Return to the paper's Abstract and introduction
Skip to the paper's practical conclusions

---

Synergy and Sympoiesis in the Writing of Joint Papers

(The Anticipation within Imagination)

PART 2 - Main Body of Text

.
by O#o van Nieuwenhuijze & John Wood

Transcending Disciplines and Individual Viewpoints

The practical context for this inquiry is a shared interest in designing or, rather, in ‘meta-designing’ synergistic societies of the future. This quest is inspired by a need to care for the biosphere in a more respectful manner. In order to do so we believe we must introduce terms of reference that can integrate knowledge and expertise gained at all levels of government, society and business. In a world in which resources are being consumed at an accelerating rate we must quickly learn to change our perception of how an ecological lifestyle is lived. We believe that a truly 'sustainable' society will need to interlace, and to interface, many types of action in such a way that wasteful modes of rivalry and competition are replaced by an active quest for ‘synergy’ at all levels. For the authors of this paper, the study of 'synergy' developed out of a critique of the term 'sustainability' (O#o, 1999) partly because it has so far failed to get us living sufficiently 'co-sustainably' (Wood, 2000). The term “sustainability” is often a misnomer: where fishing is possible to a level where the population of fish can sustain itself, the term cannot be applied to mineral resources which by their use become exhausted. Unfortunately, the concept of 'sustainability' has become increasingly confusing and unhelpful since its introduction. Indeed, its lack of precision may be symptomatic of the political need to harmonise business interests with environmental imperatives, after the Cold War. By conflating the temporal and non-temporal meanings of the word ‘sustainment’ it is, at best, a simple, moral instrument that encourages the well intentioned, rather than operating as a respectful reflection of how Nature works. (C.f. Brundtland, 1987) When business and government treats the consumption of non-renewable fuels and materials as a normal and acceptable practice, then any subsequent use of the term ‘sustainability’ is compromised. When its meaning is flawed, its usage can be misapplied without much thought or difficulty. Even its use at the highest levels of society is ambiguous (e.g. ‘sustainable business’ - UN, 2005) or even self-contradictory (e.g. ‘sustainable consumption’ - UN, 2005). These inconsistencies reflect a deep confusion between business and governance, economics and ecology, and between short-term versus long-term thinking. For example, while governments advocate lowered consumption, advertising insists on higher consumption.

The need for synergy within trans-disciplinary studies

The paper asserts that in developing desirable, ecologically sympathetic living styles, we need to transcend the problem-oriented aspects of environmentalist discourse. It also acknowledges that we would be unable to adopt the customary procedures of ‘design’ that we might normally be expected to implement in any fully predictable way. The authors of the paper are collaborating on several related levels of inquiry and discovery. Both are researchers within an AHRC and EPSRC funded research project called “Synergy Tools to Guide the Effective Development of a 'Meta-Design' Methodology” (ds21). This project explores the potential role of ‘synergy’ within ‘meta-design’. Its 14 researchers in 6 countries represent a wide range of disciplines including micro-economics, architecture, eco-design, medicine, renewable energy engineering, design management, theoretical physics, etc. One of the purposes of bringing together so many disciplinary discourses was in order to inform a collective and self-reflexive technique of ‘meta-designing’. This is imagined more like a ‘seeding’ process than as a design process, if we tend to assume that design is an intrinsically ‘predictive’ activity (Ascott, 1994). Elisa Giaccardi (2005) describes it as “…co-creation: a shared design endeavour aimed at sustaining emergence, evolution and adaptation”. The concept of emergence implies the involvement of the interface dynamics, by which a system state is tied in with a process of integration within a context.

This requires considerations beyond the deterministic (object) states, thus involves anticipation and imagination. It calls for active participation in interfacing with different modes of consciousness of the participants. In a broader sense it involves mental methods beyond the scope of those of science, specifically those generally known as art. In interfacing we play an active role in participation other than observation. Our involvement it decisive for the outcome; it is the realisation of the role of information in creation which matters. These are the criteria in meta-design. All follow from the transcendence of the known in dealing with the unknown. Unfortunately, terms such as ‘co-design’, ‘co-evolution’ and ‘co-authorship’ have taken a long time to become familiar to all of us, even though they are names for practices that already existed. This is because they are under-estimated within a culture that still emphasises the role of the individual. Similarly, collective activities are too often characterised by efforts that remain shrouded in the custom, practice, and discourse of a particular profession or discipline. This is a very serious problem for the way humanity manages itself within the solitary and fragile domain that constitutes the ‘Earth’. Many professions have reflected upon their role in addressing major environmental problems, as yet, with few signs of success. The knowledge we have is fragmented and sometimes inconsistent. As a result, citizens are confronted with contradictory views of how to live. It is likely that no specific discipline can provide an effective solution on its own. Indeed, it is highly likely that some efforts will prove to be counterproductive or sub-optimal when managed in isolation from others. Viable solutions will therefore be trans-disciplinary. We will be more successful when professionals from different disciplines are able to work together in a more radical, co-operative, co-creative, and emotionally conducive milieu. A positive aspect of this challenge is that the boundaries that separate our disciplines are also the interface from which our differences can be bridged in a creative way. This paper therefore has a special relevance for the development of interdisciplinary studies in which the anticipatory component can often only be validated through the emergent aspects of the writing itself, and where a shared outcome may require more intense discussion than is usually needed in the case where a single, shared discipline is involved.

The idea of synergy

In seeking to optimise several levels of a highly complex system - i.e., in developing the efficacy of meta-design across the broadest operational levels, and at the most subjective epistemological levels we require common terms of reference. Use of the term ‘synergy’ is viable for several reasons. It is not too technical for members of the public, and it has been routinely used within the business and management communities for many years. One problem is that there is no scientifically accepted definition for it. Buckminster Fuller's (1975) development of what he called ‘Synergetics’ (rather than 'synergistics') was a pioneering approach, yet it operated more at the level of what Fuller called ‘dynamic geometry’ and theory, rather than practice. It is well known that the idea of synergy accommodates a range of types, each with its own distinctive qualities and parameters. Fuller described it as "the behaviour of whole systems unpredicted by the behaviour of their parts taken separately" (Fuller, 1975). The fact that synergy is more interesting within complex systems than within simple ones is part of the problem. Ultimately, if – as Fuller’s definition shows – synergy is unpredictable and emergent, then we may not be able to design for it in the same way we design for ‘performance’ or ‘efficacy’ in specific products and services. At the crudest level, this is because the synergy of each product must co-create a network of adjacent synergies. This raises issues that relate to the different levels of complexity at the physical, chemical, biological, ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual levels. For example, although a metal alloy may exhibit ‘synergistic’ properties, they are unlikely to be as subtle and sophisticated as those we will encounter within, say, fly larvae (Ho, 1998). Nevertheless, up to now, researchers (e.g. Corning, 1983, 2005) have included physical, chemical, biological, and ecological examples within the one broad term of 'synergy'. Although mindful of the difficulties of unpredictability and the importance of context boundaries, the authors offer four generic orders of synergy.

A four-fold model of collaborative Synergy

Synergy can be increased when the following four elements become enmeshed and/or integrated:

1. the individual viewpoints of the authors
2. the relationship between the authors
3. the inner/inter-active dynamics, of the group of which they are member.
4. the new meanings in their joint context of embedding, extending the context of their original meanings.

These are the four aspects of a system as studied in Systems Theory, where the Object, the Relationships, the Conditions and Embedding-within-Context all need to be simultaneously addressed. All of these aspects come together in the Interface of the Interaction. The action in the interaction, the interface, transcends the system (self) definition. Therefore the principles at play cannot be described in terms of the knowledge or functioning of either system (c.f. the people involved). It requires all involved to extend their awareness beyond their perimeter; this is commonly as anticipation. (Anticipation is a form of mental activity based on perception, inverted as projection. It reflects the past into the future.) Anticipation is part of the mental process of imagination; which is based on our capacities for pattern recognition. Imagination is a two-sided activity: on the one hand it recalls old memories recorded in our body of knowledge, on the other hand it processes this information – digests it – to detect embedded patterns. This is where imagination relates to intuition (the emergent insight of embedded patterns in new forms of realisation). The bridging of the interface requires a different description than that of the fields that lie on either side of it. The same holds for the field, of which the interface itself is based.

Co-authorship

The attempt to enhance synergy within collaboration leads us to the key topic of this particular paper: ‘co-authorship’. Comprehensive collaboration is useful because it can produce insights beyond what either party might achieve alone. Interestingly, the changes of perspective that emerge from a really successful collaborative process are neither a compromise, nor an amalgamation of viewpoints. Arguably, participants only surrender an original viewpoint or belief when they have learned something new. If not, a new, mutually agreeable position is found which transcends what each knew before. This calls for the integration of seemingly opposite interests. The different perspectives must be combined, integrated, for the conflict to be resolved. This is an ambitious and long-term aspiration that calls for a new understanding of co-creative functioning. This paper explores that in the form of collaborative research, and collaborative authorship, such as in the writing of a joint paper. In this paper the authors confine their discussion to the need for synergy in writing a joint paper. They describe their attempt to work both collaboratively and self-reflexively. The subject of their inquiry is the way they come to a shared outcome, and much of this work will therefore, of necessity, be incomplete until this paper has been written. However, the paper addresses the complex process of interface interactions and mutual boundary (self) management, via which they, as authors, interact. Orthodox scientific tradition has sought to preserve the distinction between the 'context of discovery' and the 'context of justification' (Feyerabend, 1975). Although this approach has been in some doubt since the early 20th century, it remains a compelling influence deriving from post-Aristotelean thinkers through the mediaeval scholars (e.g. William of Ockham) and Enlightenment scientists (e.g. Galileo, Locke, Descartes) and up to the present day. This 'hard' research approach tends to invalidate any inspection of complex interpersonal issues that are likely to be more relational than factual. Much of the existing research into co-authorship tends to be macroscopic and pragmatic. For example, where one researcher drew general conclusions from the frequency and number of connections between a set of authors (e.g. Newman, 2004), another (economics-based) study (Hollis, 1992) acknowledged a higher quality of output for collaborative work, but concluded that there is a net reduction in output quantity when funding bodies give support to co-authored works.

2) Joining Perspectives

Transcending limitations of viewpoints (or disciplines in science) requires a transcendence of the local system limitations. This requires a shift of perspective, from the system state to the system definition. It also requires an understanding of the interface, both in terms as a system state, and as a system process.

Co-anticipation and shared discovery

The paper proposes that, from the vantage of the interface, the dynamic process of co-operation transcends the separate personal (state) realisations of the collaborators. This cannot, therefore, be simply a logical process of deduction (logic of state) but, also, a shared process of inductive and abductive reasoning (process logic). From the viewpoint of the collaborators we might say that unforeseen outcomes emerge from a combined drive towards a result that is (or appears to be) common to them. Heuristic, and other cognitive and structural faculties include an anticipatory component that can most easily be construed, post-hoc, as a shared intent. Although the production of a rational proposition may be required, what is produced may seem to emerge as a consequence, rather than as the specific aim of collaboration. This is reminiscent of Heidegger’s description of the origin of a work of art that, as he claims, originates from art itself. (Heidegger, 1935) This challenges the traditional assumption of lone ‘genius’ within scientific production. We may also re-address Heidegger's question to questioning the origin of a scientific proposition. Where do ideas and insights come from? This is a provocative question for science. We may sometimes remember the dawning of an idea, but probably cannot trace all of the key elements that summoned it in its earliest glimmerings. In any case, scientific and academic protocols do not encourage us to share with others the unprovable, incomplete, and ad hoc nature of our inquiries. For this reason we are more likely to make cautious claims to the rigour of anything that is both verifiable, post-hoc, and veridically self-consistent.

imagination as Reciprocal Feedforward

It is for these reasons that the (scientific) research tradition has tended to overlook the role and significance of the imagination as a shareable domain of anticipation and conjecture. De Nicholas (1986) has argued that Loyola's (1491-1556) emphasis on the imagination serves to remind us where western thought might have led, had it not been so dominated by the categorical and reductionist tendencies within Aristotle. Whereas, after the Enlightenment, the Arts embraced a discourse of the imagination (experiencing process), science's trajectory took it more towards an analysis of logic (description of states), or to sub-components of how the nervous system 'processes' data. In fairness, we should acknowledge that, where Locke gave science a model of human cognition that disregards time/process, and emulates a simple camera. Kant (c.f. Warnock, 1976) realised that cognition cannot exist without an imaginative component. Warnock (1987) goes further by asserting that our use of memory is a special class of our imagination. Arguably, the notion of a 'scientific imagination' (c.f. Holton, 1978) is a less familiar idea than that of a 'scientific observation'or a 'scientific proof'. Had the atomistic tendencies in western thought been less influential, (e.g. Aristotle's emphasis on categorical reasoning) that we perhaps would have identified more imaginative modes of knowing. Exceptions, of course, can be found in Kant, 1790; Hegel, 1807; Peirce, 1877; Freud, 1900; Husserl, 1900; Einstein, 1905; Dewey, 1925; Hadamard, 1945; Perls, 1969; Bateson, 1973; Bohm, 1980; Krippendorf, 1996.

Anticipation as Reciprocal Feedback

In the course of this project the authors reflected upon the feed-forward process that precedes the feedback closure that determined the final result. In this process, sub-cognitive faculties of the scientists, seldom acknowledged in scientific studies, help to create the final outcome. Here, it is useful to recall wave-based, rather than atomistic models, as exemplified by Karl Pribram's (1991) use of Gabor's (1947) holography principle in his theory of mind. The paper therefore refers to holonomic models of thought that can be traced to Plato's idea of dialogical thought (395 BCE), and that are a precedent for Koestler's, (1964) generative theory of co-creation that he called 'bisociation'. A more individual-centred way to describe this process is the idea, implicit in the psychological theory of 'cognitive dissonance' (Festinger, 1957) that the mind finds new ways to compensate for apparent inconsistencies that are too immediate or obvious to ignore. This is but one example of a cognitive skill or behaviour that can be said to be a part of what Payne (1985) and Goleman (1995) called 'emotional intelligence'.

Synergising Different Levels of Knowledge

Really effective co-authorship therefore calls for a greater sensitivity to types of knowledge that may otherwise go unnoticed or unrecognised. Examples include 'implicit knowledge' (Reber, 1965), tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1964), and unconscious desires (Freud, 1900). Although these features may be elusive, or ‘accidental’ features (Wittgenstein, 1922) of propositions that may nevertheless include formative elements. Crucially, this also draws upon work on the anticipatory aspects of cognition-imagination (Kant, Peirce, Maturana & Varela, Bateson, Velmans) in the context of Anticipatory Systems (e.g. Riegler, 2001; Chrisley, 2004). Instead of an identifiable locus of control within a scientific mind (state), the outcome of scientific research is based on the interplay (process) between or among all people involved. Together they form a virtual ‘organism’, for which each author can be thought of as an ‘organ’. The shared text must be negotiated and developed without thwarting the (collaborative) organism’s integrity. Territorial reflexes (in the authors, and the community) thereby are directly contributory to the outcome. This image can also be generalised to depict the findings of science as a discipline, and hence, to the collaboration of all the scientists who contributed to that discipline.

Sympoiesis (process level, —)

We can define 'sympoiesis' as an act of co-creation in which an insightful meaning emerges spontaneously or unexpectedly from the collaborative process. For co-authors or co-designers, true sympoiesis may be characterised by a ‘eureka’ moment, or by a sense of ‘flow’ (Cziksentmihalyi, 1990) that seems to eclipse other, more mundane experiences. This is a moment of “Collapse of the State”, in which complex understanding is simplified in a new integrative perspective. We may represent this as a horizontal axis that shows a continuum of the shared process that reconciles the critical, intellectual and imaginative dimension (i.e. the shared processes of reflection and anticipation) with the more elusive, somatic and intuitive (i.e. the sources of new of knowledge) aspects.

Symtechnesis (object level, | )

Symtechnesis is represented here as a vertical axis. Where 'sympoiesis' is a more or less involuntary, spontaneous, unself-conscious, auto-didactic process, 'symtechnesis' is a more deliberate, orchestrated act of co-creation that may involve working with tools, actions, or materials that require particular skills. Whilst it may include a rhetorical aspect of production presentation, and perfection, it is but one aspect of a set of processes that enable tasks to be executed, monitored, and re-aligned.

Mapping Sympoiesis ( — ) with Symtechnesis ( | )

By placing the two axes at right angles to one another we can map a useful range of practices within a cognitive and phenomenological domain. These axes each represent the interface, thus the relationship between a part and a whole, 1) as state in a process, and 2) as distinction in a continuum. These are different dual dimensions of coherence. The first focuses on the interface as Boundary (Separator), the second on the interfacing as a Field (Connector). The orientation of the axes reflects our own mode of involvement, _ (Connective) or _ (Discriminating). These reflect respectively our identification with a Field or a Boundary (or, respectively, Interfacing, and Interface.) Every Boundary is a Field; they are each other’s dual. The difference in interpretation reflects a difference (bias) in our involvement. From a meta-level, both together define continuity in integrity. Therefore, both need to be addressed in order to be able to transcend a Boundary (i.e. resolve the underlying – shared – Field). This is where meta-design, integrating both perspectives, can be applied to transcend limitation of disciplines or viewpoints to come to a more integrative understanding/perspective.

From the perspective of _ the viewpoints are polar opposites (with respect to the interface). From the perspective of _ they are polarities (of the interface). Always both are the case (because every interface Separates and Connects). Differences in perspective are therefore still realisations of the same reality. It is this understanding that bridges viewpoints of authors, and disciplines of science.

The use of this quadrant may be helpful for identifying and monitoring specific states of being that are related to sympoiesis and symtechnesis. As individual human beings, we manage all of these processes by co-ordinating a number of reflex levels simultaneously (O#o, 2005). Our conscious choices operate at a different level (the Head level) than the subconscious motivations at the level of relationships by reflex (the Heart level). At a deeper level (the Gut level) still we function by unconscious reflexes that determine our interactions with/in our context. At the deepest level (the Bone Level) our cells operate by natural reflexes that determine the purposeful embedding of our body as part of its habitat. From the perspective of our body’s biology we can characterise these reflexes within a four-part schema that recalls our long evolutionary history, i.e. human, animal, vegetative, and mineral (O#o, 2003). Within our ‘meta-design’ agenda it is helpful to illustrate these four levels in terms of interaction in context. As such, we might think of them as inventor, explorer, communicator and constructor. In this case it might create the illusion that there is a clear distinction between sympoiesis and symtechnesis.

The two axes (_/_) exist in different dimensional domains (i.e. reflect different degrees of freedom). They therefore do not lie in the same (2D) plane, of description. As pointed out (_/_) they are dual, and complement each other. This can be graphically represented by the form of a tetrahedron, in which each of the axes between the four vertices of a tetrahedron is at right angles to each other. The edges of the figure therein represent a gradient of the values expressed by the nodes.

Synergy, Sympoiesis, Syngnosis and Symbiosis

To clarify the understanding of Synergy, particularly of Symbiosis, two new terms will be introduced for the purpose of enhancing the perspective of the interface – to study and understand it in more detail – the activity of interfacing is described by adding the terms ‘sympoiesis’ and ’syngnosis’. Sympoiesis is a special version of the notion of ‘autopoiesis’ (Maturana & Varela, 1980). It is the dynamic self-organisation of a dynamic system. We can think of this as a process that is essential to the survival of living systems. Unless organisms can ‘re-build’ their ‘identities’ within a domain that can recognise them they will not survive. “Sympoiesis”, therefore, is a condition within which more than one ‘authorial organism’ share an identity and must therefore work collectively in order to maintain their ‘survival’ in this mode. “Syngnosis” Collective Intelligence’ (Por, 1995) describes practices that identify more successful outcomes than those described by ‘group think’ (Janis, 1972) in which shared decision making results in poor collective judgements. Syngnosis describes a more successful mode of consensus and group thinking. In order to be able to interface inanimate objects, a matching of their border dynamics often suffices. In living beings (determined by their internal freedom of choice) the system’s singularity settings need to be compatible and matched. This requires that the mental processes are compatible and matched also. Evidently this needs to account for the ever-present freedom of choice in each involved person. Syn-gnosis describes this mental attunement within a process that includes, and goes beyond the conscious levels of awareness. Syngnosis is therefore, potentially, a symbiotic process. Symbiosis is the standard term for the mutual co-operating living of life forms, in which the presence of the one supports the existence of the other. (see Margulis, 1967)

Synergy can be exemplified as the energy that is liberated by the sharing of a new (joint) carrier wave when two systems align to engage in common process. The achievement of synergy through collaboration can be illustrated by considering the fusion of two musical notes. Together they create a higher and a lower harmonic that can be considered to be 'new forms' that did not previously exist. At a practical level this implies that what is under-stood by both (i.e. the 'language') is complementary to the new meaning that emerges. The two notes have become subordinate to a new and emerging sound that is not just a simple combination of the two notes. The lower harmonic is a new carrier wave that is shareable by both of the original notes. When reviewed in this context, the process of sharing therefore adds significance to what was there before. If we try to apply this metaphor to a conversation, the presence of synergy is a consequence of the immergence into an underlying common ‘carrier wave’ within the conversation; with the emergence of new insight and meaning. (Cf. ‘heterodyning’ of the two notes/perspectives.). This can be considered to be a new, and larger, common context, within which the views of each of the authors can now be applied. What they already knew, individually, now has acquired extended meaning that is valid for both. A virtual boundary that previously limited the extent of their understanding has seemingly ‘collapsed’ (cf. collapse of the State Vector). The Event Horizon of their (joint) Consciousness has expanded.

In the metaphor of the merging of the two musical notes, it is the new higher harmonic that determines the new form of the discourse. It offers a new sharper focus on the issues addressed by each of the authors. It thereby leads to a new form, which may differ from what each new before. It is only to be expected that in the bridging of disciplines, new ‘languaging’ will need to emerge to negotiate the terrain of what was previously the space between them.

Language Interfacing

Aside from describing the aspects of the interfacing it is relevant to have terms for the relationships between the fields that are joined by the interface. Traditionally these are describe as singular (separate), concatenated, nested and embedded. In an ecological context these terms are always relative. Every (singular) closed system is part of an open system, in which it is embedded. The way we define the system’s boundary therefore reflects an observer bias (_/_). It describes the way in which the observer relates to what s/he observes. This creates a leverage by which the participation in the context is defined. The variation of the participant’s involvement is elaborated in this paper. By having a choice in our level of participation we affect the conditions of interaction and thus influence the outcome. This can be made explicit in terms of different modes of interaction:

1) Predatorial (disadvantaging each another in pursuing exclusive selfish advantage)
2) Parasitic (high dependency on the fitness of one, rather than both partners)
3) Synergetic (mutually supportive collaboration; system interaction)
4) Symbiotic (mutual optimisation of synergy; systemic embedding)

The focus of each of these aspects of interfacing is on, respectively the,
1) Object
2) Process
3) Interaction
4) Integral outcome {meta-design}

These are experienced subjectively in different body centres:

1) Head - conscious
2) Heart - subconscious
3) Gut - unconscious
4) Cell - beyond-conscious

They are recognised as different experiences of our context, and expressed in different art forms

1) Thinking - visual arts (painting)
2) Feeling - auditory arts (music)
3) Doing - expressive arts (dance)
4) Being - creative arts (landscaping/architecture)

The notion presented here is not a shift from traditional ideas of ‘objective’ to ’subjective’, but a transcendence of the inter-subjective to achieve a kind of ‘meta-subjectivity’ that may offer some advantage to all persons/beings involved. The same four facets that are identified above for the system interface can also be used to acquire more understanding of each of the above levels of system embedding. The term “ Meta-design” is used to describe the application of this understanding.

Ecological synergies

It is surprising that there appears to be no single, clear definition of synergy beyond that of a rudimentary notion that the totality of factors within a ‘whole’ usually exceeds the combined sum of its parts. In reality, the synergy we seek will need to operate as an ecological system. The term 'Synergy' describes the energy that is liberated by process-sharing of separate systems. The idea of liberating energy is attractive to anyone concerned by the increasingly conspicuous and profligate waste of energy that we have witnessed over the last few hundred years of industrial development. By connecting up, the share the same interface, due to which the interfacing energies can – under appropriate conditions – be combined, and thereby reduced for each system. Also, some of the energies related to the integration of the separate sub-systems into the shared context can be condensed, and thereby reduced. This is the case in general, but of particular interest in living organisms which are characterised by the ability to change their internal degrees of freedom. This involves dimensional changes of state, corresponding with differences in the operational logic.
In seeking to develop the idea of ‘design synergy’ we propose the following orders of synergy:

1st Order Synergy: Invariant
Where the synergy within an environment is, in comparison with ecological systems, informationally inert. The key parties or elements benefit from the shared situation, and contribute to the shareable benefits unknowingly.
2nd Order Synergy: Variable
Where the synergy within an environment is, in comparison with ecological systems, is informationally alive. The key parties or elements benefit from, and intelligently contribute to, the shareable benefits of the situation.
3rd Order Synergy: Interactive
Where the synergy’s distinctive features are sustained by information-sharing capabilities that can modify or inform the self-identity of some of the participants. The key parties or elements benefit from, and knowingly contribute to, the shareable benefits of the situation.
4th Order Synergy: Integrative
Synergies whose distinctive features are upheld by information-sharing capabilities that can modify or inform the self-identity of both individual and collective features of the participants; and in which the key parties or elements benefit from, and knowingly contribute to, the shareable benefits of the situation.

Re-designing design as a superset of itself: meta-systemic hyper-incursion

The ds21 project asks whether a discourse of ‘deep synergy’ might bring about a more enlightened approach to the design of eco-centric systems ‘living-styles’, governance, and ways of being and becoming. This will also require us to devise new professional practices because, at present, designers, planners, architects, technologists, etc. are too specialised for orthodox modes of ‘meta-design’ to be able to operate at a sufficiently collaborative and interdependent level of thought-action. Here, the idea of ‘meta-design’ is symptomatic of the perceived need for a discourse and methodology that will encompass systems of an exceedingly complex and volatile nature. It would probably include the (re)design of the design process itself. It can also stand for a trans-disciplinary mode of design that combines and integrates different design fields and practices in a flexible and reflective manner. (Giaccardi, 2005). In an environmentalist context we may inform these definitions by asking how designers can redesign the way they design in order to ‘un-manage’ the self-sustaining nature of Nature?

Irrational reason

At the height of the Enlightenment era – the 'Age of Reason' – mathematician Blaise Pascal had the insight that "the heart has reasons that reason cannot know" (1670). If we are to take this seriously we might begin to look for a logic of the heart (O#o, 2005). What might this mean? Perhaps it relates to the emotional modes of reasoning, or what Payne (1985) and Goleman (1995) termed 'emotional intelligence'. Michael Polanyi's (1958) term 'tacit knowledge' may be a similar idea, although the word's etymology suggests that it is more to do with the sense of 'touch' than with the 'heart'. His term has subsequently been used to describe aspects of reasoning that enable us to see things more holistically. Polanyi asserted that all knowledge is tacit 'if it rests on our subsidiary awareness of particulars in terms of a comprehensive unity'. Tacit knowledge is therefore deeper than we know because we cannot grasp it fully. Neither can it be discussed in a conscious and explicit way. This can be illustrated by the way that doctors deal with a complex condition like an illness. Many people have criticised (western) medical practice when it appears to base diagnosis and cure on only a handful of seemingly disconnected indicators (e.g. rash, temperature, vomiting, fever) rather than using an inclusive, broadly comprehensive map (Kvitash, 2005). Polanyi (1969) describes a doctor's skill in diagnosing disease by its 'physiognomy'. In explaining this he quotes Immanuel Kant who coined the term "unformalisable powers", and who spoke of "an art hidden in the depth of the human soul". It would seem that Diogenes (412-323 BCE), who was the first of the Cynics, appeared to work from a kind of 'gut logic'. At the most basic level our functioning is based on the vital dynamics of our cells; and the way they form part of our natural context (via an extended development of a series of living organisms of which development we are all part). The levels of awareness of Head, Heart, Gut and Cell form and integral whole and together interface between the abstract (information) and specific (matter) as individual (boundary) and collective (field). This integrity can again be represented by the tetrahedron shown above. Our body thereby offers a key to understand how we are aware of processes of which we are part.

Syngnosis: The integration of different modes of synergy

Here, we may consider the comprehensiveness of appropriate knowledge and skills to be a kind of ‘wisdom’ that is probably too complex and emergent to be representable in an enduring form. (This form will always change in adaptation to an ever changing context.) The high level of knowledge and skills required to achieve this make the practices of collaboration vitally important. Nor is it likely to be consciously comprehensible by individuals because the dynamics of our interfacing, our interaction with/in our context, and our embedding (oneness) with the biosphere is operated by, respectively, sub-conscious, unconscious and beyond-conscious reflex levels. The importance of a co-creative approach is clear, since the problems to be addressed are beyond effective remedy unless the remedy is highly imaginative, entrepreneurial, and multi-dimensional. Unfortunately, most of us, whether we practice as scientists or designers are trained as specialists. As such, we may find it hard to communicate and collaborate creatively with others, for whom the discourse is far from clear. Equally importantly, there needs to be a ‘synergy’ of communicable ideas within, and beyond the team itself. In addition, there also needs to be a synergy of actions and decisions between these first two levels. Again the tetrahedron can represent the relationship between our conscious, subconscious, unconscious, and beyond-conscious modes of involvement in our context. Together, they form the basis for “syngnosis”.

Towards a 'synergy of synergies'

The problem of co-authorship is therefore a long-underestimated aspect of design for complexity. It is, at least, symbolically and symptomatically related, not only to the need for ‘synergies’ at the level of food and energy production, but also in terms of interpersonal and trans-disciplinary relations. (Not only between human beings, but also all life forms on Earth.) Richard Buckminster Fuller (1975) has referred to the notion of a ‘synergy of synergies’ in which different modes of synergy are able to ‘synergise’ with one another. Hence, where physicists and metallurgists can work at a low order of (physical) synergy to produce synergistic alloys such as nano structured ‘gum metal’ (Saito & Toyota, 2003), we may need to understand much more about the higher orders of synergy that we find in living organisms, in which the embedding in the context operates at more, and more complex, layers and scales.

Symbiosis: Synergies of Life

We have already suggested that mankind’s inability to deal holistically, with its immediate environmental problems results, to a large extent, with a legacy of analytical and de-contextualised thinking. It reflects a bios of Object oriented (_) over process centred (_) forms of involvement. The rise of algorithmic thought (e.g. algebra) stemmed from the heavily reductionist and axiomatic approach of the pre-Socratic thinkers. Although their excessive claims were elegantly repudiated by near contemporaries such as Zeno and Heraclitus, they proved their spectacular success when applied to linear mechanical models. Invariant systems of representation may be able to deliver accurate prediction under limited conditions it is unable to do the same thing for living systems, which are always affected by their context at any given time and place (Maturana and Varela, 1980). Indeed, just as the survival of a single organism depends on its ability to interface effectively with/in its context, so humanity’s fate will depend on its ability to re-attune to the ecological ‘realities’ that co-sustain it. For our societies to become ‘co-sustainable’ at the practical level of material resources, actions, processes, and machines we will need to become more ‘open’ to what Heraclitus called the ‘Logos’. This word has often been (mis)translated as the ‘Spirit’, or ‘Word’. Arguably, it refers to a kind of ‘Natural discursive flux’ that permeates the World that we both know, and yet do not know. It corresponds to Fuller’s idea of a ‘Synergy of Synergies’. It is a kind of ‘integrated complexity’, that puts ourselves beyond the scope of control.

---

Continue reading practical conclusions
Return to / go to details of ds21 Members
Return to / go to Design Synergy HOME PAGE

---