THIS MISSION IS DEDICATED TO JOHNFMOORE, MICHEL FILLIPPI (and other Edgeryders participants interested in these issues).
A few days ago, JohhFMoore asked me this question: “HOW CAN WE DRIVE CHANGE?“.
Interestingly, at the same time, I was having a discussion here at Edgeryders with Michel Fillippi, and he answered more or less the same thing I told JohnFMoore, but he used different words, he used philosopher’s words. My answer to John — an intuition — was to highlight Edgeryders participants, and have them emerge as leaders. Michel Fillippi’s answer is to have the most numerous leaders emerge, and he explained why.
Here is what Michel Fillippi told me, via the following Edgeryders status, http://edgeryders.ppa.coe.int/statuses/552):
(My translation) “We should seek for various possibilities, different leaderships. Why? The first reason behind (this method) is because it’s systemic. Every leader is to create a world, a system (as defined in the General Systems Theory). A system grows and becomes more unstable. Any system involves a becoming. Several competing systems allow individuals to engage in various futures and this prevents a system to seek its maximum state, therefore, prevents it to reach a maximum instability. Individuals must be taught not to seek unique solutions, not to aim to a state of perfection. We should also know that all creation, any system design, generates violence because a state of energy is being released, or the convening of power to make it work. Nothing is done in calmness, quietness. Therefore, (efforts should focus on) having the most numerous leaders emerge, while preventing one leader in particular from becoming dominant. (When in a process) of structuring, (it is preferable) to avoid convergence and develop even opposed themes. I think – as I have faith in philosophy -, that the debate on “Which people? Which kills, abilities, and so on?” “How the Real in which humans exist?”, “What worlds are better?” What does everybody hate?" “What is a civilization?”,"What does ‘being civilized’ mean? ","For what, for whom, for what world are we willing to suffer, to die ", these are classics philosophical questions, but they are worth to be re-asked, and be explored again.“
Michel Fillippi continues:
“Yesterday, I visited an exhibition about Buckminster Fuller. There, I read a sentence in which I recognized myself, and I also recognized in it one of these blockages that you mentioned, Lyne, regarding the model. As the model is not externalized, it is not yet perceived as (being in the process) of building, therefore, the (implementing of) change is difficult. We must come to understand that our opinions, beliefs, desires, and perhaps even wishes that we consider to be the most real - a truth that comes from the core of being, the substance of our bodies, our essence itself -, are only constructions that we have absorbed without criticism, without us knowing it could become otherwise.
As for convergence, is a problem in innovation design. A trend of engineers and administrators is to converge as quickly as possible. It is a cognitive model that has been “swallowed” as truth, and indisputable as a procedure based on algorithms, mathematical. However, (it is better) at all costs, to converge as late as possible. Specifically, a design method such as C-K designed at by The School of Mines of Paris (Hatchuel), fight against convergence by using the mathematical notion of “forcing”.
Finally, about the “Real”. I believe in the existence of a physical “Real”, that is not fully known by the physical sciences, with whom, as humans part of this “Real”, interact with.”
(Ref: “Real”. This is EXACTLY what I believe too! I am having a really hard time explaining this and applying it to politics and open government models.)
It has been a month since Michel Fillippi, JohnFMoore and myself, we would like to have a discussion about models. Leadership models, and open government models. We set it aside to focus on the Edgeryders ‘augmented ethnography approach’. Now that we’re just a few days before the launch of the upcoming campaign ‘We the people’, I realize that these topics respond to our needs. They can help provide answers to John’s question, “HOW CAN WE DRIVE CHANGE?“.
I have a feeling that this will help more than one fellow Edgeryders. While the upcoming campaign will focus on the ‘augmented ethnographic approach’, here, in this mission (thread), we can discuss, create knowledge, that will hopefully help us … drive change.