Consolidate different feedback from Riel regarding purpose, messaging and contents of Video #1 and get sign off


August 14: Two choices of video concepts for video #1 sent to all stakeholders via email on August 14.

August 20: “The future is not a control room” selected by Riel, and commented here on August 20:

"There is a lot to discuss here - the ideas are rich and not all of the challenges are self-evident.  I want to flag something that only appears if we change the agency paradigm from one that is almost entirely focused on design and planning to one that reconsiders the position and role of agency to give more equal weight to emergence and spontaneity. The contrast might be best understood as follows: The

“edge” exists within a system and its peripheral and emergent character is what defines its edginess. But there is also the “edge” which is extra systemic, not on the edge because there is no center, new systems, with new centers and edges may or may not be emerging.  Such novelty is unknowable in advance and is very difficult to make sense of from within the existing system, even from the edge of existing systems. To me what getting beyond a control room means is that we become much more accepting and interested in the non-causal, non-narrative based sense making that is rooted in what we already know about center/periphery and adaptation - which must adapt from what exists.  The ideas is to crowd surf novel emergence, without knowing if it is center or periphery or has causal origin or direction or meaning. The control room tracks the planes, avoids collisions and plans take-offs. The control room changes when GPS allows all planes to track the other planes, and this is a unknowable and emergent change that comes in from the edge. To paradigm shift out of this view of agency - making better control rooms that integrate the edge - towards a combination of planning and improvisation requires a shift away from the current planning oriented pretensions of agency and a bias towards understanding new things as adaptations or ‘rational’ from the perspective of the old systems.  Things happen and we can dance with those phenomena in ways that were not dance in the past. This is being and not-being; doing and not-doing from the POV of discontinuity and non-continuous complex emergent novelty."

August 23: First edit of video #1 presented to Riel

password: controlroom

Feedback From Riel via email: “Getting there!  Need to both blow up the control room and affirm the non-narrative of emergence.  Not sure exactly how to visualise this but we could add elements like: showing a tree anticipating, an air traffic controller anticipating, a D-Day plan, a Manhattan Project timeline, the famous kennedy go to the moon - as a way to underscore our affinity - desire for this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy approach to the future, look at a copy of the the critical path planning schematics used to build the world trade center and then boom… cliché I know, but it is the proverbial bridge to nowhere.  I use images of bridges that just end, without being finished or after having collapsed – with the point – did the bridge builder know that it would simply be abandoned – or that the palace would be a museum, tourists walking on the pyramid, etc. – to reinforce the point that plans don’t reach expected ends, that intentions end up with unintended and that what actually happens is the kaleidoscopic mix of intentional, unintentional, serendipitous, and entirely novel – unknowable and unimaginable until it happened – Eureka!  The challenge – how to reconcile our thinking and expectations about how we use the future to the richness of complex emergent reality – to turn unknown into a friend.  To find ways to stop saying “I’m optimistic” or the future is “xyz” - such as children, to stop colonising tomorrow or feeling that we should. That not-doing, by embracing spontaneity might be the best way to make a difference, if the aim is to encourage diversification and the capacity to take advantage of novelty as the strategic approach to resilience beyond preservation.”

September 4 (google hangout):

“we cant change how we related to the world if we dont change how we use the future.”

"the need to put future explicility into what we do "

“im going to try to convince you that you will be able to do things differenty if you are able to read. E.g You wont be handicapped wrt other people. Or I can say its compulsory and have to do it for 12 years”

“Demand is not a problem with a knowlab. Problem is ownership and people don’t know what they are asking for.”

To discuss with production team:

How best way to incorporate Riel’s feedback into video #1?

Next step:

propose revised version of script (checked fo feasibility with team) for September 30

Thoughts from ongoing conversations…

Thoughts from ongoing conversation with others:

"words like “innovation” have been claimed by the KPMGs of this world and are now rendered meaningless.

Many of us feel that we live in systems that are beyond tinkering and change, and that we encounter things, people, phenomena, challenges at the edges where changes can and are being made. To transit this knowledge to the center and have the center listen would depend on the center's willingness to worry about whether it's making the right decisions for everyone else.
A representative system is only useful when those that represent have the ability to listen and learn. If it doesn't have that ability it becomes a self-serving power circle that is only nominally still democratic. Our ability to have democracy depends on learning from the edges and bridge the structural holes."


rationality and agency and change

Hiya - big subjects here, for now I think the focus is more task specific - let’s work on understanding the different dimensions of anticipation and knowledge creation - we’ll figure out what such understanding is “good for” as we go…

But one query, why is “edge” such a meaningful category when it comes to change? Perhaps we should figure out a way to explore this issue - not as part of this exercise.


Dicsussion re video #1 is space vs time axis

So far my understanding is that you have 2 goals for this short video

  1. Convincing “power” of need to listen and look beyond its current reading of reality

  2. Getting across that the future is something we use and that how we think about futures affects how/at what we look, what we ask and in turn what we see about the current.

That snippet is from a discussion about how we (realistically) can work with visuals to open up the dimension of the future as a contestable ground / projection / way of looking at the present. There is space axis (centre-edge) which is the one we originally had sign of on from you (first script). What you are asking us is to approach this from is time axis ( e.g. tree). To know which of the two we can do if we want to use content from knowlab meeting in Italy, we have to look at what material we have to work with (content of interviews). Transcript wiki will be complete with all 12 interviews on Monday.

finding the focus and keeping it

Hey folks

Sorry we have not been able to talk!!  This is really necessary.  So let’s find a window!

I think the goals are fairly clear by now: “Think about it - you use the future all the time, to do all kinds of things, like decide what to pay attention to - for a job, when crossing the street, or taking an umbrella. But if you use the future to see and act in the present have you thought about what is the future and how to think about it?  Have you asked the question - what does it mean to be Futures Literate? And if you were what might it change?”

I think the existing video material can tell this “story”.  But we need to be clear about the different ontological and epistemological elements - so that we can connect the right video clip to each element.  The “what is the future” ontological categories are - preparation, planning and novelty. The “how to categories” are related to closed and open thinking - and from a four quadrant POV can be partially illustrated by intra and extra systemic change diagram (see my ppts on this). Or distinguishing methods for describing the system from within the system and methods for describing systems that are outside the existing or known systems with terms that are outside the existing system… inventing new languages…

When can we talk?

Best, Riel

We did speak with Jennifer this morning.

Hi Riel!

The agreement with Jennifer was:

  1. To keep risk of confusing the two different videos we are only discussing video #2 " the knowlab happened" video until its successfull delivery. NB: Video #1 was produced ahead of the actual event (i.e. no footage from the actual event is in it).

Your comments above regarding video #2 belong here. I only aggregated this page in preparation for a later discussion. We have a working out loud ethic where this is our shared work surface and things are not always complete when they are posted in this group. I am going to unpublish this page until we are done with video #2 as it seems to be muddying the waters.

2.  On Monday the transcripts for all the videos are uploaded here. You read through it and decide which snippets you want. You’ve done this already with some of the videos. We are not asking you to repeat anything: I aggregate your comments about the individual interview footage onto that page so it’s all in one place for the production team.