific information and clarify the speaker's map, reducing distortion and generalization.

2. Organizational Level: Integrating Distributed Intelligence

In complex systems (like corporations), knowledge and perspective are **distributed**. No single person (including the CEO) possesses the whole picture. Complexity arises because variables are distributed among many individuals, each with a different piece of the puzzle.

• **From "Spread Think" to Co-ordinated Thinking:** Groups often suffer from "spread think," a condition where differing opinions on complex issues make aligned assessment impossible. To handle this, the organization must move toward **Co-ordinated Community Thinking**, where numerous points of view are coordinated to allow a picture of the _whole_ to emerge.

• **Dialogue vs. Discussion:**

    ◦ **Discussion** is often a win/lose exchange used to defend positions or send data.

    ◦ **Dialogue** is the required tool for handling differences productively. Its intention is **novelty** and **generativity**. In dialogue, participants do not try to convince each other but engage in a "dance" of ideas to create new information that did not exist in any single individual prior to the conversation.

• **Computer-Supported Resolution (Synergistic Solutions):** For highly complex problems involving many observers, unaided human minds cannot track all relationships. The sources advocate using software (Interpretive Structural Modelling) to map the group's collective knowledge.

    ◦ **The Principle of Display:** Technology is used to **display** the relationships between different statements and perspectives. When the group sees the _implications_ of their different views displayed visually (e.g., in a map or digraph), they can objectively discuss the structure of the problem rather than attacking each other.

    ◦ **Iteration:** The group moves through multiple iterations of defining and mapping the problem until a shared understanding emerges.

3. Structural Level: Designing for Shared Meaning

To prevent destructive conflict between observers, the organization must provide a **structure of interpretation**.

• **Guiding Metaphors and Source Documents:** Leadership must provide "source documents" or "guiding metaphors" that act as a lens through which independent agents can view the world. This provides a shared context (a "socially constructed reality") so that when different observers look at the same data, they interpret it in a way that aligns with the organization's goals.

• **Engagement:** The system must move from **coercion** (forcing a point of view) to **engagement** (inviting participation). When people are engaged, they are willing to align their individual intelligence with the whole, rather than "beating the system" to serve their own separated interests.

**Summary:** Different points of view are not suppressed but are viewed as essential **distributed intelligence**. They are handled by **validating** individual experiences (rapport), **integrating** them through rigorous dialogue and technology (complexity tools), and **aligning** them through shared guiding metaphors.

FILE: 'Nassim Nicholas Taleb.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:19:10.900Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Nassim Nicholas Taleb on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Nicholas-Taleb
author: Nassim Nicholas Taleb
---
Based on the sources, particularly _Antifragile_ and _Fooled by Randomness_, different points of view between observers are handled not by seeking a universal "truth" or consensus, but by assessing the **payoffs**, **exposure (skin in the game)**, and the **predictive limitations** of each observer.

Here is how the texts suggest handling divergent perspectives:

### **1\. Distinguish the "Turkey" from the "Butcher" (Relative Surprise)**

An event can be a "Black Swan" (totally unexpected) for one observer while being completely predictable for another.

• **The Turkey Problem:** A turkey fed for 1,000 days believes, with increasing statistical confidence, that the butcher loves him. On Thanksgiving, the turkey experiences a "Black Swan"—a catastrophic surprise. However, for the butcher, this event is not a Black Swan; it is a standard, predictable operational day. The difference in point of view is strictly determined by the observer's information and role in the system\[1\],\[2\].

• **Handling the Difference:** To understand a situation, you must determine if you are the turkey or the butcher. You cannot rely on the turkey's "rigorous" analysis of the past to predict the future\[1\].

### **2\. Apply "Wittgenstein's Ruler" (Judge the Judge)**

When an observer expresses a point of view or measures a subject, you must determine if the measurement tells you about the _subject_ or the _observer_.

• **The Concept:** If you use a ruler to measure a table, you are testing the table. But if you don't trust the ruler's reliability, you are using the table to test the ruler. Similarly, unless an observer (e.g., a book reviewer or analyst) has established extreme competence, their opinion reveals more about their own biases and limitations than about the subject they are critiquing\[3\],\[4\].

• **Handling the Difference:** If an anonymous reader leaves a review, the information is about the reader, not the book. If a qualified expert does so, the information shifts toward the book. Divergent views are often just data regarding the observers' respective biases\[5\].

### **3\. Differentiate "Sucker" from "Nonsucker" (Payoff vs. Truth)**

Different observers may argue about whether a statement is "True" or "False," but in the real world (the "Thalesian" or "Fat Tony" view), the only thing that matters is the **consequence** of being right or wrong.

• **Fat Tony vs. Socrates:** Socrates (the academic observer) wants to define things and argue about their "truth." Fat Tony (the practitioner) cares only about the **payoff**. If an observer predicts an event with 95% confidence (True) but the 5% failure risk leads to total ruin, the "Truth" is irrelevant. The "sucker" focuses on probability; the "nonsucker" focuses on avoiding fragility\[6\],\[7\].

• **Handling the Difference:** Ignore observers who focus solely on the probability of an event (e.g., "the plane is safe with 99% certainty") and listen to those who focus on the _consequence_ of the error (e.g., "if we are wrong, we all die")\[8\]. Prioritize survival over being "right" in an argument\[9\].

### **4\. Demand "Skin in the Game" (Ethical Weighting)**

Not all points of view are equal; they are weighted by the risk the observer carries.

• **The Agency Problem:** Observers who face no downside for being wrong (e.g., pundits, forecasters, bureaucrats) have "cheap talk." Their points of view are fundamentally less valid than those of observers who suffer the consequences of their opinions (e.g., entrepreneurs, citizens, pilots)\[10\],\[11\].

• **Handling the Difference:** Do not ask an observer (like a doctor or financial advisor) what _you_ should do; ask them what _they_ would do in your situation. If their personal portfolio or lifestyle does not match their opinion, their point of view should be discarded\[12\],\[13\]. "Never get on a plane if the pilot is not on board"\[14\].

### **5\. Identify the "Lucretius Problem" (The Limits of Imagination)**

Observers are often limited by their specific historical experience.

• **The Concept:** The Roman poet Lucretius noted that a fool believes the tallest mountain in the world is the tallest one he has ever seen. Similarly, observers assess risk based on the worst-case scenario _they have personally witnessed_.

• **Handling the Difference:** Recognize that an observer's point of view regarding "maximum risk" is usually just a reflection of their own limited past, not an objective limit of nature. The fact that an observer hasn't seen a crash/flood/war is not evidence that it cannot happen (Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence)\[15\],\[16\].

### **6\. Filter Noise from Signal**

Different observers see different data based on their sampling frequency.

• **Time Scale:** An observer looking at a stock portfolio every minute sees 99.5% "noise" (random variance) and 0.5% "signal." An observer looking annually sees a much clearer ratio of signal to noise.

• **Handling the Difference:** Perspectives based on short-term data or frequent updates (e.g., news journalists) should be dismissed as "noise." Perspectives based on long-term survival (the "Lindy Effect") are robust\[17\],\[18\],\[19\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [2] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [3] [Book] Taleb - Fooled by randomness.pdf
> [4] [Book] Taleb - Fooled by randomness.pdf
> [5] [Book] Taleb - Fooled by randomness.pdf
> [6] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [7] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [8] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [9] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [10] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [11] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [12] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [13] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [14] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [15] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [16] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [17] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [18] [Book] Taleb - Antifragile.pdf
> [19] [Book] Taleb - Fooled by randomness.pdf


FILE: 'Neil Postman.md'
---
tags:
  - Neil-Postman
  - Perspectives
title: Neil Postman on 💬Perspectives
author: Neil Postman
---
Based on the provided sources, particularly Neil Postman's _Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk_, _Amusing Ourselves to Death_, and _Technopoly_, different points of view between observers are handled through understanding the **semantic environments** they inhabit, the **media** through which they communicate, and the **definitions** they use.

Postman suggests that observers often "mishandle" differing viewpoints by failing to recognize that "we see things not as they are, but as _we are_".

Here is an analysis of how different points of view are generated, mishandled, and resolved:

1. The Source of Differing Views

Postman argues that disagreements often stem not from factual disputes, but from observers inhabiting different "semantic environments" or using incompatible mental models.

• **Incompatible Metaphors:** Observers frequently construe the same situation using different underlying metaphors. For instance, in a doctor's office, a doctor might view the situation as a "priestly" interaction (requiring awe and compliance), while the patient views it as a "commercial" transaction (requiring service and answers). Because their metaphors clash, their "reasonable" actions seem unreasonable to each other.

• **Conflicting Purposes:** Disagreements arise when observers do not share the same understanding of a situation's purpose. For example, a conflict over a wedding ceremony might arise because one person views it as a "public ritual" (requiring tradition and uniformity) while another views it as a "personal event" (requiring self-expression).

• **By-passing:** This occurs when observers assume words have fixed meanings. Postman insists that "words do not have meanings. People do." Conflict ensues when Observer A assumes Observer B uses a word (like "love" or "radical") to mean exactly what Observer A would mean by it. They "by-pass" each other, leading to confusion rather than genuine disagreement.

2. How Technology and Media Handle Divergence

Postman argues that the medium of communication dictates how conflicting views are structured and resolved.

• **Print Culture (Rational Debate):** In a culture dominated by print, differing views are handled through exposition and argument. Observers are expected to detect **contradictions**—mutually exclusive assertions within a coherent context. This medium encourages rational dialogue where one view can be weighed against another.

• **Television Culture (The "Now... This" Effect):** In an image-centered culture, information is presented in fragmented, decontextualized chunks. Consequently, contradiction disappears. A politician can say one thing now and the opposite later without consequence because the context required to perceive the contradiction is gone. Divergent views are not "resolved"; they are simply juxtaposed and then forgotten as the viewer moves to the next segment.

• **Technopoly (Reliance on Machinery):** In a "Technopoly," subjective differences between observers (e.g., "Is this person smart?" or "Is this policy popular?") are resolved by appealing to technical machinery rather than human judgment.

    ◦ **Experts and Tools:** Disagreements are settled by IQ tests, polls, and statistics. These tools provide an illusion of objectivity, silencing the subjective debate. For example, a disagreement over whether a student is "intelligent" is settled by a score, which reifies an abstract concept into a technical fact.

    ◦ **Polling:** Instead of engaging in a debate where opinions are modified and refined, public opinion is handled by extracting yes/no answers. This shifts the definition of an opinion from a "process of thinking" to a fixed object that can be measured.

3. Recommended Strategies for Handling Differing Views

To handle differing viewpoints intelligently (avoiding "stupid talk"), Postman proposes the discipline of **"meta-semantics."** This involves moving from being a participant to being an observer of the communication process itself.

• **Ask "What Do You Mean?":** Instead of immediately agreeing or disagreeing, an observer should ask for clarification. This combats "by-passing" by revealing the specific meaning the speaker attaches to a word.

• **Distinguish Fact from Opinion:** Many arguments arise when opinions are stated as facts (e.g., "He is handsome" vs. "He is six feet tall"). Postman advises using "semantic markers" like "It seems to me..." to signal that one is offering an opinion, thereby reducing hostility and dogmatism.

• **Examine Definitions:** Observers should recognize that names and definitions are not "real" but are instruments used to achieve a purpose. When a disagreement occurs over whether a person is a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist," the observer should ask, "Who is defining this, and for what purpose?" rather than arguing over what the person "really" is.

• **Recognize the Role-Structure:** Understand that social roles dictate different perspectives. A buyer and a seller naturally ask different questions (e.g., "How can I maximize profit?" vs. "How can I pay the least?"). Recognizing these differing questions can prevent frustration.

FILE: 'Niklas Luhmann.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:34:56.239Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Niklas Luhmann on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Niklas-Luhmann
  - Perspectives
author: Niklas Luhmann
---
Based on the sources, specifically Niklas Luhmann’s theoretical framework, different points of view between observers are not handled by seeking a single, objective "truth" or by merging minds into a unified consensus. Instead, they are managed through **second-order observation**, the management of **double contingency**, and the recognition that systems are **operationally closed**.

Here is a detailed breakdown of how different viewpoints are handled:

### 1\. Shift to Second-Order Observation

The primary mechanism for handling different viewpoints is shifting from observing the world (first-order) to observing _how_ others observe the world (second-order).

• **Observing the Observer:** Instead of arguing about "what is the case" (ontology), the focus shifts to "who says this is the case"\[1\]. Handling different viewpoints requires observing the distinctions that another observer uses to construct their reality\[2\].

• **The Blind Spot:** Every observer uses a distinction to observe (e.g., good/bad, profitable/unprofitable). When using a distinction, the observer cannot see the distinction itself; this is their "blind spot"\[3\]. Second-order observation allows one to see the blind spot of the other observer—to see _what_ they cannot see because of _how_ they are observing\[2\],\[4\].

• **De-ontologizing Reality:** This approach "de-ontologizes" reality. It accepts that what is observed is contingent on the observer's distinction\[5\]. Reality is described as "polycontextural," meaning valid descriptions vary depending on the system reference\[6\].

### 2\. Double Contingency (The "Black Box" Problem)

Social systems emerge precisely because observers (psychic systems/minds) are opaque "black boxes" to one another\[7\].

• **Incalculability:** We cannot know exactly what another person is thinking or predicting. This creates "double contingency": My action depends on what you do, and your action depends on what I do\[8\],\[9\].

• **Structuring Expectations:** Because we cannot calculate the other’s viewpoint, we rely on **expectations** rather than certainty. We assume a "determinability" that allows us to connect our behaviors\[7\]. We concede freedom to the other and limit our need for knowledge to what is necessary for the next interaction\[10\].

• **System Formation:** Social systems form to absorb this uncertainty. They do not require that we fully understand each other’s internal viewpoints, but only that we can connect one communication to the next\[11\].

### 3\. Communication vs. Consensus

The sources reject the idea that successful interaction requires a fusion of consciousness or complete consensus.

• **Separation of Systems:** Psychic systems (minds) and social systems (communication) are strictly separate; they are environments to one another\[12\],\[13\]. Communication does not transfer a thought from one head to another\[14\].

• **Understanding as Distinction:** "Understanding" in communication does not mean knowing the other's inner truth. It simply means the system distinguishes between "information" (what is said) and "utterance" (the act of saying it)\[15\].

• **Consensus as a Construct:** In organizations and social systems, "consensus" is often a communicative artifact or fiction maintained to allow operations to continue\[16\],\[17\]. Communication can function perfectly well based on misunderstanding, provided that the misunderstanding does not block the next operation\[18\],\[19\].

• **Conflict:** When viewpoints openly clash, they form a specific type of social system called a "conflict," which is highly integrated by the negative form of double contingency ("I will not do what you want if you do not do what I want")\[20\].

### 4\. Unfolding Paradoxes

Different viewpoints often manifest as paradoxes (e.g., something is both true and false depending on the observer).

• **Distinguishing Observers:** Systems theory resolves these paradoxes not by logic, but by distributing them among different observers or different times\[21\].

• **System Reference:** To handle different views, one must always specify the **system reference**: "Who is the observer?"\[22\],\[23\]. A viewpoint is never absolute; it is relative to the system (e.g., an organism, a mind, or a social organization) generating it\[24\].

### Summary Guide

To handle different points of view in this framework:

1\. **Identify the Observer:** Ask "Who is observing?" and "What distinction are they using?"\[1\],\[25\].

2\. **Locate the Blind Spot:** Recognize that the other observer cannot see their own bias (distinction) while using it\[26\].

3\. **Abandon the Quest for "True" Consensus:** Accept that minds are non-transparent "black boxes." Focus on whether **communication** can continue despite differences\[7\],\[27\].

4\. **Observe the Contingency:** Recognize that the other person’s view is contingent (it could be otherwise) and constructed by their specific system logic\[5\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [2] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [3] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [4] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [5] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [6] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [7] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [8] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [9] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [10] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [11] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [12] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [13] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [14] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [15] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [16] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [17] [Book] Luhmann - Organization and Decision.pdf
> [18] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [19] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [20] [Book] Luhmann - Social Systems (Writing Science).pdf
> [21] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [22] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [23] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [24] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [25] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [26] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf
> [27] [Book] Luhmann - Introduction to Systems Theory.pdf


FILE: 'OU Course.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:20:43.329Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: OU Course on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - OU-Course
author: OU Course
---
Based on the provided sources, the handling of different points of view is a central theme, particularly within **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)**, **Second-Order Cybernetics**, and **Cybersemiotics**. The texts argue that in "messy" human situations, there is no single objective reality; instead, there are multiple valid perceptions based on the observer's values, beliefs, and history.

Here is how these different viewpoints are handled across the various methodologies and theories:

### 1\. Acknowledging "Constructed" Realities

The foundational principle in these texts is that observers do not passively record an external world; they actively construct it.

• **The Observer is Part of the System:** Second-order cybernetics and cybersemiotics emphasize that any description of a system must include the characteristics of the observer\[1\]. Knowledge is considered "neither objective nor subjective" but manifests in the interaction between the observer and the environment\[4\].

• **Weltanschauung (Worldview):** A key concept in SSM is _Weltanschauung_ (German for worldview). This concept acknowledges that different people interpret the same situation differently because they view it through different "filters" of values and beliefs\[5\]. Because these are intellectual constructs, there are no logical grounds for deciding that one person's perception is more valid than another's\[6\].

### 2\. Orchestrating Debate (Soft Systems Methodology)

SSM is explicitly designed to handle conflicting viewpoints by moving away from "solving" problems to "managing" them through learning and debate\[7\]\[8\].

• **Rich Pictures:** At the start of an inquiry, practitioners create "Rich Pictures." These are cartoon-like diagrams that capture not just facts, but also subjective information, gossip, emotional climate, and conflicting perspectives\[9\]\[10\]. This allows different stakeholders to see their own and others' perspectives represented on a single page, often facilitating mutual understanding\[11\]\[12\].

• **Root Definitions and CATWOE:** When modelling a system, the analyst explicitly defines _which_ viewpoint they are adopting using the **CATWOE** mnemonic. The "W" stands for _Weltanschauung_, forcing the analyst to state: "I am modelling this system _from the perspective of_ \[X\] who believes \[Y\]"\[5\]\[13\].

• **Models as Debate Tools:** Conceptual models in SSM are **not** descriptions of the real world; they are logical tools used to question the real world\[14\]\[15\]. By building models based on _different_ worldviews (e.g., viewing a prison as a "punishment system" vs. a "rehabilitation system"), the analyst can compare these models against reality to stimulate a structured debate among stakeholders\[16\]\[17\].

### 3\. Seeking Accommodation, Not Consensus

A crucial distinction in the texts is that the goal of handling different viewpoints is **accommodation**, not necessarily consensus.

• **Consensus is Rare:** The sources argue that true consensus (total agreement) is rare in human affairs\[18\]\[19\].

• **Accommodation:** The aim is to find an "accommodation"—a version of the situation that different parties with conflicting views can live with and agree to move forward on, even if they do not share the same values\[7\]\[19\]. An example given is the Berlin Airlift: a political accommodation where opposing sides did not agree but found a way to avoid direct conflict\[18\].

### 4\. Dialectical Approaches

For "wicked problems" where ambiguity and conflict are high, the texts suggest using **Dialectical approaches** (derived from Mason and Mitroff)\[20\]\[21\].

• **Thesis vs. Antithesis:** This method deliberately sets up a conflict. One group develops a plan (Thesis), and another group acts as the "deadly enemy" or Devil's Advocate to develop a counter-plan (Antithesis)\[22\]\[23\].

• **Synthesis:** The debate between these opposing views is managed to reveal the underlying assumptions of both, hopefully leading to a new, third conceptualization (Synthesis) that bridges the gap\[20\]\[24\].

### 5\. Managing the "Client Set" (Hard Systems)

In "Hard Systems" approaches (used when problems are well-defined), handling different viewpoints is viewed differently:

• **Unitary vs. Pluralist:** Hard systems work best when the "client set" (decision-makers) is **unitary** (they agree on objectives)\[25\]\[26\].

• **Arbitration:** If there is disagreement over facts, the hard approach uses scientific modelling to arbitrate. However, if there is disagreement over _values_ (conflicting interests), the hard approach struggles and often fails, as it cannot "calculate" a solution to moral disagreements\[27\]\[28\].

### 6\. Practical Techniques for the Practitioner

The texts recommend specific behaviors for practitioners dealing with diverse viewpoints:

• **The "Wise Observer":** A technique involving role-play where an individual steps into three positions: the Dreamer (creative), the Realist (practical), and the Critic (evaluative), and finally a "Wise Observer" position to review the interaction between them\[29\]\[30\].

• **Stakeholder Analysis:** Explicitly listing all parties involved and identifying their specific "stake" or interest in the situation to ensure no perspective is ignored\[31\]\[32\].

• **Reframing:** Helping participants see a problem through a different "frame" (e.g., seeing a budget cut not as a loss, but as an opportunity for redesign) to shift entrenched viewpoints\[33\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Managing complexity - A systems approach - Introduction.pdf
> [4] [Book] Brier - Introduction to Cybersemiotics A Transdisciplinary Perspective.pdf
> [5] T301 Block IV - Soft Systems Analysis.pdf
> [6] T301 Block IV - Soft Systems Analysis.pdf
> [7] OU T306_4 Checkland Systems Practice Managing sustainability - The Inquiring Process which is SSM.pdf
> [8] T301 Block IV - Soft Systems Analysis.pdf
> [9] T301 Block IV - Soft Systems Analysis.pdf
> [10] T301 Block IV - Soft Systems Analysis.pdf
> [11] block_4_full.pdf
> [12] block_4_full.pdf
> [13] T301 Block IV - Soft Systems Analysis.pdf
> [14] OU T306_4 Checkland Systems Practice Managing sustainability - The Inquiring Process which is SSM.pdf
> [15] OU T306_4 Checkland Systems Practice Managing sustainability - The Inquiring Process which is SSM.pdf
> [16] OU T306 Managing Complexity Block 1.pdf
> [17] block_4_full.pdf
> [18] OU T306 Managing Complexity Block 1.pdf
> [19] block_4_full.pdf
> [20] [Book] B822 - Book 2 Managing Problems Creatively.pdf
> [21] [Book] B822 - Book 2 Managing Problems Creatively.pdf
> [22] [Book] B822 - Book 2 Managing Problems Creatively.pdf
> [23] [Book] B822 - Book 2 Managing Problems Creatively.pdf
> [24] [Book] B822 - Book 2 Managing Problems Creatively.pdf
> [25] T301 Block IIIa - Systems Models - 2 of 2.pdf
> [26] T301 Block IIIa - Systems Models - 2 of 2.pdf
> [27] T301 Block IIIa - Systems Models - 2 of 2.pdf
> [28] T301 Block IIIa - Systems Models - 2 of 2.pdf
> [29] [Book] B822 - Book 2 Managing Problems Creatively.pdf
> [30] [Book] B822 - Book 2 Managing Problems Creatively.pdf
> [31] block_4_full.pdf
> [32] block_4_full.pdf
> [33] [Book] B822 - Book 2 Managing Problems Creatively.pdf


FILE: 'Patrick Hoverstadt.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:21:10.021Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Patrick Hoverstadt on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Patrick-Hoverstadt
author: Patrick Hoverstadt
---
Based on the provided texts, handling different points of view is a central theme in systems thinking. It is addressed not just as a conflict to be resolved, but as a fundamental property of how complex systems function and how observers perceive reality.

Here is how different points of view are handled, categorized by the cognitive, structural, and methodological approaches described in the sources.

### 1\. The Cognitive Approach: Second-Order Cybernetics

The sources emphasize that there is no "objective" view of a system. How a viewpoint is handled begins with realizing that the observer is part of the system they are observing.

• **Cybernetics of the Observer:** Handling different views requires "second-order cybernetics"—the practice of observing oneself observing. This means becoming self-aware of the models and biases one uses to interpret reality\[1\]\[2\].

• **Map vs. Territory:** Different observers hold different "maps" (models) of the same "territory" (reality). Conflicts often arise because observers mistake their map for the territory\[3\]\[4\]. To handle this, one must acknowledge that all models are simplifications and therefore "wrong," but some are useful for specific purposes\[5\]\[6\].

• **Constructivism:** Reality is not just "out there" to be seen; it is constructed by the observer based on their past experiences and mental models. Therefore, different observers will literally "construct" different realities from the same data\[7\].

### 2\. The Structural Approach: Boundaries and Levels

Viewpoints often differ because observers stand in different places relative to the system's structure. Handling these views requires "boundary hopping" and navigating levels.

• **Insiders vs. Outsiders (Law of Crossing):** A view from inside a system boundary is fundamentally different from a view from outside. Insiders are constrained by the system's logic and emotions ("subjective"); outsiders have distance but lack deep understanding ("objective")\[8\]\[9\]. Handling this requires the ability to consciously shift perspectives—to "cross" the boundary back and forth\[10\].

• **The "Cracket" Model:** A heuristic for practitioners to balance three critical perspectives: the **managers** (who want control), the **staff** (who know the operational reality), and the **practitioner** (the external expert). All three are legitimate but biased; the practitioner must balance them like a three-legged stool\[10\].

• **Fractal Levels:** In the Viable System Model (VSM), different viewpoints exist at different levels of the organization (e.g., corporate vs. divisional vs. departmental). Strategy is handled not by top-down diktat but by **conversational processes** between these levels to reconcile different time horizons and focuses\[11\]\[12\].

### 3\. Methodological Handling: Converting "Messes" to "Problems"

Systems methodologies are specifically designed to manage conflicting viewpoints to move from paralysis to action.

• **Messes vs. Problems:** A "mess" is defined as a situation where observers disagree on what the problem is (e.g., Observer A thinks X is the problem; Observer B thinks X is the solution)\[13\]. A "problem" exists only when there is agreement on the nature of the issue. Systems practice involves moving a "mess" into a "problem" by negotiating a shared boundary and definition\[13\].

• **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM):** This approach is explicitly designed to handle multiple perspectives. It uses "Root Definitions" to model the system from different viewpoints (e.g., seeing a prison as a system for punishment vs. a system for rehabilitation) to understand the implications of each view\[14\]\[15\].

• **Red Teaming:** In _Patterns of Strategy_, different viewpoints are handled by assigning a "Red Team" to role-play a competitor or partner. This forces the "White Team" (the organization) to challenge their own assumptions and view the world through the rival's eyes\[16\]\[17\].

### 4\. Operational Handling: Negotiation and Feedback

In day-to-day operations, different viewpoints are handled through specific structural mechanisms to prevent chaos.

• **Resource Bargaining:** In the VSM, the tension between what a sub-system wants to do (autonomy) and what the wider system needs (cohesion) is handled through a "resource bargain." This is a negotiated agreement where resources are provided in exchange for agreed performance, rather than imposed targets\[18\].

• **Monitoring:** Managers often have a view based on reports, while staff have a view based on reality. These views often diverge (e.g., "gaming" the numbers). This is handled by **monitoring**—sporadic, unannounced checks by management to verify that the "map" (reports) matches the "territory" (reality)\[19\]\[20\].

• **Undiscussables:** Sometimes, different views are handled by _not_ handling them. Organizations often have "undiscussables"—topics where the divergence between the official view and reality is so threatening that the problem is ignored entirely to maintain stability\[21\]\[22\].

### Summary

Different points of view are handled by recognizing that **perspective is determined by structure** (where you sit in the system). To resolve conflicts, one must:

1\. **Expose the mental models** (maps) being used\[23\].

2\. **Establish conversational loops** between levels (VSM)\[11\].

3\. **Use multiple perspectives** (SSM or Red Teaming) to triangulate a more robust understanding of reality\[24\]\[25\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [2] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [3] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [4] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [5] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [6] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [7] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [8] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [9] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [10] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [11] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [12] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [13] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [14] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [15] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [16] [Book] Hoverstadt - Patterns of Strategy.pdf
> [17] [Book] Hoverstadt - Patterns of Strategy.pdf
> [18] Hoverstadt - Modelling Organisations using the Viable System Model.pdf
> [19] Hoverstadt - Modelling Organisations using the Viable System Model.pdf
> [20] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [21] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [22] [Book] Hoverstadt - The fractal organization creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model.pdf
> [23] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [24] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf
> [25] [Book] Hoverstadt - The Grammar of Systems.pdf


FILE: 'Paul Cilliers.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:28:11.281Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Paul Cilliers on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Paul-Cilliers
  - Perspectives
author: Paul Cilliers
---
Based on the provided sources, dealing with different points of view between observers in the context of complexity theory involves acknowledging the necessity of "framing," avoiding the trap of relativism through "modesty," engaging in the "agonistics" of interaction, and accepting ethical responsibility for the boundaries drawn.

Here is a detailed breakdown of how different viewpoints are handled:

### 1\. The Necessity of Framing and Boundaries

In complexity theory, it is impossible for any single observer to grasp the whole system because complex systems are open, non-linear, and incompressible\[1\],\[2\]. Therefore, having different points of view is not a failure of objectivity but a structural necessity of knowledge itself.

• **Framing:** To describe a complex system, an observer must "frame" it\[1\]. This involves drawing boundaries to distinguish the system from its environment. These boundaries are not purely natural or objective; they are determined by the strategy and purpose of the observer's description\[3\],\[4\].

• **Contextual Knowledge:** Knowledge is always constituted within a specific network of interactions. Therefore, a point of view is never the view of an isolated subject but is constituted by the observer's history and context\[5\],\[6\]. As different observers operate from different contexts and histories, they will inevitably generate different narratives or models of the system\[7\].

### 2\. Modesty vs. Relativism

The existence of multiple points of view raises the question of whether "anything goes" (relativism). The sources argue strongly against this.

• **Rejection of Relativism:** Acknowledging that no single point of view is absolute does not imply that all views are equally valid or arbitrary. The world imposes constraints on our descriptions\[8\]. While we choose our frameworks, these choices are not arbitrary; they are tested against the reality of the system\[9\].

• **The Modest Position:** Instead of claiming to have the "God's eye view," observers must adopt a "modest" position\[10\]. Modesty here is not a weakness but a responsible acknowledgement of limits. We can make clear, strong claims, provided we admit they are limited and provisional\[11\],\[9\].

• **Critique:** Because models are limited, they must be subjected to critique. This critique is not just negative; it involves a "double movement" of acknowledging the necessity of a model (a restricted economy) while recognizing what exceeds it (a general economy)\[12\],\[13\].

### 3\. The "Agonistics" of the Network

In social systems, different points of view are handled through interaction and struggle rather than by seeking a totalizing consensus.

• **Local Narratives:** Following Lyotard, the sources argue that knowledge consists of a multiplicity of local narratives rather than one grand meta-narrative\[14\],\[15\].

• **Agonistics:** These different narratives do not exist in isolation; they compete and interact. This is described as the "agonistics of the network"\[16\]. Different discourses battle for territory, and their relevance is determined dynamically through competition and cooperation\[17\],\[18\].

• **Dissension over Consensus:** Consensus is often a horizon that is never reached and attempting to enforce it can be oppressive. Dissension and paralogy (a move played in the pragmatics of knowledge) are vital for the system to adapt and generate new meaning\[19\],\[20\].

### 4\. Ethical Responsibility

Because every point of view involves a choice to include certain things and exclude others, handling different viewpoints is fundamentally an ethical matter.

• **The Normative "Cut":** When an observer draws a boundary to create a model, they make a choice that cannot be fully calculated or justified by objective facts. This choice is normative and ethical\[21\],\[22\].

• **Responsibility for Exclusions:** Observers cannot shift responsibility to the "truth" or the "method." They remain responsible for the exclusions they make and the consequences of their descriptions\[23\],\[24\].

• **The Provisional Imperative:** To handle different views ethically, observers should follow a "provisional imperative": to act and make claims while remaining cognisant that there are other ways of acting and modelling\[25\]. This requires an attitude of "trust" and "tolerance" toward other perspectives, acknowledging that our own truths are limited\[26\].

### 5\. Practical Strategies: Irony and Imagination

To manage the tension between different viewpoints without falling into dogmatism, the sources suggest specific intellectual attitudes:

• **Irony:** Observers should maintain an ironic stance, which allows them to affirm a position while simultaneously undermining its status as an absolute truth. This lightens the burden of self-awareness and fosters tolerance\[27\],\[28\].

• **Imagination:** Engaging with different viewpoints requires the imagination to generate excess diversity—to envision alternatives that break out of closed hermeneutic circles\[29\],\[30\].

In summary, different points of view are handled not by integrating them into a single perfect model, but by entering a network of dynamic interaction where limits are acknowledged, choices are recognized as ethical, and knowledge remains rigorously provisional\[31\],\[32\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Cilliers - boundaries hierarchies and networks in complex systems.pdf
> [2] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [3] Cilliers - boundaries hierarchies and networks in complex systems.pdf
> [4] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [5] Cilliers - why we cannot know complex things completely.pdf
> [6] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [7] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [8] Cilliers - boundaries hierarchies and networks in complex systems.pdf
> [9] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [10] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [11] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [12] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [13] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [14] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [15] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [16] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [17] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [18] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [19] [Book] Cilliers - 1998 - Complexity and postmodernism - Routledge.pdf
> [20] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [21] Cilliers - boundaries hierarchies and networks in complex systems.pdf
> [22] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [23] Cilliers - boundaries hierarchies and networks in complex systems.pdf
> [24] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [25] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [26] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [27] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [28] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [29] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [30] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [31] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf
> [32] [Book] Cilliers - Critical Complexity (Categories).pdf


FILE: 'Peter Checkland.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:21:40.201Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Peter Checkland on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Peter-Checkland
author: Peter Checkland
---
Based on the provided sources, dealing with different points of view is the central challenge and primary function of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). Unlike "hard" systems thinking, which often assumes a single objective reality where problems can be "solved," SSM assumes that human situations inevitably contain multiple, conflicting interpretations of reality\[1\]\[2\].

Here is how these different points of view are handled throughout the process:

### 1\. Acknowledging the _Weltanschauung_ (Worldview)

SSM is built on the premise that different observers will perceive the same facts differently based on their taken-as-given assumptions, or **Weltanschauung** (W)\[3\]\[4\].

• **The Principle:** The methodology accepts that "one observer's 'terrorism' is another's 'freedom fighting'"\[2\].

• **Explicit Definition:** To handle this, the practitioner must explicitly declare the specific worldview being used for any given model\[6\]\[7\]. This is done using the **CATWOE** mnemonic, where 'W' stands for the specific worldview that makes the model meaningful\[8\]\[9\].

### 2\. Modeling Pure Views, Not Compromises

A crucial technique in SSM is how these views are modeled. The practitioner does _not_ attempt to build a single model of the "real world" that combines everyone's view.

• **Separate Models:** Instead, the practitioner builds **multiple models**, each based on a single, pure worldview\[7\]\[10\].

• **Intellectual Devices:** These models are not descriptions of the world; they are "intellectual devices" or "holons" used to explore the world\[11\]. By creating a "pure" model (e.g., a hospital as a "system to repair bodies" vs. a hospital as a "system to provide employment"), the practitioner can isolate the implications of a specific point of view\[14\]\[15\].

### 3\. Structuring Debate

The different points of view are brought into contact with one another during the **Comparison** stage.

• **Questioning Reality:** The "pure" models are used as a source of questions to ask of the real world (e.g., "If we view the situation as a 'system to repair bodies,' how does our current admission process measure up?")\[16\]\[17\].

• **Surfacing Assumptions:** This comparison structures a debate that lifts the discussion from everyday opinions to the level of questioning the underlying assumptions (worldviews) that people hold\[18\]\[19\]. It allows stakeholders to see their own and others' hidden assumptions\[20\].

### 4\. Seeking Accommodation, Not Consensus

Perhaps the most distinct feature of how SSM handles conflicting viewpoints is its goal. It does **not** seek "consensus" (total agreement), which is regarded as rare and often impossible in human affairs\[17\].

• **Accommodation:** Instead, the process seeks **accommodation**. This is a version of the situation or a course of action that different people with conflicting worldviews can nevertheless "live with"\[22\].

• **Managing Conflict:** Differences of opinion are not suppressed; they are viewed as a source of energy and creativity. The methodology aims to find changes that are **systemically desirable** (logical within the models) and **culturally feasible** (accepted by the people with their specific history and politics)\[23\].

### 5\. Cultural and Political Analysis

Finally, different points of view are analyzed through specific cultural inquiries:

• **Analysis One:** Identifies a list of "issue owners," ensuring the study isn't limited to the client's single perspective\[26\]\[27\].

• **Analysis Three (Political):** Explicitly examines how power is expressed and how different interests are accommodated in the situation\[28\]\[29\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Checkland - From Optimising to Learning a development of systems thinking for the 1990s.pdf
> [2] Checkland 2011 - Systems Thinking and Soft Systems Mehthodology.pdf
> [3] Checkland - From Optimising to Learning a development of systems thinking for the 1990s.pdf
> [4] Checkland 1983 - OR and the Systems Movement mappings and conflicts.pdf
> [6] Checkland 2011 - The development of soft systems thinking and soft systems methodology.pdf
> [7] Checkland 2011 - The development of soft systems thinking and soft systems methodology.pdf
> [8] Checkland - SSM in encylopedia of operations research.pdf
> [9] [Book] Checkland - 1981 - Systems thinking, systems practice - J. Wiley.pdf
> [10] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [11] Checkland - From Optimising to Learning a development of systems thinking for the 1990s.pdf
> [14] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [15] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [16] Checkland - SSM in encylopedia of operations research.pdf
> [17] Checkland 2011 - Systems Thinking and Soft Systems Mehthodology.pdf
> [18] Checkland 2011 - Systems Thinking and Soft Systems Mehthodology.pdf
> [19] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [20] Checkland - The Emergent Properties of SSM in Use.pdf
> [22] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [23] Checkland - From Optimising to Learning a development of systems thinking for the 1990s.pdf
> [26] An Appreciative Critique and Refinement of Checklands Soft Systems Methodology.pdf
> [27] [Book] Checkland - Learning for Action.pdf
> [28] Comparing the systems approaches of checkland and blockley.pdf
> [29] OU T306_4 Checkland Systems Practice Managing sustainability - The Inquiring Process which is SSM.pdf


FILE: 'Peter Senge.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:21:43.426Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Peter Senge on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Peter-Senge
author: Peter Senge
---
Based on the provided texts, handling different points of view is central to the concept of the "Learning Organization." Rather than seeing differing views as a problem to be solved by finding a single "right" answer, the authors view them as resources for seeing a larger, more complex reality.

Here is how different points of view are handled within this framework:

### 1\. Integrating Views via the "Hologram" Metaphor

Senge uses the metaphor of a hologram to explain how individual visions relate to a shared vision. If you divide a hologram, each piece still shows the whole image, but from a unique angle.

• **The Principle:** When a group shares a vision, each person sees their own picture of the organization. To see the whole clearly, you need multiple unique angles\[1\],\[2\].

• **The Goal:** The goal is not to force congruency or total agreement\[3\],\[4\]. Instead, the goal is to see the system from different points of view to innovate and solve problems\[5\].

### 2\. Moving from Discussion to Dialogue

The sources distinguish between two types of discourse for handling different views: **Discussion** and **Dialogue**.

• **Discussion:** Based on the root "percussion," this is like a ping-pong game where the goal is to win or to have one's view accepted. It is useful for making decisions but not for generating new insights\[6\].

• **Dialogue:** Based on the Greek _dia-logos_ (meaning flowing through), the goal is to access a "larger pool of common meaning"\[7\]. In dialogue, individuals do not try to win; they gain insights that could not be achieved individually\[8\].

• **Conditions for Dialogue:** To handle views this way, participants must:

    1. **Suspend Assumptions:** Hold their beliefs "hanging in front of them" for examination rather than defending them as facts\[9\],\[10\].    2. **Act as Colleagues:** Treat everyone as equals to establish a positive tone and offset vulnerability\[11\].    3. **Use a Facilitator:** Ideally, someone helps hold the context of the dialogue\[9\].
### 3\. Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry

When dealing with conflicting views, managers often default to "advocacy" (arguing for their own view). The authors argue this must be balanced with "inquiry" (genuinely investigating the other person's view)\[12\].

• **Reciprocal Inquiry:** Everyone makes their thinking explicit and subject to public examination\[13\].

• **The Technique:**

    ◦ **When Advocating:** Explain your reasoning and data, then encourage others to test your view (e.g., "Do you see gaps in my reasoning?")\[14\].    ◦ **When Inquiring:** Actively seek to understand the other's view rather than just restating your own. Ask, "What data or logic might change your view?" or "Do you have different data?"\[14\],\[15\].
### 4\. Surfacing Mental Models

Different observers see different things because they have different "Mental Models"—deeply ingrained assumptions that influence how they understand the world\[16\],\[17\]. Two people can observe the same event but see different details because of selective observation\[18\].

• **The Tool:** To handle this, one must identify "Leaps of Abstraction"—where we move from direct observation to a generalization without testing it\[19\].

• **The Left-Hand Column:** This exercise helps individuals articulate what they are thinking but not saying, surfacing hidden assumptions that prevent honest communication about conflicting views\[20\],\[21\].

### 5\. Systems Thinking and "The Elephant"

Systems thinking is required because complex problems cannot be understood from a single perspective.

• **The Blind Men and the Elephant:** Senge cites the Sufi tale of blind men touching different parts of an elephant (ear, trunk, leg) and claiming to know what the whole is. Each sees the problem clearly from their department's perspective (marketing, manufacturing, etc.), but none see how their policies interact\[22\].

• **Systemic Structure:** To handle these fragmented views, leaders must help people see the "systemic structure"—the circles of causality that connect the different parts\[23\].

### 6\. Managing Conflict and Defensive Routines

Great teams are not characterized by a lack of conflict, but by visible conflict of ideas\[24\].

• **Defensive Routines:** Teams often fail to handle different views because of "defensive routines"—habits used to protect ourselves from the threat of having our thinking exposed\[25\],\[26\].

• **The Solution:** Rather than "smoothing over" differences, teams must learn to confront defensiveness without producing more of it, usually by self-disclosure and inquiring into the causes of the defensiveness itself\[27\].

### 7\. The Leader's Role

In this framework, the leader is not the person with the "right" answer.

• **Leader as Designer/Teacher:** The leader's job is to design learning processes where people throughout the organization can deal with the critical issues and develop mastery in listening and understanding\[28\].

• **System Leadership:** Effective system leaders have the ability to see reality through the eyes of people very different from themselves\[29\]. They create a space where people living with the problem can come together to tell the truth\[30\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [2] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [3] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [4] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [5] Winter_2015_The_Dawn_of_System_Leadership.pdf
> [6] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [7] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [8] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [9] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [10] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [11] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [12] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [13] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [14] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [15] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [16] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [17] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [18] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [19] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [20] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [21] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [22] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [23] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [24] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [25] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [26] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [27] peter_senge_the_fifth_discipline1.pdf
> [28] 2022_11_28_15_32_00.pdf
> [29] Winter_2015_The_Dawn_of_System_Leadership.pdf
> [30] Winter_2015_The_Dawn_of_System_Leadership.pdf


FILE: 'Reg Revans.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:29:09.870Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Reg Revans on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Reg-Revans
author: Reg Revans
---
Based on the sources, Action Learning handles different points of view not by seeking a single "correct" expert answer, but by treating subjective disagreement as a fundamental resource for learning. Because Action Learning is designed for "problems" (where honest and experienced people may reasonably disagree) rather than "puzzles" (where a single solution exists), the methodology utilizes the friction between different viewpoints to generate new insight.

Here is how different points of view are handled:

**1\. The "Set" as a Mirror for Reinterpretation**The core mechanism for handling different observers is the "set," a small group of 4-6 comrades in adversity\[1\],\[2\]. The set functions as a "looking glass" or mirror\[3\].

• **Social Nature of Learning:** Learning is viewed as a social process where "one cannot learn from another unless the other also learns from the one"\[4\]. The set provides the "criticism, advice and support" necessary for managers to reinterpret their own experiences\[5\].

• **Rearranging Perception:** Revans describes how different colliery managers looking at the same piece of underground machinery might perceive "very different decisions to be taken"\[6\]. The argument arising from these different views forces the participants to rearrange the facts they already know. This change of mind comes not from new facts (Programmed Knowledge or _P_), but through the reinterpretation of existing facts caused by the questioning (Questioning Insight or _Q_) of a colleague\[7\],\[8\].

**2\. Distinction Between Puzzles and Problems**The sources distinguish between two types of challenges, which dictate how differing views are treated:

• **Puzzles:** These have a "best" solution. Here, differences of opinion are resolved by expert knowledge (_P_)\[9\],\[10\].

• **Problems:** These are challenges where "different managers, all reasonable, experienced and sober, might set out by treating them in markedly different ways" based on their differing value systems and past experiences\[9\],\[11\]. In Action Learning, these differences are not "errors" to be corrected by an expert, but indicators of the need for _Q_ (questioning insight) to explore the unknown\[12\],\[8\].

**3\. Verification through Action, Not Argument**Unlike "case study" methods where differences might be resolved by "sheer loquacity and dialectic" (who can argue the best), Action Learning requires that different viewpoints be tested against reality\[13\].

• **Reality as the Arbiter:** New perceptions derived from the set must be checked against the real world\[14\]. The validity of a viewpoint is determined by whether the action taken leads to useful progress, not by whether the observer can convince others in a seminar room\[15\],\[16\].

• **Feedback Loops:** The process relies on constant review and feedback. Participants must explain their different interpretations to the set, take action, and then review the consequences. This cycle (System Beta) acts as a "forced draught," constantly obliging participants to open their intentions to the criticism of others\[17\].

**4\. Brain Hemispheres and Pattern Recognition**Revans utilizes the concept of brain hemispheres to explain why observers differ. The left hemisphere stores details (which might be identical for all observers), while the right hemisphere interprets patterns\[6\].

• Different observers see the same details but form different patterns. The arguments generated in Action Learning sets encourage the "random" or trial-and-error rearrangement of these details to form new patterns and fresh ideas\[18\].

**5\. Critical Action Learning (CAL) and Power Dynamics**In later developments of the theory (specifically Critical Action Learning), different points of view are analyzed through the lens of power and politics.

• **Multiple Stakeholders:** "Wicked problems" involve complex interdependencies where actions have unintended consequences\[19\].

• **Questioning Interests:** When views differ, CAL encourages asking "Who benefits from this change?... and who loses?" and "Whose interests are being served?"\[20\]. This approach seeks to surface the political and emotional dynamics that often underlie different viewpoints\[21\].

**6\. The Client Group**Beyond the set, the "client group" (a band of allies within the organization) helps handle different views during implementation. This group includes those who know about the problem, those who care, and those who can act\[22\]. The participant must reconcile the "myriad views and experiences" of these colleagues to suggest how improvements can be made\[23\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Revans 1981 Management productivity and risk - the way ahead.pdf
> [2] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [3] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [4] revans 1984 - on the learning equation.pdf
> [5] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [6] revans 1984 - on the learning equation.pdf
> [7] revans 1984 - on the learning equation.pdf
> [8] revans 1984 - on the learning equation.pdf
> [9] Pedler - Reginald Revans The Pioneer of action learning.pdf
> [10] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [11] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [12] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [13] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [14] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [15] Pedler - Reginald Revans The Pioneer of action learning.pdf
> [16] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf
> [17] revans 1984 - action learning are we getting there.pdf
> [18] revans 1984 - on the learning equation.pdf
> [19] Pedler - Reginald Revans The Pioneer of action learning.pdf
> [20] Pedler - Reginald Revans The Pioneer of action learning.pdf
> [21] Pedler - Reginald Revans The Pioneer of action learning.pdf
> [22] revans 1984 - action learning are we getting there.pdf
> [23] [Book] Revans - ABC of Action Learning.pdf


FILE: 'Relational Biologists.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-27T20:22:35.452Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Relational Biologists on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Relational-Biologists
author: Relational Biologists
---
The sources address the handling of different points of view through the frameworks of the **epistemic cut**, the **modeling relation**, and the distinction between **simple and complex systems**. These concepts define how observers (whether human scientists, biological organisms, or measuring devices) interact with the world and reconcile—or fail to reconcile—their distinct descriptions.

**The Epistemic Cut and Subject-Object Separation**The fundamental premise is that any description or measurement requires a separation between the observer (subject) and the observed system (object).

• **The Cut:** Howard Pattee refers to this necessary separation as the **epistemic cut**\[1\]. While the boundary is often arbitrary (the "shifty split"), it must be placed somewhere to distinguish the measuring device from the system being measured\[2\],\[3\].

• **Subjectivity vs. Objectivity:** Measurement is inherently a subjective act of choice by an observer regarding what to measure and record\[4\]. Objectivity in physical theory is achieved not by eliminating the observer, but by requiring that natural laws remain **invariant** regardless of the observer's state or frame of reference\[5\],\[6\]. Symbols and mathematical models allow subjective sense impressions to be communicated, establishing a "communicable objectivity" among a population of observers\[7\].

**Encodings and Abstractions**Robert Rosen articulates "points of view" as specific **encodings** of a natural system into a formal system (model)\[8\].

• **Meters as Filters:** An observer perceives a natural system through specific "meters" (measuring instruments). Each meter captures only a specific quality (observable) and necessarily neglects all others\[9\].

• **Abstraction:** Therefore, every observation or model is an **abstraction**\[10\],\[11\]. A single natural system can admit multiple, distinct encodings depending on which observables the observer chooses to utilize\[12\],\[13\].

• **Linkages:** The relationship between what distinct observers see depends on the **linkage** between their chosen observables. If the observables are linked (e.g., through an equation of state), information from one view can predict the other\[14\],\[15\]. If they are unlinked, the views are logically independent\[16\].

**Simplicity vs. Complexity**The handling of differing viewpoints distinguishes simple systems from complex ones.

• **Simple Systems (Reductionism):** In the Newtonian paradigm (simple systems), it is assumed that there exists a "universal encoding" or a "largest model" to which all other points of view can be reduced\[17\],\[18\]. If this were true, all distinct descriptions could be mapped onto one another, and any difference in point of view would be merely a matter of coordinate transformation\[19\].

• **Complex Systems:** A system is defined as **complex** when it admits distinct, non-equivalent descriptions that cannot be reduced to a single master description\[20\],\[21\]. In complex systems, different encodings (points of view) are **complementary**\[22\],\[23\]. This means they are formally incompatible but both necessary for a complete understanding of the system\[24\].

• **Bifurcation:** When two descriptions of the same system become logically independent (unlinked), a **bifurcation** occurs\[25\]. This divergence is often interpreted by the observer as **error**, noise, or emergence, because the system behaves differently than the observer's specific model predicts\[26\],\[25\].

**Biological Relativity and Integrating Mechanisms**In the biological realm, the existence of multiple observers is fundamental.

• **Biological Relativity:** Denis Noble argues that there is no privileged level of causation or observation\[27\],\[28\]. An observer at a nano-level might see a "cloud of happenings," while an observer at a higher level sees ordered physiological functions; both views are valid and necessary\[29\].

• **Inequivalent Observers:** Biology can be viewed as the study of populations of "inequivalent observers" (organisms with different sensing capabilities)\[30\].

• **Conflict and Integration:** Within a single complex system (like an organism or society), different subsystems may generate different predictive models of the whole. These models can bifurcate, leading to conflicting "decisions" on how to react. Complex systems require **integrating mechanisms** to resolve these conflicts and commit the system to a single course of action\[31\],\[32\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Irreducible and complementary semiotic - Howard Pattee.pdf
> [2] [Book] Pattee - Laws Language and Life Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.pdf
> [3] [Book] Pattee - Laws Language and Life Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.pdf
> [4] [Book] Pattee - Laws Language and Life Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.pdf
> [5] [Book] Pattee - Laws Language and Life Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.pdf
> [6] [Book] Pattee - Laws Language and Life Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.pdf
> [7] [Book] Pattee - Laws Language and Life Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.pdf
> [8] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [9] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [10] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [11] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [12] Rosen 1977 - Complexity as a System Property.pdf
> [13] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [14] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [15] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [16] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [17] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [18] [Book] Rosen - Essays on Life Itself.pdf
> [19] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [20] Pattee Irreducible and complementary semiotic forms.pdf
> [21] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [22] Pattee Irreducible and complementary semiotic forms.pdf
> [23] [Book] Rosen - Theoretical Biology and Complexity. Three Essays on the Natural Philosophy of Complex Systems.pdf
> [24] [Book] Pattee - Laws Language and Life Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.pdf
> [25] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [26] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [27] Noble - Biological circular causality but not symmetry of causation so where what and when are the boundaries.pdf
> [28] Noble - Harnessing stochasticity how do organisms make choices.pdf
> [29] Noble - Biological circular causality but not symmetry of causation so where what and when are the boundaries.pdf
> [30] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [31] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf
> [32] [Book] Rosen - Anticipatory Systems Philosophical Mathematical and Methodological Foundations.pdf


FILE: 'Robert Flood.md'
---
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Robert-Flood
title: Robert Flood on 💬Perspectives
author: Robert Flood
---
Based on the provided sources, different points of view between observers are handled through a variety of theoretical frameworks and practical methodologies, ranging from seeking consensus to managing irreconcilable conflict. The approach chosen depends largely on the perceived relationship between the participants and the nature of the complexity involved.

1. Categorizing the Relationships (The Context)

The collection emphasizes that one must first assess the relationship between observers to determine how to handle their differing views. This is often done using the **System of Systems Methodologies (SOSM)** grid, which classifies relationships into three types:

• **Unitary:** Observers share common interests, values, and beliefs. They largely agree on ends and means. Here, different views are minor technical disagreements handled by seeking the most efficient solution.

• **Pluralist:** Observers have basic compatibility of interest but divergent values and beliefs. They do not necessarily agree on ends and means, but **compromise** and **accommodation** are possible.

• **Coercive:** Observers do not share common interests and hold conflicting values. Genuine compromise is not possible because some coerce others to accept decisions. Here, handling different views requires revealing power structures and forms of domination,.

2. Methodologies for Handling Differences

Once the context is understood, specific methodologies are employed to manage the differing viewpoints:

A. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM): Accommodation

In "pluralist" contexts where observers hold different **Weltanschauungen** (worldviews), SSM is used.

• **Principle:** It assumes social reality is socially constructed. Different observers attach different meanings to the same acts.

• **Process:** The methodology facilitates a debate to make these worldviews explicit. It does not seek a single "truth" or a forced consensus, but rather an **accommodation**—a version of the situation that different observers with different views can live with and agree to act upon,.

• **Critique:** Critics argue that SSM assumes a level of open communication that may not exist in "coercive" situations, potentially allowing powerful observers to dominate the "accommodation",.

B. Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH): Boundary Critique

In "coercive" contexts, or where experts dominate, CSH is used to handle the gap between "those involved" (planners/experts) and "those affected" (witnesses).

• **Principle:** All systems designs are based on partial presuppositions called **boundary judgments** (decisions about what is in the system and what is left out),.

• **Process:** It uses 12 heuristic questions in an "is" mode (what is the situation?) and an "ought" mode (what should it be?) to expose the value judgments of the powerful.

• **Handling Conflict:** If the powerful refuse to listen, the "affected" use the **polemical employment of boundary judgments**. This tactic does not need to prove the "truth," but simply exposes that the experts' views are based on subjective boundaries just like everyone else's, thereby leveling the playing field for debate,.

C. Discordant Pluralism: Constellations

Wendy Gregory proposes **discordant pluralism** for situations where views are so antagonistic they cannot be reconciled (e.g., the abortion debate).

• **Principle:** It rejects the "drive for consensus" found in other approaches. It accepts that some paradigms are "alien" to one another,.

• **Process:** Instead of integrating views, it uses the metaphor of a **constellation** or **force field**. Opposing views are "juxtaposed" (placed side-by-side) to reveal their aversions and attractions without reducing one to the other. This allows for a "both/and" framing rather than an "either/or" choice, facilitating ethical decision-making in the face of unresolvable difference,,.

D. Metamodeling and Logic Levels

Van Gigch argues that confusion often arises because observers are arguing at different **levels of logic** or abstraction.

• **Principle:** A problem defined at an operational level (e.g., by a practitioner) looks different than when defined at a scientific or epistemological level.

• **Process:** Conflicts are handled by identifying the logic level of each observer (e.g., Real-World vs. Science vs. Epistemology) and moving the debate to a **metalevel** (a higher level of logic). A "metacontroller" (like a court or commission) can then mediate between the lower-level systems to resolve contradictions,,.

3. Managing the Process (Meta-Methodologies)

To manage these various approaches, the authors advocate for **Complementarism** and **Diversity Management**:

• **Complementarism:** This view holds that different methodologies (and thus different ways of handling viewpoints) are complementary. One should not be "isolationist" (sticking to one view) or "imperialist" (forcing all views into one framework). Instead, one should respect the different rationalities and use the tool appropriate for the specific type of viewpoint diversity (e.g., SSM for debate, CSH for coercion),.

• **Triple Loop Learning:** To ensure responsible handling of viewpoints, observers must loop through three questions:

    1. _Are we doing things right?_ (Efficiency/Design)

    2. _Are we doing the right things?_ (Debate/Effectiveness)

    3. _Is rightness buttressed by mightiness?_ (Power/Ethics),.

4. Summary Table of Handling Viewpoints

|Perspective / Context|Method of Handling Differences|Goal|
|---|---|---|
|**Unitary** (Agreed goals)|**Hard Systems / Cybernetics**: Optimize technical processes.|Efficiency / Goal Achievement|
|**Pluralist** (Differing values)|**Soft Systems Methodology**: Open debate to understand worldviews.|Accommodation / Mutual Understanding|
|**Coercive** (Power imbalance)|**Critical Systems Heuristics**: Expose boundary judgments and value sources.|Emancipation / Fairness|
|**Antagonistic** (Alien paradigms)|**Discordant Pluralism**: Juxtapose views in a "constellation."|Ethical Choice / Respect for "Otherness"|
|**Logic Conflict** (Different abstractions)|**Metamodeling**: Move to a higher logic level (Metasystem).|Resolution via higher-level logic|

FILE: 'Robert Pirsig.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:36:22.676Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Robert Pirsig on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Robert-Pirsig
author: Robert Pirsig
---
Based on the provided sources, the works of Robert Pirsig handle different points of view between observers by analyzing the nature of "objectivity," the role of static patterns (memory and culture), and the evolutionary levels of value.

Here is how different viewpoints are handled within these frameworks:

### 1\. The Role of "Static Patterns" and Life History

In the _Metaphysics of Quality_ (MOQ), Pirsig addresses the problem: "if Quality is a constant, why does it seem so variable? Why do people have different opinions about it?"\[1\].

• **The Explanation:** Although Dynamic Quality (the cutting edge of reality) is the same for everyone, the "static patterns of value" (memories, customs, life history) differ for every individual. When an observer makes a judgment, both the Dynamic Quality and their specific static patterns influence the final viewpoint\[1\],\[2\].

• **The Sand Analogy:** In _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_, awareness is compared to an endless landscape of sand. We take a "handful of sand" (consciousness) and use a "knife" (discrimination) to sort the grains into different piles. While the landscape is the same for everyone, the way individuals select and sort the sand differs, leading to different perceptions of the world\[3\],\[4\].

### 2\. Scientific Objectivity via "Unambiguous Communication"

Pirsig draws heavily on Niels Bohr’s philosophy of Complementarity to explain how science handles different observations (such as light appearing as both a particle and a wave).

• **The Visualized Object:** Bohr argued that an experiment does not reveal a "deep reality" of nature, but rather a "visualized object" created by the interaction between the observer and the data\[5\].

• **Communication:** To handle different viewpoints, science relies on "unambiguous communication." Observer A communicates a description (including the measuring equipment used) to Observer B. If Observer B can replicate the experiment and confirm the result, the description is considered "objective." Thus, objectivity is not an inherent property of nature, but a result of successful social communication and verification\[6\],\[7\].

• **The Consensus of Harmony:** Drawing on Henri Poincaré, Pirsig notes that objectivity is guaranteed because the world is common to thinking beings. We recognize the "harmony" in the reasoning of others, which assures us we are not dreaming\[8\].

### 3\. Evolutionary Levels of Value (The "Lila" Conflict)

In _Lila_, a major conflict arises between two observers, Phaedrus and Richard Rigel, regarding the character Lila.

• **The Conflict:** Rigel views Lila as "low quality" because she breaks up families and acts immorally. Phaedrus views her as having "Quality" because she possesses biological vitality and creates life\[9\],\[10\].

• **The Resolution:** The MOQ handles this disagreement by establishing a hierarchy of value levels: **Biological**, **Social**, and **Intellectual**.

    ◦ Rigel evaluates Lila using a **Social** moral code (where stability and family are paramount).    ◦ Phaedrus evaluates her using a **Biological** code (where vitality and survival are paramount) and recognizes she is socially "low quality" but biologically "high quality"\[11\],\[12\].
• **Conclusion:** Different observers may be judging a subject from different evolutionary levels. A single subject can simultaneously have quality and lack quality depending on the level being assessed\[11\].

### 4\. Classic vs. Romantic Understanding

In _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_, Pirsig describes a schism between two modes of viewing reality:

• **Romantic Mode:** Views the world in terms of immediate appearance (surface beauty, feelings). Example: John and Sylvia see a motorcycle ride as an escape from technology\[13\],\[14\].

• **Classic Mode:** Views the world in terms of underlying form (mechanics, laws, reason). Example: Phaedrus sees the motorcycle as a system of concepts worked out in steel\[15\],\[16\].

• **Handling the Split:** These viewpoints often misunderstand each other. The "Romantic" sees the "Classic" mode as dull and oppressive; the "Classic" sees the "Romantic" mode as frivolous\[17\],\[18\]. Pirsig argues these views can be reconciled by recognizing that **Quality** is the source of both. A true understanding (like that of a master mechanic) combines the ability to see what "looks good" (Romantic) with the understanding of underlying methods (Classic) to achieve "peace of mind"\[19\],\[20\].

### 5\. Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Truth

Pirsig notes that different cultures (and observers within them) define sanity and truth differently based on their specific values.

• **Cultural Filters:** People from different cultures "select" different data from the universe. For example, a child in a money-society draws coins larger than a child in a primitive culture\[21\].

• **Sanity:** Sanity is defined as conformity to the cultural status quo. An "insane" person is simply someone whose private intellectual patterns do not conform to the cultural patterns\[22\].

• **Handling Cultural Conflicts:** The twentieth-century "cultural relativists" argued that one cannot judge one culture by the values of another\[23\]. However, the MOQ argues that cultures _can_ be graded morally based on their contribution to the evolution of life (e.g., a culture that allows intellectual freedom is superior to one that does not)\[24\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Pirsig - Subjects Objects Data and Values.pdf
> [2] Pirsig - Subjects Objects Data and Values.pdf
> [3] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [4] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [5] Pirsig - Subjects Objects Data and Values.pdf
> [6] Pirsig - Subjects Objects Data and Values.pdf
> [7] Pirsig - Subjects Objects Data and Values.pdf
> [8] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [9] [Book] Pirsig - Lila an inquiry into morals.pdf
> [10] [Book] Pirsig - Lila an inquiry into morals.pdf
> [11] [Book] Pirsig - Lila an inquiry into morals.pdf
> [12] [Book] Pirsig - Lila an inquiry into morals.pdf
> [13] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [14] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [15] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [16] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [17] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [18] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [19] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [20] [Book] Pirsig - Zen and the art of Motor maintanance.pdf
> [21] [Book] Pirsig - Lila an inquiry into morals.pdf
> [22] [Book] Pirsig - Lila an inquiry into morals.pdf
> [23] [Book] Pirsig - Lila an inquiry into morals.pdf
> [24] [Book] Pirsig - Lila an inquiry into morals.pdf


FILE: 'Roger James.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:34:07.815Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Roger James on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Roger-James
author: Roger James
---
Based on the provided sources, handling different points of view between different observers is a central theme of **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)**, **Second-Order Cybernetics**, and related problem-structuring methods like **SODA** and **Team Syntegrity**. The sources argue that in complex human situations, there is no single "objective" reality; instead, there are multiple, legitimate, and often conflicting "social realities" constructed by different observers\[1\]\[2\].

Here is how these differences are handled:

### 1\. Shift from "Truth" to "Social Reality"

The fundamental approach is to abandon the search for a single objective truth (which leads to "my truth vs. your truth" arguments) and instead focus on constructing a **"Social Reality"** or **"Constructed Consensus"**.

• **Working Agreements:** Models in this context are not representations of the physical world but capture the value judgments and "working agreements" of the group\[1\].

• **Paramorphic Models:** Larry Phillips describes creating "paramorphic" models where the structure comes from decision theory, but the _content_ derives entirely from the group's social reality. This allows the group to navigate complex choices without needing to agree on an external objective fact\[3\].

### 2\. Seek "Accommodation" not "Consensus" (SSM)

Peter Checkland’s **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)** explicitly differentiates between consensus (everyone agreeing) and **accommodation** (finding a version of the situation that conflicting interests can "live with")\[4\].

• **The Berlin Airlift Example:** The text uses the Berlin Airlift as a prime example of accommodation. The West and the Russians did not agree (they were in conflict), but they found a mode of operation (flying planes vs. not shooting them down) that allowed them to avoid World War III. This was an accommodation of conflicting worldviews, not a consensus\[4\].

• **Models as Epistemological Devices:** In SSM, models are not descriptions of the world ("ontological") but devices to structure a debate _about_ the world ("epistemological")\[5\]. They are used to interrogate reality, allowing different observers to compare their "holons" (abstract concepts) against the perceived real world to find feasible changes\[6\]\[7\].

### 3\. Use "Transitional Objects" for Negotiation (SODA)

**SODA (Strategic Options Development and Analysis)**, developed by Colin Eden, handles different viewpoints by using **Cognitive Maps** as **"Transitional Objects"**\[8\].

• **Fuzziness and Face Saving:** The map is deliberately "equivocal" or "fuzzy." It allows participants to project their own meanings onto the shared object. This "fuzziness" facilitates the **shifting of positions** without the loss of face associated with backing down from a rigid verbal argument\[8\].

• **Negotiating Meaning:** The process helps individuals elaborate their own construct systems to the point where they can change their minds. The goal is to move from individual "myths" to a shared group understanding\[9\].

### 4\. Structure the Dialogue (Syntegrity)

**Team Syntegrity**, developed by Stafford Beer, handles multiple viewpoints by imposing a rigorous **geometric structure** (an icosahedron) on the conversation\[10\].

• **Non-Hierarchical reverberation:** This structure ensures that conversations are non-hierarchical and democratic. It prevents the dissipation of energy and ensures that diverse perspectives are integrated through a process of "reverberation" where information flows through the network of participants, leading to "organizational closure" or cohesion\[11\]\[12\].

### 5\. Diagnose the "Frame" (Three Umpires)

Conflict often arises because observers are arguing from different epistemological frames. The **"Three Umpires"** model (attributed to Weick) helps handle this by diagnosing which "game" the observers are playing\[13\]:

• **Frame 1:** Objectively Validated ("I call them as they are") – Conflict is about facts.

• **Frame 2:** Context Dependent ("I call them as I see them") – Conflict is about perspective.

• **Frame 3:** Socially Constructed ("They ain't nothing until I call them") – Conflict is about agreement/authority.By moving the group to **Frame 3**, the dispute shifts from "who is right" to "what shall we agree upon"\[13\].

### 6\. Second-Order Understanding

Finally, handling different viewpoints requires **Second-Order Understanding**: the ability to understand _someone else's understanding_\[14\].

• **Recursive Understanding:** This is qualitatively different from understanding a "thing." It requires recursively embedding another person's logic and values into your own, even if you disagree with them\[14\].

• **Design Semantics:** In design, this means realizing that a user's understanding of an artifact may be completely different from the designer's. Handling this requires a "semantic turn" where the designer accounts for the multiple, possibly incommensurable, worlds of the stakeholders\[15\]\[16\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Recent.pdf
> [2] Recent.pdf
> [3] Recent.pdf
> [4] Recent.pdf
> [5] Recent.pdf
> [6] Recent.pdf
> [7] Recent.pdf
> [8] Recent.pdf
> [9] Recent.pdf
> [10] Recent.pdf
> [11] Recent.pdf
> [12] Recent.pdf
> [13] Recent.pdf
> [14] Recent.pdf
> [15] Recent.pdf
> [16] Recent.pdf


FILE: 'Ross Ashby.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:23:21.176Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Ross Ashby on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Ross-Ashby
author: Ross Ashby
---
Based on the provided sources, the handling of different points of view between different observers is a central epistemological pillar of W. Ross Ashby's cybernetics. The framework resolves conflicts between viewpoints not by determining which is "objectively" true in an absolute sense, but by rigorously defining a "system" as relative to the observer's specific interests and powers of discrimination.

Here is how different points of view are handled:

### 1\. The Distinction Between "Object" and "System"

Ashby creates a fundamental distinction between the physical "object" (or machine) and the "system."

• **The Object has Infinity:** A material object (e.g., a pendulum, a brain) contains an infinite number of variables and possible characteristics (mass, temperature, color, conductivity, etc.). It is impossible to study the object in its totality\[1\]\[2\].

• **The System is a Selection:** A "system" is defined as a specific **list of variables** selected by the observer from the infinity available in the object\[3\]\[4\].

• **Handling Differences:** Therefore, two observers looking at the same material object are actually studying different _systems_ if they select different variables. Ashby uses the example of a sheep's brain: to a neurophysiologist, it is a system of immense complexity; to a butcher, it is a simple system distinguished from about thirty other "meats"\[5\]\[6\]. Both views are valid relative to their specific "generating question" or purpose\[7\]\[8\].

### 2\. The Relativity of Complexity and Variety

The quantitative properties of a system, such as its complexity and variety, are not intrinsic to the object but depend on the observer's discrimination.

• **Variety:** Variety is defined as the number of distinguishable elements or states. If Observer A can distinguish between two states that Observer B cannot (e.g., perceiving slight differences in color), Observer A will assign a higher variety to the system than Observer B\[9\].

• **Complexity:** Complexity is measured by the quantity of information required to describe the system. Because this depends on the level of detail the observer chooses to record, complexity is "something in the eye of the beholder"\[6\].

### 3\. Homomorphism: Resolving Different Levels of Detail

Ashby uses the mathematical concept of **homomorphism** to handle points of view that differ in resolution.

• **Simplification:** If Observer One distinguishes every state of a machine, and Observer Two lumps certain states together (unable to distinguish them), Observer Two is seeing a simplified, homomorphic version of the machine seen by Observer One\[10\]\[11\].

• **Consistency:** As long as the simplified view remains "machine-like" (state-determined), it is a valid scientific system. However, if the observer groups states inappropriately, the system may appear unpredictable (indeterministic) to them, while appearing determinate to the observer with finer discrimination\[12\]\[13\].

### 4\. Resolving Disputes over "Memory" vs. "State-Determination"

Ashby provides a specific method for resolving disputes where one observer claims a system has "memory" and another claims it does not.

• **The Scenario:** Suppose Observer A can see all variables in a system and sees that the current state determines the next state. Observer B can only see a few variables. Because B cannot see the internal mechanism determining the behavior, B observes that the system reacts differently to the same visible input at different times\[14\]\[15\].

• **The Resolution:** To predict the system's behavior, Observer B must appeal to the system's past history (e.g., "it reacts this way because it was stimulated 10 minutes ago"). Observer B invokes the concept of "memory."

• **Conclusion:** Ashby argues we need not take sides. "Memory" is not an objective property of the object; it is a relation between the system and the observer. It is a concept invoked to fill the gap when an observer cannot see all the relevant variables\[16\].

### 5\. The Relativity of "Good" Organization

Evaluations of a system's quality are also treated as relative to the observer's goals.

• **Goal Dependence:** There is no such thing as a "good" organization in an absolute sense. An organization is "good" only in relation to a specific set of disturbances and a specific "focal condition" (goal) defined by the observer\[19\]\[20\].

• **Bad vs. Good:** A behavior that is fatal (bad) in one environment might be adaptive (good) in another. Thus, assertions about the value of a system's design must always specify the context and the observer's criteria\[21\]\[22\].

### 6\. Second-Order Cybernetics

Later interpretations of Ashby's work (specifically by Heinz von Foerster and Glanville) expand this into **Second-Order Cybernetics**, which explicitly includes the observer within the domain of science. In this view, concepts like "controller" and "controlled" are observer-dependent and interchangeable distinctions\[23\]. The focus shifts from the system itself to the "observer's digest" of the system\[24\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [2] [Book] Ashby - An Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [3] Ashbys general theory of adaptive systems.pdf
> [4] [Book] Ashby - Design for a Brain The origin of adaptive behaviour.pdf
> [5] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [6] Klir - Ashby Foreword.pdf
> [7] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [8] Ashby-Mechanisms_of_intelligence_ocr.pdf
> [9] the great ashby - casti.pdf
> [10] [Book] Ashby - An Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [11] [Book] Ashby - Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [12] [Book] Ashby - An Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [13] [Book] Ashby - Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [14] [Book] Ashby - An Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [15] [Book] Ashby - Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [16] [Book] Ashby - An Introduction to Cybernetics.pdf
> [19] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [20] Ashby-Mechanisms_of_intelligence_ocr.pdf
> [21] Ashby Mechanisms.pdf
> [22] Ashby-Mechanisms_of_intelligence_ocr.pdf
> [23] Transcomputability - ashby and epistemic processes.pdf
> [24] ashby ross .pdf


FILE: 'Russ Ackoff.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:18:52.078Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Russ Ackoff on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
author: Russ Ackoff
---
Based on the provided texts, dealing with different points of view is central to systems thinking and interactive planning. Ackoff and his colleagues argue that "objectivity" is not the absence of value-judgments, but rather the social product of interacting subjective viewpoints\[1\]. Therefore, handling different perspectives is not just about conflict management; it is necessary for understanding the whole system\[2\],\[3\].

The sources detail several specific mechanisms and methodologies for handling differing viewpoints:

### 1\. The Debate and Consensus Method (Rapoport’s Approach)

When two parties hold opposing views, Ackoff advocates a specific procedure (adapted from Anatol Rapoport) to move from "fights" (eliminating the opponent) to "debates" (convincing the opponent)\[4\]. This process dissolves conflict by converting differences of opinion into questions of fact\[5\].

• **Step 1: Mirroring.** Each participant must listen to the other and then formulate the opponent's position in a way that the opponent accepts as accurate. If the formulation is rejected, the discussion continues until the opponent accepts the restatement\[6\],\[7\]. This ensures understanding before critique.

• **Step 2: Conditional Validity.** Once a position is understood, the opponent must state the specific factual or moral conditions under which they believe the other’s position would be valid\[8\],\[9\]. For example, in a disagreement over capital punishment, an opponent might say, "I believe capital punishment would be justified _if_ it prevented more capital crimes than there were executions produced by it"\[9\].

• **Step 3: Verification.** The debate then shifts to determining how to verify those conditions (e.g., collecting data to see if the "if" condition is true)\[10\],\[11\]. If the parties cannot agree on how to verify the facts, the disagreement over _verification methods_ becomes the new subject of the debate, starting back at Step 1\[12\].

• **Step 4: The Regret Matrix.** If facts cannot settle the issue, the parties create a matrix to compare the "seriousness of error." They analyze the consequences of being wrong in accepting position A versus the consequences of being wrong in accepting position B\[13\],\[14\]. If they agree on which error is more serious, they select the course of action associated with the lesser risk\[14\].

### 2\. Idealized Design: Focusing on Ends, Not Means

In organizational settings, differences of view often arise regarding the _means_ (how to do things). Ackoff observes that people disagree far less on _ideals_ and _ultimate values_ (ends) than they do on short-term goals or means\[15\],\[16\].

• **Generating Consensus:** By engaging stakeholders in "Idealized Design"—asking them to design the system they would have _right now_ if they could have whatever they wanted—consensus tends to emerge\[17\],\[18\].

• **Dissolving Conflict:** Recognizing common ultimate objectives often converts conflicts over means into technical questions about efficiency, which are easier to resolve than value conflicts\[19\].

• **The "Clean Slate" Effect:** Designing from scratch allows participants to drop the baggage of current feuds. In one example, executives who frequently disagreed were amazed to find that their separately prepared idealized designs were nearly identical\[20\],\[21\].

### 3\. The "Chairman’s Fallback" for Deadlocks

In the rare cases where a design team cannot reach consensus and a test cannot be designed to resolve the factual dispute, a specific leadership intervention is recommended:

1\. The leader (or chairman) asks each side to summarize their position briefly\[22\],\[23\].

2\. The leader states exactly what decision _he/she_ will make if the group fails to reach agreement\[22\],\[24\].

3\. The leader sends the group back to discuss. Usually, the dissenting parties realize they prefer _any_ agreement they generate themselves over the leader's threatened decision, forcing them to find a compromise or consensus\[24\].

### 4\. Harnessing Conflict: Dialectics and Countermeasures

Sometimes, different points of view are deliberately engineered to generate better solutions:

• **Dialectics:** When there is no objective basis for a choice, two teams are formed to develop the strongest possible arguments for opposing positions (Thesis and Antithesis). Decision makers listen to the debate to form a Synthesis, which is often a new, better alternative\[25\],\[26\].

• **Countermeasures:** To avoid "groupthink," a team may be assigned to play the "enemy" or competitor. They are given full knowledge of the organization's plan and tasked with finding ways to defeat it. This forces the original planners to view their plan from a hostile observer's perspective and improve it\[27\],\[28\],\[29\].

### 5\. Multidisciplinary Integration

Ackoff emphasizes that "disciplines" (like economics, psychology, engineering) are not parts of reality, but different "filing systems" or points of view for looking at the same reality\[30\],\[31\].

• **The Elephant Analogy:** A problem is like the elephant viewed by blind men; an economist sees an economic problem, an architect sees a design problem, etc.\[3\],\[32\].

• **Synthesis:** To handle these different disciplinary views, one must not assign parts of a problem to different disciplines (multidisciplinary). Instead, representatives of different disciplines must work together on the _whole_ problem (interdisciplinary) to synthesize a solution that no single discipline could generate\[33\],\[34\].

### 6\. Participation and Stakeholder Inclusion

Finally, different points of view are handled by ensuring they are present in the room. "Expertise" is often a barrier to seeing the whole system; therefore, participation must include all stakeholders, regardless of status\[35\],\[36\].

• **Example:** In redesigning a hospital system, doctors, nurses, and patients were included. In a manufacturing context, janitors and machine operators engaged in design together, discovering that each had ignored critical aspects of the other's reality\[37\],\[38\].

• **Validity:** The view of the "consumer" of a system is often more valid than that of the "expert" designer because the consumer understands the system's function (what it is for), whereas the expert often focuses only on its structure (how it works)\[39\],\[40\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Ackoff - Differences that make a difference.pdf
> [2] [Book] Ackoff - Differences that make a difference.pdf
> [3] [Book] Ackoff,Rovin - 2005 - Beating the system - Berrett-Koehler.pdf
> [4] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [5] [Book] Ackoff - Redesigning the Future a Systems Approach to Societal Problems.pdf
> [6] [Book] Ackoff - 1978 - The art of problem solving - Wiley.pdf
> [7] [Book] Ackoff - Redesigning the Future a Systems Approach to Societal Problems.pdf
> [8] [Book] Ackoff - 1978 - The art of problem solving - Wiley.pdf
> [9] [Book] Ackoff - Redesigning the Future a Systems Approach to Societal Problems.pdf
> [10] [Book] Ackoff - 1978 - The art of problem solving - Wiley.pdf
> [11] [Book] Ackoff - The Art of Problem Solving.pdf
> [12] [Book] Ackoff - Redesigning the Future a Systems Approach to Societal Problems.pdf
> [13] [Book] Ackoff - 1978 - The art of problem solving - Wiley.pdf
> [14] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [15] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf
> [16] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [17] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf
> [18] [Book] Ackoff - The Art of Problem Solving.pdf
> [19] [Book] Ackoff - 1978 - The art of problem solving - Wiley.pdf
> [20] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf
> [21] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [22] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [23] [Book] Ackoff et al - 2006 - Idealized design - Wharton School Pub.pdf
> [24] [Book] Ackoff et al - 2006 - Idealized design - Wharton School Pub.pdf
> [25] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [26] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [27] [Book] Ackoff - 1978 - The art of problem solving - Wiley.pdf
> [28] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf
> [29] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [30] [Book] Ackoff - On Purposeful Systems An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Individual and Social Behavior as a System of Purposeful Events.pdf
> [31] [Book] Ackoff - Redesigning the Future a Systems Approach to Societal Problems.pdf
> [32] [Book] Ackoff,Rovin - 2005 - Beating the system - Berrett-Koehler.pdf
> [33] [Book] Ackoff - The Art of Problem Solving.pdf
> [34] [Book] Ackoff,Pourdehnad - 2010 - Differences that make a difference - Triarchy Press.pdf
> [35] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf
> [36] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf
> [37] [Book] Ackoff - 1981 - Creating the corporate future - Wiley.pdf
> [38] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [39] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf
> [40] [Book] Ackoff - 1999 - Re-creating the corporation - Oxford University press.pdf


FILE: 'Stafford Beer.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:17:35.505Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Stafford Beer on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Stafford-Beer
author: Stafford Beer
---
Based on the provided texts, Stafford Beer’s cybernetics handles different points of view between observers by treating them not as conflicts of fact regarding an objective reality, but as interactions between subjective **models** that must be managed through specific structural and linguistic mechanisms.

Here is how these differences are handled according to the sources:

### 1\. Recognizing Subjectivity and Model-Dependence

The foundation of handling different viewpoints is the axiom that **all systems are subjective**.

• **The Observer Defines the System:** A system is not an objective entity given in nature; it is recognized subjectively by an observer based on their specific purpose\[1\],\[2\]. Therefore, two people looking at the same situation may define the system differently, leading to unresolvable disagreements unless they agree on the "convention" of what the system is\[3\],\[4\].

• **Mental Models:** Observers do not perceive "reality" directly; they construct mental models based on their own sensory limitations, history, and cultural programming\[5\],\[6\],\[7\]. Disagreements often arise because one observer’s model has "low variety" (is too simple) compared to another’s, or because they are filtering different information\[8\],\[9\].

• **The Truth Spectacles:** Beer uses an allegory of "Truth Spectacles" to explain that we view the world through filters (e.g., rose-tinted glasses) that simplify complexity. Different observers wearing different "spectacles" (models) will see different truths, neither of which is the absolute truth\[10\].

### 2\. Using Metalanguage to Resolve Undecidability

When two viewpoints or logical systems conflict in a way that cannot be resolved within their own language (a situation logicians call **undecidability**), a higher-order language is required.

• **Metalanguage:** A metalanguage is a language of a higher logic "over and beyond" the current one, capable of discussing propositions that are undecidable in the lower language\[11\],\[12\].

• **The Metasystem:** To resolve the conflict, the observers must move to a **metasystem**—a system logically superior to the conflicting systems (though not necessarily more authoritative in rank)\[13\]. The metasystem uses a metalanguage to reframe the conflict, allowing the "undecidable" propositions to be resolved\[14\],\[15\].

• **Example:** In a labor dispute where "management logic" and "union logic" lead to a deadlock (where any "win" is a "loss" for the firm's survival), a solution requires a metalanguage (like Game Theory or a new shared ethos) to resolve the paradox\[16\],\[17\].

### 3\. Structural Mechanisms in the Viable System Model (VSM)

In organizational contexts, the VSM provides specific structures to handle conflicting viewpoints between different functional parts of an organization.

• **System 2 (Anti-Oscillatory):** When operational units (System 1) have conflicting demands (e.g., fighting over resources or schedules), System 2 exists specifically to damp these oscillations and coordinate activity without needing a command from the top\[18\],\[19\],\[20\].

• **System 3 vs. System 4:** The VSM explicitly recognizes the conflict between the viewpoint of the "inside and now" (System 3, operations/stability) and the "outside and future" (System 4, development/change)\[21\]. These viewpoints are supposed to be in a state of homeostatic tension, continuously balancing each other\[22\].

• **System 5 (Closure and Identity):** When the debate between System 3 and System 4 cannot be resolved (i.e., the variety is not absorbed), System 5 monitors the interaction and provides "closure" by asserting the ultimate identity or ethos of the organization\[23\],\[24\],\[25\].

### 4\. Team Syntegrity: Non-Hierarchical Integration

For groups of people (Infosets) trying to integrate diverse viewpoints without a boss, Beer developed **Team Syntegrity**.

• **Geometry of Interaction:** This protocol uses the structure of an icosahedron (a 30-sided solid) to organize 30 people. Each person plays a role as a member of a team and a "critic" of other teams\[26\],\[27\].

• **Reverberation:** The protocol ensures that ideas "reverberate" around the structure. Viewpoints are shared and critiqued across the network until the group reaches a "syntegrated" (synergistic and integrated) outcome, effectively merging subjective viewpoints into a group consciousness\[28\],\[29\].

• **The Role of Critics:** To handle opposing views, the structure forces interaction between "polar opposites" and ensures that every team has "critics" who provide tension and feedback, preventing any single viewpoint from dominating without scrutiny\[30\],\[31\].

### 5\. Variety Engineering

Finally, handling different viewpoints is a matter of matching **variety** (a measure of complexity/possible states).

• **Transduction:** Communication between observers fails if the "channel capacity" is too low to carry the variety of the message, or if the receiver cannot "transduce" (translate) the message into their own model\[32\],\[33\].

• **Algedonic Signals:** If a viewpoint contains urgent, survival-critical information (like "pain" or "pleasure"), it must bypass standard filters. Algedonic channels allow a low-variety signal (e.g., a cry for help) to cut through the hierarchy to the metasystem, overriding normal disagreements\[34\],\[35\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Beer - On the Nature of Models - Let us now praise famous men and women too.pdf
> [2] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf
> [3] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [4] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [5] Beer - On the Nature of Models - Let us now praise famous men and women too.pdf
> [6] Beer 1997 - The Culpabliss Error.pdf
> [7] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf
> [8] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [9] [Book] Beer,Whittaker - 2009 - Think before you think - Wavestone Press.pdf
> [10] [Book] Beer,Whittaker - 2009 - Think before you think - Wavestone Press.pdf
> [11] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf
> [12] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Platform for change - J. Wiley.pdf
> [13] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf
> [14] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Platform for change - J. Wiley.pdf
> [15] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Platform for change - J. Wiley.pdf
> [16] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - Decision and control - J. Wiley.pdf
> [17] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - Decision and control - J. Wiley.pdf
> [18] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf
> [19] [Book] Beer - 1985 - Diagnosing the system for organizations - Wiley.pdf
> [20] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [21] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [22] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [23] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf
> [24] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [25] [Book] Davies - The Unaccountability Machine Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions - and How The World Lost its Mind.pdf
> [26] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [27] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [28] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [29] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [30] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [31] [Book] Beer - 1994 - Beyond dispute - Wiley.pdf
> [32] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf
> [33] [Book] Davies - The Unaccountability Machine Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions - and How The World Lost its Mind.pdf
> [34] [Book] Beer - 1981 - Brain of the firm - J. Wiley.pdf
> [35] [Book] Beer,Beer - 1994 - The heart of enterprise - John Wiley & Sons.pdf


FILE: 'TOC.md'
---
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - TOC
title: TOC on 💬Perspectives
author: TOC
---
> [!question] How are different points of view between different observers handled?
> 

```dataview
LIST
WHERE file.folder = this.file.folder
AND file.name != this.file.name
SORT file.name ASC
```

- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Colin Eden]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Dave Snowden]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Dee Hock]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Fred Emery]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/George Lakoff]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Gregory Bateson]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Horst Rittel]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Hylton Boothroyd]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Ian Mitroff]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/James Wilk]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/John Warfield]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/MC Jackson]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Niklas Luhmann]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Paul Cilliers]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Peter Checkland]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Reg Revans]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Relational Biologists]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Robert Pirsig]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Russ Ackoff]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Stafford Beer]]
- [[Mastering_The_Muddle/💬QSets/💬Perspectives/Tim Allen]]


FILE: 'TOG.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:24:17.157Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: TOG on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - TOG
author: TOG
---
Based on the provided correspondence and themes, the group approaches the concept of "points of view" not as a soft skill of building consensus, but as a rigorous structural component of their **Risk-Based Framework**. They reject the idea that a single "correct" view of a system exists, arguing instead that complexity itself is an **"observer phenomenon"**\[1\].

Here is how different points of view between observers are handled within their approach:

### **1\. Complexity as Observer-Dependent**

The group posits that systems do not have inherent boundaries defined by nature; rather, **"boundaries and perspectives are dependent on the observer"**\[2\]. Therefore, a system is defined by how an observer frames it based on their specific utility and risk appetite.

• **The "Fish in Water" Problem:** They argue that observers embedded in a system often fail to treat their environment as a variable (the "water") because they are immersed in it. Handling different views requires stepping out of this immersion to recognize constraints that insiders ignore\[3\].

### **2\. The Linstone & Mitroff Overlay**

To handle the reality that stakeholders often hold irrational or fixed views, the group integrates the work of **Linstone and Mitroff** (referenced as Lindstone in the text) with their "Italian Flag" risk model\[4\]\[5\].

• **The Challenge:** The "Italian Flag" model assumes a rational assessment of evidence (Green/Red/White). However, Linstone and Mitroff’s research indicates that some individuals adopt a specific worldview **"irrespective of the context"**\[6\]\[7\].

• **The Three Perspectives:** They categorize views into three types: **Technical**, **Organizational**, and **Personal**\[4\]\[8\].

• **Handling Entrenched Views:** If an observer holds a fixed worldview that ignores reality (e.g., a "Director of Operational Signalling" who refuses to acknowledge digital technology because he only understands analogue), the framework suggests you cannot simply "pause and rethink." The solution may be to **remove the person** or **"plant a new acorn"** (build a parallel system) rather than trying to adapt the unadaptable\[6\]\[9\].

### **3\. Varying the "White Space" of Uncertainty**

A key method for handling different points of view is evaluating them based on how they affect the **"White Space"** (the gap of uncertainty or entropy) in the Italian Flag model.

• **Perspective Efficiency:** Different perspectives result in different "widths of white space" for the same problem. Starting with the "wrong" perspective leaves a large gap of uncertainty. Adopting a better perspective reduces this gap, moving the problem closer to **Green** (value)\[10\].

• **Reframing:** For example, viewing Royal Mail through the perspective of "delivering letters" results in a Red (failed) model. Shifting the observer perspective to "delivering parcels" (like Amazon) changes the viability of the operation, moving it from Red/White toward Green\[8\].

### **4\. Epistemic vs. Ontological Axes**

Roger James proposes mapping these views on two axes to reach **"closure"** (a settled decision):

• **Vertical Axis (Epistemic):** The multiplicity of views/perspectives.

• **Horizontal Axis (Ontological):** The evidence/reality.

• **The Goal:** The objective is not to satisfy every viewpoint (which leads to paralysis), but to "move up" the axis by integrating enough perspectives to improve understanding, while using evidence to ground those views. This moves the group toward a decision that is **"better or worse than before"** rather than perfect\[11\]\[12\].

### **5\. Preserving Distinct Voices (Non-convergence)**

Crucially, the group advises **against** merging perspectives simply for the sake of agreement.

• **Avoid Collapsing Perspectives:** They note that "agreeing with Geoff" or persuading him effectively **"collapses the perspective."** The goal is to maintain distinct views to reveal aspects of the situation that others have missed\[13\]\[14\].

• **Trade-offs:** Handling different views is ultimately about **trade-offs**, not universal satisfaction. Decisions are "go/no-go" points based on value, not consensus\[15\].

### **6\. Experiential Filters ("Deep Smarts")**

Finally, the handling of views is filtered through **"Deep Smarts"** (experiential knowledge).

• **Knowing What to Ignore:** A master practitioner handles multiple viewpoints by knowing which ones to ignore to reduce variability\[13\].

• **The Indelible Bias:** The group acknowledges that one "can never escape your own background," and therefore, all Systems Thinking is biased by the practitioner's formative experiences\[16\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Hull Themes.pdf
> [2] The Other Group - Whatsapp.pdf
> [3] The Other Group.pdf
> [4] The Other Group.pdf
> [5] The Other Group.pdf
> [6] The Other Group.pdf
> [7] The Other Group.pdf
> [8] The Other Group.pdf
> [9] The Other Group.pdf
> [10] The Other Group.pdf
> [11] The Other Group.pdf
> [12] The Other Group.pdf
> [13] Hull Themes.pdf
> [14] Hull Themes.pdf
> [15] The Other Group.pdf
> [16] Hull Themes.pdf


FILE: 'Theory of Constraints.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:23:53.684Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Theory of Constraints on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Theory-of-Constraints
author: Theory of Constraints
---
Based on the provided sources, H. William Dettmer’s methodology handles different points of view by treating them not as opposing opinions to be argued, but as **distinct perceptions of reality** that must be integrated to form a complete picture of the system.

The approach utilizes rigorous logic rules and specific group dynamics to depersonalize disagreement and convert subjective perceptions into objective causality. Here is how different viewpoints are handled:

### 1\. The "Whole Elephant" Approach (Consensus)

Dettmer argues that every individual sees the world through "uniquely colored glasses," meaning one person's perception frequently diverges from another's. However, plurality does not establish validity\[1\].

• **The Elephant Analogy:** Dettmer uses the story of the blind men and the elephant to explain how different viewpoints are handled. Individually, observers (functional experts) have accurate but "suboptimal" impressions. By combining these diverse perspectives, the group creates a "richer" and accurate picture of the "whole elephant" (the system)\[2\].

• **Shared Reality:** The goal of constructing a **Current Reality Tree (CRT)** in a group is to integrate these views so that everyone agrees, "Yes, that is an accurate picture of what is happening"\[3\].

### 2\. Handling Disagreement via the Categories of Legitimate Reservation (CLR)

To manage differing viewpoints during the construction or review of a logic tree, Dettmer insists on using a specific set of logic rules called the **Categories of Legitimate Reservation (CLR)**. These rules provide a protocol for communicating disagreement without generating animosity\[4\]\[5\].

• **Depersonalization:** The CLR focuses the disagreement on the _logic_ rather than the _person_. Instead of saying "You are wrong," an observer says, "I have a reservation about the causality"\[6\].

• **The Protocol:** The rules dictate a specific sequence for handling a different point of view:

    1. **Clarity:** "Seek to understand before seeking to be understood." The observer must first ensure they understand the presenter's meaning\[7\]\[8\].    2. **Validity/Existence:** The observer questions if the statement actually exists in reality\[9\].    3. **Causality:** The observer questions if the proposed cause actually leads to the effect\[10\].    4. **Sufficiency:** The observer suggests that the cause is insufficient on its own and needs other factors (perhaps factors the observer sees but the presenter missed) to produce the effect\[11\].
### 3\. Resolving Conflict via the Evaporating Cloud

When different observers have diametrically opposing views on what should be done (e.g., "We must change X" vs. "We must not change X"), this is treated as a **conflict** to be resolved using the **Evaporating Cloud (Conflict Resolution Diagram)**\[12\]\[13\].

• **Assumptions are Key:** The methodology assumes that conflicts exist because the observers hold different underlying **assumptions** about reality\[14\].

• **Win-Win:** Rather than compromising (where both observers lose), the group identifies the invalid assumption holding the conflict in place. This allows them to create a "win-win" solution that satisfies the necessary conditions of _both_ observers\[15\]\[16\].

### 4\. Roles in Group Dynamics

To manage differing views effectively, Dettmer suggests assigning specific roles during the logical process\[17\]\[18\]:

• **The Presenter:** Walks the group through the logic\[17\].

• **The Scrutinizer:** Acts as the "devil's advocate." Dettmer suggests getting "your worst enemy" to fill this role because they will not hesitate to point out weaknesses in the logic. This helps find "blind spots" the creator missed\[19\]\[20\].

• **The Facilitator:** Acts as the "logic traffic cop." They do not discuss the content; they only ensure that the observers and presenters follow the logic rules (CLR) and do not attack each other personally\[21\]\[22\].

### 5\. Subjectivity in "Undesirable Effects" (UDEs)

Dettmer notes that what is "undesirable" is subjective; a negative effect for one observer might be neutral for another\[23\].

• **System Standards:** To handle this, the group must first agree on the **Intermediate Objectives (IO) Map**, which sets the standard for the system's Goal and Critical Success Factors. An effect is only "undesirable" if it violates these agreed-upon system standards, regardless of an individual observer's personal annoyance\[24\].

• **The "So What?" Test:** If an observer claims something is a problem, they are asked "So what?" until they can link their complaint to a violation of the system's goal\[25\].

### 6\. Mass Collection of Viewpoints (Crawford Slip Method)

When handling the viewpoints of a large number of observers (e.g., an entire department), Dettmer advocates for the **Crawford Slip Method**.

• **Anonymity:** Participants write their views (problems, causes, ideas) on slips of paper anonymously. This prevents strong personalities from dominating the group and allows unpopular but valid viewpoints to be captured\[26\]\[27\].

• **Parallel Processing:** This allows the capture of hundreds of distinct viewpoints in a matter of minutes, which are then sorted and synthesized into a single logic tree\[27\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [2] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [3] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [4] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [5] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [6] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [7] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [8] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [9] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [10] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [11] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [12] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [13] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [14] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [15] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [16] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [17] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [18] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [19] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [20] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [21] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [22] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [23] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [24] [Book] Dettmer - The logical thinking process  a systems approach to complex problem solving.pdf
> [25] [Book] Dettmer - 1997 - Goldratt's theory of constraints - ASQC Quality Press.pdf
> [26] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf
> [27] [Book] Dettmer - Strategic Navigation A Systems Approach to Business Strategy.pdf


FILE: 'Tim Allen.md'
---
exported: '2026-01-30T10:24:17.347Z'
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Tim Allen on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Tim-Allen
author: Tim Allen
---
Based on the provided sources, different points of view between observers are handled by recognizing that observation is an active process of decision-making, not a passive reception of reality. Differences are resolved or managed through the use of **narratives**, **hierarchical sorting of scales**, **complementarity**, and specific methodologies like **CATWOE** to negotiate shared meaning.

**1\. The Observer's Role and Pre-Analytical Choices**The foundation for handling different viewpoints is the acknowledgment that complexity is not a material property of the world, but a consequence of how an observer chooses to interact with it\[1\]\[2\]. Different observers make different "pre-analytical" choices regarding what is significant, creating different "identities" for the system they study\[3\]\[4\].

• **Observer Decisions:** Observation involves a sequence of decisions: posing a question, defining entities, choosing measurements, noticing phenomena, and evaluating models\[5\]. Conflicts often arise because these decisions remain implicit; making them explicit reveals that observers are often simply asking different questions or using different protocols\[6\].

• **The "Other":** Observers must distinguish between their decisions (the "Self" or "Observer") and the material dynamics that exist beyond their control (the "Other")\[7\]\[8\]. Different points of view often arise because observers apply different "rules" (definitions) to the same underlying "laws" (dynamics)\[9\]\[10\].

**2\. Narrative as the Unifying Device**Because formal models require internal consistency, they cannot easily accommodate contradictory viewpoints. **Narratives** are the primary tool used to bridge these gaps\[11\]\[12\].

• **Handling Contradiction:** Unlike models, narratives do not need to be internally consistent. They can stably juxtapose contradictory identities—such as one observer viewing a person as a "terrorist" and another viewing them as a "freedom fighter"—within a single story\[12\]\[13\].

• **Commensurate Experience:** The goal of science and management is not necessarily to find a singular objective truth, but to achieve "commensurate experience" where independent observers agree on a shared story\[14\]\[15\]. Narratives facilitate this by negotiating a consensus among stakeholders who hold different models\[16\].

• **Meta-Modeling:** A narrative acts as a "meta-model" that holds together various formal models and analogies, allowing observers to move between different partial representations of a complex system\[17\].

**3\. Hierarchical Sorting: Scale and Logical Type**Disagreements often occur because observers are looking at the same system but at different **scales** or **levels of analysis**. Hierarchy theory resolves these conflicts by sorting them:

• **Scale Mismatches:** If two observers disagree, it may be because one is looking at a fine grain (detail) and the other at a coarse grain (large extent)\[18\]. For example, in color vision theories, one theory was correct at the level of retinal receptors (fine grain), while a contradictory theory was correct at the level of neural processing (coarse grain); acknowledging the different levels resolved the conflict\[19\].

• **Logical Typing:** Confusion often stems from "semantic arguments" where observers use the same word to mean different logical types\[20\]. For example, "competition" in ecology can mean active interference or passive resource consumption; determining the specific level of interaction resolves the dispute\[21\].

• **The "Landscape" Criterion:** Conflicts regarding what constitutes a "landscape" or "community" are resolved by distinguishing between "levels of organization" (definitional types like "organism") and "levels of observation" (physical spatiotemporal scales)\[22\]\[23\].

**4\. Complementarity**When different viewpoints are valid but mutually exclusive (e.g., wave vs. particle in physics), they are handled through **complementarity**\[24\]\[25\].

• **Dual Description:** Complex systems often require two distinct modes of description: a dynamic description (rate-dependent laws) and a linguistic/structural description (rate-independent rules)\[26\]. These descriptions are formally incompatible but both are necessary to capture the phenomenon\[27\].

• **Avoiding Reduction:** Instead of forcing a unified model that would create errors, observers accept that separate, contradictory models must be used in parallel\[28\].

**5\. Practical Methodologies (CATWOE and Soft Systems)**In management and social systems, specific protocols are used to make observer biases explicit and negotiate solutions:

• **Soft Systems Methodology (SSM):** This approach assumes that problems are "messes" of conflicting interests and requires generating multiple points of view\[29\].

• **CATWOE:** This acronym is used to define the system from a specific stakeholder's perspective: **C**ustomers, **A**ctors, **T**ransformation, **W**orldview, **O**wners, and **E**nvironment\[30\]. By having different groups (e.g., ecologists, industrialists, indigenous groups) write their own CATWOE definitions, disparate groups can understand the specific biases and worldviews of others\[31\]\[32\].

• **Overlap of Essences:** In disputes (e.g., salmon fisheries), different experts possess different "essences" or contexts for their models. Facilitation involves identifying the small area of overlap between these essences to "seed" a new, shared narrative that all parties can accept\[16\]\[33\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Allen - introduction Complex Ecology.pdf
> [2] Allen 2006 - The nature of ecological complexity.pdf
> [3] Allen 2006 - The Epistemological predicament associated with purposive qunatitative analysis.pdf
> [4] Allen 2006 - The Epistemological predicament associated with purposive qunatitative analysis.pdf
> [5] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy Theory.pdf
> [6] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy Theory.pdf
> [7] Allen 2006 - The nature of ecological complexity.pdf
> [8] Allen 2006 - The nature of ecological complexity.pdf
> [9] Allen 2006 - The nature of ecological complexity.pdf
> [10] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [11] Allen - The loss of narrative - paradigms models mechanisms and analogy.pdf
> [12] Allen 2014 - Holons creaons genon environs in hoerarchy theory where we have gone.pdf
> [13] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [14] Allen - Narratives and transdisciplines for a post-industrial world.pdf
> [15] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [16] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [17] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [18] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy perspectives for ecological complexity.pdf
> [19] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy Theory.pdf
> [20] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy Theory.pdf
> [21] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy Theory.pdf
> [22] Allen The Landscape Levels id Dead.pdf
> [23] Allen The Landscape Levels id Dead.pdf
> [24] Allen - The loss of narrative - paradigms models mechanisms and analogy.pdf
> [25] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy perspectives for ecological complexity.pdf
> [26] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy perspectives for ecological complexity.pdf
> [27] [Book] Allen - Hierarchy Theory.pdf
> [28] Allen - The loss of narrative - paradigms models mechanisms and analogy.pdf
> [29] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [30] Allen 2004 - Type Scale and Adative Narrative - Keeping Models of Salmon Taxicology and Risk Alive to the World.pdf
> [31] Allen 2004 - Type Scale and Adative Narrative - Keeping Models of Salmon Taxicology and Risk Alive to the World.pdf
> [32] [Book] Allen - Toward a Unified Ecology.pdf
> [33] Allen 2014 - Holons creaons genon environs in hoerarchy theory where we have gone.pdf


FILE: 'Triz.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:34:33.530Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Triz on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Triz
author: Triz
---
In the context of the provided sources, different points of view between observers are handled through rigorous **mathematical objectification**, **multi-perspective systemic analysis**, and **invariant physical laws**. The goal is to move from subjective, biased perceptions to objective, calculable truths.

Here is how different viewpoints are handled across the various methodologies described:

### 1\. Ensuring Invariance through the LT-System (Physics)

In the physical sciences and the Bartini LT-system, different points of view (different reference frames or coordinate systems) are handled by the principle of **Invariance**.

• **Tensor Calculus:** To describe physical phenomena (like inertia or stress) that might appear differently in different coordinate systems, the system uses **tensors**. Tensors ensure that if the coordinates of a vector are known in one system (one observer's view), they can be accurately determined in any other system\[1\].

• **The Criterion of Invariance:** A core criterion of scientificity in this framework is that physical quantities must remain **invariant** regardless of the coordinate system in which the event takes place\[2\]. The interconnectedness of physical quantities (e.g., the relationship between Mass and Energy) does not depend on the system in which they are presented\[3\].

### 2\. Eliminating Subjectivity in Problem Solving (Inventology)

In the domain of invention, different observers often reach different solutions due to **subjectivity** and **psychological inertia**. The sources propose handling this by converting "verbal-logical" problems into "mathematical-physical" models.

• **Objectification via LT-Matrix:** Standard Triz is considered heuristic and logical-descriptive, which allows the "subjectivity of the innovator" to influence the result—meaning two different people might solve the same problem differently\[4\],\[5\]. By using the **LT-Contradiction Matrix**, the innovator moves from a "biased verbally-logical solution to an objective mathematical-physical solution"\[6\].

• **Mathematical Precision:** This approach aims to eliminate the bias of the observer by calculating the **relevant degree of contradictions** using tensor mathematics\[7\],\[2\]. This ensures that the "Ideal Final Solution" is defined with mathematical precision, independent of the author trying to define it\[5\].

### 3\. Expanding the "One-Screen" View (Systems Thinking)

To handle the limited perspective of an observer who uses "ordinary thinking" (viewing an object in isolation), Triz mandates a **Multi-screen Vision of System Evolution** (System Operator).

• **Overcoming Ordinary Thinking:** Ordinary thinking focuses on only one "screen"—the current system in the present\[8\].

• **The Nine-Screen Approach:** To properly handle the complexity of a system, the observer must engage their imagination to view the object through **nine distinct perspectives** (screens): the System, Super-system, and Sub-system, across the Past, Present, and Future\[9\],\[10\]. This forces the observer to reconcile the immediate view with the system's history, environment, and components\[11\].

### 4\. Aggregating Divergent Expert Opinions (Decision Making)

When multiple experts (observers) provide different evaluations of abstract concepts or effects, their differing points of view are handled using **Fuzzy Logic**.

• **Fuzzy Ordered Weighted Averaging (FOWA):** Since experts often provide opinion ranges rather than exact numbers, **triangular fuzzy numbers** are used to express these views\[12\].

• **Consensus Building:** Mathematical algorithms (like the FOWA operator) are applied to pairwise comparisons to aggregate these different expert opinions into a single, reliable ranking vector, thereby quantitatively handling the divergence in expert points of view\[12\],\[13\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] Rajic - Mathematical - Physical Model of Solving Inventive Problems.pdf
> [2] Rajic - Mathematical - Physical Model of Solving Inventive Problems.pdf
> [3] Innovative synergism as a result of Triz and LT - system synthesis.pdf
> [4] Rajic - LT Contradiction Matrix.pdf
> [5] Rajic - LT Contradiction Matrix.pdf
> [6] Innovative synergism as a result of Triz and LT - system synthesis.pdf
> [7] Rajic - Mathematical - Physical Model of Solving Inventive Problems.pdf
> [8] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [9] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [10] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [11] [Book] Bukhman - Technology for Innovation.pdf
> [12] Product Improvement Using Knowledge Mining and Effect Analogy.pdf
> [13] Product Improvement Using Knowledge Mining and Effect Analogy.pdf


FILE: 'Warren Weaver.md'
---
exported: 2026-02-07T21:24:43.283Z
source: NotebookLM
type: chat
title: Warren Weaver on 💬Perspectives
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Warren-Weaver
author: Warren Weaver
---
Based on the sources provided, the handling of different points of view between observers is a central theme in General Systems Thinking, Systemic Design, and Social Theory. The texts argue that there is no single "God’s eye" view of reality; instead, systems are defined by the perspective of the observer.

Here is a synthesis of how different points of view are understood and handled across these disciplines.

### 1\. The Relativity of the System

The fundamental premise is that a "system" is not a thing stored in the physical world, but a mental construct. As Weinberg notes, "A system is a way of looking at the world"\[1\],\[2\].

• **Observer Dependence:** What we see depends on our "scope" (what we include) and "resolution" (the detail we see)\[3\],\[4\].

• **The Fallacy of Objectivity:** The belief in a single, independent reality is described as "the ultimate egocentrism." If two observers see a scene differently (e.g., one sees an old woman, the other a young woman in an optical illusion), neither is "wrong"; they simply possess different points of view\[5\],\[6\].

### 2\. Mechanisms for Handling Differences

Since multiple viewpoints are inevitable, the sources propose several mechanisms for analyzing, reconciling, or leveraging them.

A. Mapping and Consistency (The Principle of Indifference)

To determine if two observers are consistent, we must strip away their specific labels/notations. This is the **Principle of Indifference**: "Laws should not depend on a particular choice of notation"\[7\],\[8\].

• **Translation:** We handle differences by creating a "mapping" between observers. If Observer A sees "cuckoo" every time Observer B sees "roadrunner," they are consistent, even if their resolution differs\[9\].

• **Dominance:** If Observer B can distinguish everything Observer A sees, plus more, Observer B "dominates" Observer A. However, usually, neither dominates; they just see different things\[10\],\[11\].

B. The "Superobserver" (A Theoretical Fiction)

To theoretically reconcile all possible viewpoints, Weinberg introduces the concept of the **Superobserver**.

• This hypothetical observer can discriminate every state that _any_ other observer can distinguish\[12\],\[13\].

• **Limitations:** The sources warn against believing we _are_ the superobserver. In complex systems, a superobserver is impossible due to the "square law of computation" (combinatorial growth of states). Therefore, we must accept that our view is always partial\[14\],\[15\].

C. Complementarity

When two viewpoints cannot be mapped onto one another and are mutually irreducible, they are **complementary**.

• **The Generalized Law of Complementarity:** "Any two points of view are complementary"\[16\],\[17\].

• **Example:** A physicist and an inventor looking at a "black box" (music box) will see different cycles and states. Neither is wrong; the physicist might see heat/light properties while the inventor sees musical patterns. To get a complete picture, one must accept both views rather than trying to force them into one\[18\],\[19\].

### 3\. Handling Differences in Design and Social Systems

In Systemic Design and social theory, handling different viewpoints shifts from a mathematical exercise to a social and practical one.

A. Social Creation and Negotiation

In design, different stakeholders live in different "object worlds" with different interests and languages.

• **Coherence over Synthesis:** Design is a social process of bringing these stories into coherence through negotiation, rather than a mathematical synthesis\[20\].

• **Discourse:** The primary tool for handling difference is **discourse** (running to and fro). It is not just exchanging information but creating a shared "frame" or context\[21\],\[22\].

• **Mediating Tensions:** The designer must mediate the "cognitive tension" between different views (e.g., top-down vs. bottom-up, interior vs. exterior) without extinguishing the creative energy that difference provides\[23\],\[24\].

B. The Value of "The Other"

Systemic design treats the difference between "self" and "other" as a resource for learning rather than a problem to be solved.

• **Penetrating Rationality:** One must assume the "other" (e.g., an adversary or a different culture) is rational within their own logic. Mirror-imaging (assuming they see what we see) is a fatal error\[25\].

• **Variety:** Following Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety, a design team seeks diverse viewpoints (difference) because a system with more variety is better at adapting to a complex environment\[26\],\[27\].

C. The Myth of Objectivity

Rahman argues that because subjective perspectives are distinct, humans socially construct a "Myth of Objectivity" to function together.

• **Alignment:** We declare belief in "objective" moral norms or "transcendental signifieds" (like God or Justice) to align our mental states and minimize the "surprise" of social interaction\[28\],\[29\].

• **Symbolic Identity:** By adhering to these shared symbols and myths, we create a "cultural common ground" that allows disparate observers to act as a coherent whole\[30\],\[31\].

### Summary

Different points of view are handled not by discovering which one is "true," but by:

1\. **Mapping** them to check for consistency\[9\].

2\. Acknowledging their **complementarity** when they cannot be reduced\[16\].

3\. Using **discourse** and **framing** to negotiate a shared social reality\[32\].

4\. Leveraging the **difference** between views to generate requisite variety and innovation\[26\].

---
> [!info]- References
> [1] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [2] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [3] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [4] Emergence is coupled to scope not level - Ryan.pdf
> [5] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [6] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [7] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [8] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [9] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [10] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [11] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [12] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [13] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [14] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [15] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [16] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [17] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [18] An Introduction to General Systems Thinking ( PDFDrive ).pdf
> [19] Weinberg - 1975 - An introduction to general systems thinking - Wiley(Book).pdf
> [20] [Book] Ryan - Art of Design Student Text.pdf
> [21] [Book] Ryan - Art of Design Student Text.pdf
> [22] [Book] Ryan - Art of Design Student Text.pdf
> [23] A Theory of Systemic Design - Ryan.pdf
> [24] Ryan - A Framework for Systemic Design.pdf
> [25] [Book] Ryan - Art of Design Student Text.pdf
> [26] [Book] Ryan - Art of Design Student Text.pdf
> [27] [Book] Ryan - Art of Design Student Text.pdf
> [28] Rahman - Myth of objectivity and the origin of symbols.pdf
> [29] Rahman - Myth of objectivity and the origin of symbols.pdf
> [30] Rahman - Myth of objectivity and the origin of symbols.pdf
> [31] Rahman - Myth of objectivity and the origin of symbols.pdf
> [32] Ryan - A Framework for Systemic Design.pdf


FILE: 'index.md'
---
aliases:
  - Summary
  - Perspectives Points of View
tags:
  - Perspectives
  - Summary
title: 💬Perspectives
author: index
linter-yaml-title-alias: Summary
---
This is a prompt which studies the consequence of the second-order thinking about the role of the observer. 

> [!question] Prompt
> How are different points of view between different observers handled?

# Summary

Systems thinking treats **conflicting viewpoints** not as errors to be corrected, but as vital data for understanding a **messy reality**. These sources explore how methodologies like **Soft Systems Methodology** and **Critical Systems Heuristics** move beyond forced consensus toward **accommodation**, allowing parties to coexist despite differing values. By utilizing **visual tools** and **dialectical debate**, practitioners surface hidden assumptions and power dynamics that shape individual perceptions. The collective texts argue that **objectivity** is impossible for a single observer and is instead found through the **interplay of multiple perspectives**. Ultimately, the goal is to foster **learning and synthesis**, shifting from rigid "either-or" arguments to a more robust **systemic wisdom**.


