If you read About Me in Faulty Learning you’ll know that university studies introduced me to the idea of “systems”, setting me off down a long and “faulty” path which got me challenging the currently dominant mechanistic paradigm.
The first step on this path was seeking an alternative technology architecture, based on systems concepts described by Russell Ackoff and others, rather than the computational approach established by Alan Turing and John Von Neumann. This ultimately led to the granting of international patents in the fields of “systemic intelligence” and “parallel computing”.
During this period I also began to explore behavioural definitions of knowledge distinct from those discussed by academics or experts in so-called “knowledge management”.
From there, I began to explore wider systems concepts such as “complexity” and, more specifically, “complex adaptive systems”, as well as “evolution” within biological, cultural and socio-technical systems.
In doing so, I discovered lots of examples of people who seemed to be thinking along similar lines, albeit in distinct fields of action and study. Some have written best-selling books or delivered tremendously popular TED talks. More importantly, some have created and/or grown incredibly successful commercial, social, even educational enterprises. (Many of these people are the subject of the Iconoclast profiles in Faulty Learning.)
I’ve come to believe that all these experiences and insights are just different perspectives on one underlying problem. Whether you’re concerned about what’s wrong with corporations, why economists and politicians get it wrong so often or how schools might undermine creativity, I believe the root cause is the same; we’re stuck in a mindset that is the product of the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. We see the world in mechanistic terms – everything from manufacturing and technology to organisations and education simply is a closed, static, linear and deterministic machine. Instead, given the complexity of the world we now inhabit, I increasingly believe that an organic metaphor – embracing open and dynamic complex systems, uncertainty and mystery – is more relevant.
This is a classic paradigm shift1 – in this case from mechanistic to organic, from mechanicism to organicism. This shift is currently in progress and is likely to continue for some time – perhaps decades.
Central to this organic perspective is the need to foster greater adaptability in society, in commerce and, indeed, within ourselves. While the paradigm shift may take some time, I believe we can start fostering adaptability now and that’s the subject of Adaptability Insights.
I’m still learning about this shift from mechanicism to organicism – I’m sure we all are. It's my fervent desire to learn more through this journal and the community I hope will develop around it.
For instance, I’ve recently been exposed to Dave Snowden’s work on “anthro-complexity”, Steve Keen’s campaign to debunk neo-classical macro-economics using “systems dynamics” and Nate Hagens’ examination of the carbon pulse using “systems ecology”. Although they may not see their work in the context of the paradigm shift I’m describing, I hope to explore these ideas and others within Divergology in the coming months.
I will say, though, that I’m generally sceptical of utopian solutions to complex challenges – particularly those associated with such sentiments as “how great it would be to be nice to people for a change”2. I will try to keep on the pragmatic and realistic side of the Divergology pathway.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
From the Foreword to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.