Following up on the previous discussions on culture and sustainability and on the babel conversation, this page deals with ‘systems thinking’ and with ‘normativity’...

About Davide’s remark on systems thinking: (and indirectly, Hans D. and Oleg’s earlier texts, partly):

I think that keeping this high demand of Systems Thinking (to interlink all domains, always) does not imply that one takes oneself “for god”. I think that the belief that “nobody of us can understand all the universe and the complexity, but only a piece of that” is precisely the way of thinking that allowed Modern Science to fragment life and allow people to satisfy themselves with limited knowledges, thereby constructed limited realities (and having the growing cancer of formal rationality as feared by max Weber, Heidegger _loss of ontology, and Jacques Ellul _systemization of Technique as paradigm).

I agree when you say Davide that “The relations are more important than the objects.” That’s a very relevant dimension of systems thinking. But I do not agree to the next sentence, i.e. “The open communication is more important than the cultural values.” Not because I argue for the opposite in this binary construction, but because “open” and “open communication” are cultural values! This is something I often have to discuss with many people, because most people believe that they can characterize either ‘social structures’, or ‘communication processes’, or ‘rational choice behavior’, or ‘sociobiological patterns’, or ‘psychological traits’ etc., beyond values, i.e. in a non-normative way (i.e. they adhere to some degree of positivism).

This is, I think, another great problem of modernity, to have let people believe in the existence of non-normativity. Every piece of social and even ‘natural’ reality that we say ‘exists’, is a part of a normative construction. This being said, I agree with you Davide on the ground that Systems Thinking should be about normative pluralism, which moves it actually against ‘holism’ which ultimately ignores pluralism (I would try not to confuse systems thinking with holism!). But normative pluralism does not necessarily mean “relativism”.

So the idea that there cannot ‘be’ universalized values, which I see both in your (Davide) and implicitly in Oleg’s text on Babel, is problematic. I am rather thinking that there can be a construction of a world civilization, which would move beyond the Western model of Babel and breed common grounds for humanity while allowing normative diversity. (In short, I do not see too much goodness in prolonging forever the postmodern moment.)

(by Sacha Kagan, Apr 25 2007)

Interesting being defined as a postmodern.. let me chew on that one and reply to your very interesting thoughts when I am less tired than I am right now.

But very interesting, though, and I certainly do have comments to it. I am not sure I see the great difference between what you are saying and what I was trying to say, but let me not try to impose agreement upon you. Hehe.

We have not spoken of singularity yet, this is very important when we start speaking of universality - there must be a difference between events where generalities and particularities divide through ordering, and events where universality and singularity unite in differentiation. Let me just plant that point and let me return with more sleep in me.

(by Oleg Koefoed, Apr 25 2007)