I cannot resist such a passionate call - it feeds my own. At de
lange refers to a simple complexity methodology. He asks "can it
be possible?" and answers that, at least in individual cases (some
his own) says "Yes".
> However, what intrigues me,
> is the idea of that complexity methodology which works for any
> set of conditions, even including the availing paradigms.
"Is there a single methodology to handle all complexity?" he asks. I
ask, "Is it worth seeking?" My own view at the moment is that any
methodology that will create simple approaches to handling
significant chunks of the field of complexity is worth pursuing and
new and remarkable enough to justify itself. SFI has some of these.
John Warfield and his associates have developed some. (SFI's tend to
be when synthesis and generative approaches are sought. Warfield's
when complicated messes are sought to be untangled and resolved.)
It would seem that Ben's applies to communication design which must
surely go beyond the computer messaging he mentions - at least in
principle.
In response to At's question about the term "simple complexity
methodology" and its usefulness, I think that it is useful. I see
it's main usefulness being that it speaks to the concerns of those
who will want it. They seek simplicity and not "complexity" in its
common meaning - which is something like "complicated".
When I speak with management groups and only get to refer to
"complexity", there is generally a negative reaction of "we don't
want that, we've got too much". When I get to spend a bit of time on
it, many will say, "that sounds like a profound simplicity". It is
this last which I consider complexity to refer to.
Another way of saying this is that things can be seen as simple
without being seen as simplistic.
Included in At's communication is the following:
> I respect the fact that consultants have to make a living out of
> what they know. The more the consultants with the appropiate
> knowledge, the smaller the pieces of cake after division.
I don't think the "smaller pieces of cake after division" is really
the issue. If it is, then knowledge doesn't grow and sharing it
doesn't pay and we are back to the mechanistic view of information as
"bits of data" which lose value in sharing. I'd say knowledge gains
by sharing. The analogy is genetic growth contrasted to "a fixed pie
that is shared into smaller and smaller pieces".
The problem, it seems to me, is more one of compensation for the
author/creator which is the energy and fuel required to create more.
I would love to share freely everything that I develop. However, my
wife (and my own self concerns) insist that I pay our rent, spend
time for family and pleasure, put something away for our later years
- which are getting somewhat close by - and even get some recognition
for contribution.
I am looking for the structures that will provide some of that and
yet make sharing new knowledge with the world a practical affair. I
also would love to have a copy of the manuscript Ben refers to. I'd
be happy to pay for it and offer to do so. But that doesn't really
touch the larger issue of how many of us would love to contribute and
yet must have an economic basis that works for that. After all, a
few of us paying Ben as I've just offered won't even buy him and a
friend a dinner out.
How many are willing to pay a small price to reimburse the originator
and the one(s) who make structures that make it easily available?
This is a call for creative solution - not a "knuckle rapping" - and
really directed to invite that we consider ways to make this happen.
--
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbdworld.com
web:http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe/TIA/TIAmap.html
"I don't give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity
but I'd die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
attributed to Chief Justice Brandeis
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>