A while back, I listed some of the things I think typify yellow thinking: synthesis, synergy, and discernment. In this post, I want to talk about the difference between blending on the one hand, and synthesis and synergy on the other.
When you blend two things, they mix together. The ingredients don't remain as separate, individual wholes -- they fuse into a single, new whole. The resulting concoction usually has some of the properties of each of the original ingredients. The typical conceptual structure is a spectrum, with the blend situated somewhere between the extremes represented by the original ingredients. Blend black and white, and you get gray, for example.
When you synthesize two things, they relate to each other in a new way to create a larger whole. The elements of the new meta-whole remain as separate individual wholes, but they are also recontextualized by being placed in relation to each other. Think of a pint of beer served with an orange slice -- the beer and the orange aren't blended together, but they each put the other in a new context, thereby creating a larger whole while simultaneously maintaining their separate existence.
Synergy is a quality of synthesizing relationships. The new whole is more than the sum of its parts -- it has qualities that aren't found in either of the combined elements.
I associate the ability to synthesize perspectives and contexts, and the ability to create synergistic combinations between them, with post-contextualist yellow thought. This has implications for understanding yellow and 2nd tier. Once you can see and distinguish the 1st tier memes, what conceptual meta-structure do you use to organize this knowledge and decide how to act on it?
One interpretation of the memes is a set of distinct (but not opposite) categories, which can be blended together in various ways to form a multi-dimensional spectrum. Given the spectrum, we can optimize toward a desired goal, making trade-offs between the good points of one meme and another.
Another interpretation of the memes is a set of individual wholes, each separate and complete on its own, but also each interrelated with the others, forming a larger system or network. The individual memes retain all of their qualities -- their strengths and weaknesses, their angelic and their shadow sides -- but now also play a role in shaping the larger context of the spiral. This larger whole (i.e. system) formed by their interaction can be viewed from many perspectives, including those of each meme (which are, of course, interrelated and part of the system.)
The first interpretation is based on the conceptual structures of single perspective rationality (i.e. orange.) The second interpretation is based on the conceptual structures of integral, dialectical, multi-perspectival vision-logic (i.e. yellow.)
Having seen that there are different perspectives and value systems, do you blend them all together, striving for an admixture that has the best qualities of each, while also avoiding their shadow sides? Or do you synthesize them, placing them in relation to each other in a way that creates a larger whole with properties not found in any of the elements?
Topics
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This is a beautifully posed question. The implication appears to be that synthesis makes no attempt to ameliorate the shadow side of any level, right?
ReplyDeleteI would say it is impossible to answer this question without reference to examples. Phrased as it is, the synthesis has intuitive appeal. But in what kind of context would one or the other give a desired result?
It depends on how you understand "ameliorate."
ReplyDeleteThink of a fishing pole. The pole itself is hard to grip, the handle isn't long enough to fish with, the line has a tendency to get tangled, the reel can't cast the line, the bobber isn't sharp, and the hook won't hang in the water properly by itself.
On their own, it doesn't do us much good to make a longer handle, an inflexible line, a sharper bobber, or a floating hook. Blending them won't help us catch fish, even if it does help ameliorate their weaknesses.
But if we attach the handle to the pole, wrap the line around the reel and thread it along the pole, and then attach a bobber and a hook, now we have something that you can catch fish with -- without having eliminated the downside of any of the individual components. They're now related or situated in such a way that none of their downsides still presents a fundamental obstacle to catching fish.
Have the drawbacks been ameliorated? I don't know -- depends on how you look at it. The components haven't fundamentally changed, but in the new configuration their drawbacks aren't nearly as problematic.
As a real world example, consider the possibilities for handling a disruptive member in a discussion group. One could try the techniques suggested by a green philosophy of groups -- respectful dialogue, for example. The down side or shadow side includes the suppression of the use of power to defend functional inclusion, and the likelihood of exploitation by people who simply seek power over the group's functioning (regardless of whether that power is positive or negative.) Or one could try the techniques suggested by a blue philosophy of groups -- rules and consequences applied to violators, for example. The down side or shadow side includes the loss of flexibility, the constraints imposed on non-problematic members, and the possibility of gaming the system by following the letter but not the spirit of the law.
If neither of those will suffice, then one might try to blend them, attempting to make respectful dialogue more forceful or make rules and consequences less rigid by combining some of the elements of each. Yet how effective can we expect rules whose only consequence is a respectful dialogue will be? What can we really expect from consequences based on what people say rather than what they do?
Like with the fishing pole, blending the available components doesn't make them particularly better suited to the task at hand. So how can we relate them to create a larger whole? Rather than seeking to eliminate their downsides, how can we arrange the two so that their downsides don't present an obstacle to a fruitful discussion?
Could we tailor the rules and consequences for creating a container for respectful dialogue? Could we use respectful dialogue to determine appropriate rules and consequences? Neither of these avenues require blue to be anything other than blue, or green to be anything other than green. Yet, placed side by side, they each form a new context for the other, and the same thing in a new context isn't quite the same thing after all. The synthesis of the two has the potential for qualities that neither has by itself -- resilience to abuse, for one.
The same holds true both for other pairings of memes, and for larger combinations of memes: linking things in ways that leave drawbacks and shadow sides as they are, while also limiting their impact on the desired application, results in synergistic combinations. The elements of these syntheses retain their original properties, yet the overall system becomes both more effective than the sum of its parts and less limited than any individual piece.
Excellent example! Agreed. I would also further note a situation like this tends to require a leader that has access to solutions from all the memes, willingness to use them, and authority to do so at his/her discretion within some agreed paramaters.
ReplyDeleteA still higher approach may have participants creating an intentional container that minimizes the likelihood of disruption in the first place -- not that I'm clear on how that would look.
Like many things, leadership seems to get re-envisioned with every meme shift. What does it mean to lead a network? How does leadership need to change in that context?
ReplyDeleteAs you might imagine, I think the answer has a lot to do with synthesis and synergy -- arranging procedures, powers, roles, goals, and discussions in a way that enables collectively intelligent (i.e. synergistic) behavior to emerge.
As you point out, that requires an understanding of each meme, the typical problems it has, and some approaches to addressing to those problems. I tend to think that the question is not so much "Which meme do I use to solve this problem?" but "Which meme or interaction between memes is problematic in the current configuration of the Spiral in this context?" Once the problem itself is understood, there may be any number of creative interventions appropriate to the situation, utilizing the energies and methods of a variety of memes (or syntheses thereof.)