Tiers and Scaffolds
Just a quip about a quote to perhaps a lesson:
Quote
Thus, we are invited to start using self-tracking apps and
data-sharing platforms and monitor our vital indicators,
symptoms and discrepancies on our own.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/20/rise-of-data-death-of-politics-evgeny-morozov-algorithmic-regulation
End Quote
While the quotes from the author pointed the way...I wanted to
point out, that the quotes indicate we are just networking
BS...still based on the same assumptions...
Anyone can do anything given the right x, y, or z...and
because they can they will...
Indirectly...the poor are motivated by money?
Because we know, we will do...
In the world I'm immersed in at this time, most of the
rational assumptions above are unraveled, which tears at the
foundation of BS and it's efficacy for a larger and larger
part of human, animal and plant-kind (oh don't think for a
moment plants don't have rights!!).
Until solutions advance beyond the algorithmic foundations of
BS, we will not get the widespread lift we need to slow the
ultimate algorithm of "limits to growth."
It's gaining on us.
The more and more I experience the poor, the more and more we
can learn from them about our human(e)-ness.
While you will NOT see the next paradigm for sometime, because
we are not going to brighten it beyond some flickering glow in
the distance that's call to question dawn or "train", what is
going to start to appear are those conditions which illuminate
the failure of BS to provide general lift without general
destruction.
All this programs mentioned in the quotes below are going to
help a lot of people, however the people it will help
(generally) are those that "can" be helped--and that is
"necessary but insufficient."
Where the Achilles Heel is at BS is the gradual unfolding of
more and more freedom--that in and of itself--exposes more and
more of our diversity.
BS as it's being networked now is still tied to the "rational"
and therefore leave the soft underbelly of Capability exposed.
It's hard to talk about this because...while the technology
exists to help us...and create freedom we never thought
possible in the rational world, technology is neutral!
The stage is being set for the next paradigm to
emerge--unfortunately--with large density of BS still intact.
Without a weighting equilibrium between rational/irrational
the ego will not evolve sufficiently to allow for more humane
algorithms to emerge and the likelihood of "indirect decree"
is made according to socio-economic status...as it is now.
Let me make an attempt to unwind this Gordian Knot.
UNWIND
1) we believe that anyone can do anything and
everyone is (should be) equal, among the support cast of
assumptions @BS.
[side note: for those who understand kegan S:O
notation, u will get what I mean by is (should be), should
be (is), is/should be, should be, etc.]
2) if we believe @BS (remember in multiple
flavors/colors/values...then, more than likely, our values
are evolving...but only within the rational realm!
3) therefore the unfolding in spiral that we are
seeing is within a (tier) of assumptions and the
innovation is occurring upon a backdrop/context/ground of
"tier-ness".
4) this is the first time I'm brought tier into
light as it's only lightly described in the literature
(well enough) for those who can see the forest for the
trees to utilize.
5) the work quoted below shows how technology in the
1st tier is working as the transitions are occurring
within the tier and how the assumptions of the tier are
being extrapolated to "seemingly" keep pace with the
assumptions scaffolding the tier!
[tier and scaffolding are going to work well even
though those using tier at present don't use scaffolding
and vice versa.]
(6) what we see now are those "constructs" which are
emerging--along with algorithmic regulation (is there any
other?)...which are running @BS; not @F...
7) In order to see algorithms running @F...you have to
assume that anyone can't do anything (in a variety of
stages related to CBSLRVS Dynamics (can I buy a vowel
please!!) and everyone is not equal, and because you
can/know, you will.
[TPOV MyPAL Task: HyperLink CBSLRVS to TPOV on
CBSLRVS Dynamics: Capability, Bias, Style, Level, Role,
Values and Systems Dynamics.]
8) Once @F...assumptions (talking points) are running in
the opsys in the background, all those algorithms running
in apps will start to resolve the buildup in density of
the current account of "unresolved conditions"--in this
case healthcare, in a broader context poverty...as poverty
(link to social intelligence) is mostly related to the
failure of earlier opsys to "recognize and regulate" (link
to emotional intelligence)...CBSLRVS Dynamics.
9) we need to go back to Graves, et al, and understand the
change equation (noting how similar it is to the
applied/potential transitions occurring within a tier!
[Link to Graves change transitions and Beck's Change
Equation, as well as the Change State Indicator
(Assessment).]
[MyPAL execute a new task for a new TPOV @F...:
Designing Problems @Levels and include what follows in
10)]
10) in summarizing the unwinding (omg I'm so politically
correct!), designers need to fully as possible grasp that
we are designing in "new conditions" because we are
failing to solve problems at "enough" levels...or as SD
would suggest...@root -- a designation I'm going to try to
start using to reference different design algorithms.
[Systems Dynamics wins the
battle of the SD Acronym!...where SDi is the reference we
will use for Spiral Dynamics as Forrester's SD, occurred
before Beck's SDi]
Thus the references in the article above get at the
multiverse of problem-solution-results, AND demonstrate
that while (algorithmic) recognition of problems at
multiversal levels exists, algorithmic regulation is still
extrapolated from @branch and @leaf transitions!
In other words, if we network healthcare solutions
@leaf (formal) or even @branch (systematic), instead of
@root, we solve branching problems, not problems which are
emerging at the foundation.
@trunk problems unresolved are also going to create
fundamental density in emerging metasystematic problems,
where @root (paradigmatic) design is responsible.
Systems on System problems @ground are crossparadigmatic
in nature (the most complex we have identified) this far
as level 14 complexity.
END UNWIND
Reflection:
There appears to be emerging from the design(ing)
I'm cynthesizing "a" link from what Jaques configured as
ORDER and what emerges in MHC as Levels.
It could be now that we can cross reference those two
systems by using a table/chart to show the correlations
between the two systems as hypothesized in the following
way:
ORDER | HC. | @F...DESIGN
1 1 @bud(ing)
2
3
4
5
6
2 7 @leaf
8
3 9
@branch
10
4 11
5 12 @trunk
13 @root
6 14 @ground
7 15) @nature
8 16) @cosmic
There maybe another level after nondual...but lets leave
that alone as it matters not and would be like a worm
trying to fly an airplane;)
|
