|
In our work @F-L-O-W, I've tried to
be careful about defining differences and contrasting
cooperation, which is a ValuDYNAMIC (outcome as a result of an
application of values in a social operating mechanism)...as
is: collaboration.
They are two VERY different ValuDYNAMICS.
[There is additional context for Collaboration as a Resultant
here:www.flow.ph/tpovs/resultants]
I wanted to make a quick, but important TPOV @F-L-O-W about
collaboration, as it differs from cooperation. I use the
contrast provided in the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode:www.flow.ph/conflict], which
states that collaboration is different than cooperation, which
is designed as a sacrifice of self system, which is
unassertive, cooperative, and a collaborative system which is
assertive, cooperative, too VERY different approaches...those
of which can be contrasted with the compromise system, where
people are somewhat assertive and somewhat cooperative.
MOST of what people talk about today is compromise, or
cooperation, as collaboration is a very difficult process
which requires "each" to maintain its integrity while
undergoing emergence with the other--also maintaining its
integrity.
This produces a third way solution, and this kind of solution
is extremely difficult in most circumstances as it requires
innovation beyond what each, or many competing, cooperating,
avoiding, accommodating aspects of conflict will in fact
promote.
Here is another one of Haidt's quotes:
“If our goal is to understand the
world, to seek a deeper understanding of the world, our
general lack of moral diversity here is going to make it
harder. Because when people all share values, when people all
share morals, they become a team.” — Jonathan Haidt
I want to contrast what he says here with the idea that
understanding is not always the goal! In fact, understanding
deeply is not only @BS, but impossible.
Back to Kuhn for one moment: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm ]
"Kuhn was at pains to point out
that the rationale for the choice of exemplars is a specific
way of viewing reality: that view and the status of "exemplar"
are mutually reinforcing. For well-integrated members of a
particular discipline, its paradigm is so convincing that it
normally renders even the possibility of alternatives
unconvincing and counter-intuitive. Such a paradigm is opaque,
appearing to be a direct view of the bedrock of reality
itself, and obscuring the possibility that there might be
other, alternative imageries hidden behind it. The conviction
that the current paradigmis reality tends to disqualify
evidence that might undermine the paradigm itself; this in
turn leads to a build-up of unreconciled anomalies. It is the
latter that is responsible for the eventual revolutionary
overthrow of the incumbent paradigm, and its replacement by a
new one. Kuhn used the expressionparadigm shift (see
below) for this process, and likened it to the perceptual
change that occurs when our interpretation of an ambiguous
image "flips-over" from one state to another.[5] (The rabbit-duck
illusion is an example: it is not possible to see both the
rabbit and the duck simultaneously.) This is significant in
relation to the issue of incommensurability (see
below).
This IDEA being put forward by "cooperators" and empathisizers
is important for many reasons, most of which DO NOT support
cooperation, ironically.
You see, the reason why collaboration is so difficult is that
it is a paradoxical agent at best, and an unsolvable enigma in
the worst.
To KEEP PRETENDING that we can somehow "understand others" was
something I realized after about a decade of professional
coaching. I realized that not only was it unlikely that I
would understand, but probably in pretending so, it would make
matters much worse.
This is when my journey of trying to understand how people
make meaning became the profundity I needed to move forward in
my own sense-making. It is NOW, in the past decade where I
have come to realize that this continued ValuDYNAMIC which
promotes the IDEA that we can somehow empathize, or understand
others provides me with my own sense and worldview, that this
is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
What is missing today is respect for others and their
differences. A process of honoring true diversity, not just
ethnic, but developmental and values diversity.
Progressivity would have us pulled into the vacuum of
understanding others and therefore muddy the purity with which
our values are different and solve very specific conditionals
with their rulesets.
Instead of us designing solutions with valuDIVERSITY, we are
continuing to keep pretending that we can understand others,
their motives, intentions and experience, and that through
understanding that we will somehow cooperate. Usually as a
result of convincing, or conditioning others to our POV.
This is the current mode of conflict tensions that is being
served by the current ValuDYNAMIC producing resultants consistent
with their POV. Because each dynamic produces a fitness which
is resulting from its particular micromotives in combination
with these tensions, or conditionals, the dynamic is assumed
to be right in that case, or fit.
What is missing is that progressivity says we should
transcend, in most cases, what are very valuable solutions
arising from these POVs and re-calibrate them to a more
complex frame to match the more complex conditions.
It is ASSUMED this can be done through understanding, and
empathy, without a respect for what has taken place before,
and what is a right that people have to be, do, have, become
and contribute as they can.
Again @BS, the underlying assumptions are that because we can,
they can, and will, given the right amount of
______________________. It's not politically correct in our
world to suggest people can't, or won't, or don't for reasons
other than something attributed to some sort of defect on
their part.
With these rules in place, the rules of A particular
ValuDYNAMIC, we create barriers to finding the third way. We
try to understand, and convince, influence and drive others
away from their "flawed" point of view to the more complex,
the most progressive, without respecting the dignity of people
to hold their limited views--and ALL people hold limited
views, not comprehensive, or all-encompassing views, as some
would pretend.
Collaboration, IMHO calls us towards contribution, in other
words, rather than trying to influence others to CHANGE their
POV, we respect and dignify that view. In doing so, it
requires us to continue to clarify our views, and develop more
efficient, effective and sustainable rulesets within those
views and to actually begin to design environments which are
more conducive to our solutions, rather than continuing to
become victims to progressivity, which will over-power our
fitness, as a rule--it's designed to do so by nature to drive
fitness.
Yet, what cooperators fail to understand in themselves is that
continuing to pretend that we can match complexity step for
step with a homogenous system of transcend and include
bearings will create confusion, lack of efficacy and profound
failure. |
