Skip to main content

ruth c. cohn's dream of a pyramid

«After many months of an apparently futile search, I dreamt of an equilateral pyramid. After awaking, I interpreted the dream as follows: An equilateral pyramid has four basic angles. My group work is based on four elements.  They are interrelated, and my hypothesis is that they should be treated equally.»

“I”: A single individual, “We”: The group, “It”: The theme or assignment the group is concerned with, and “Globe”: The environment which the gathering takes place in — both the direct surroundings, weather, timing constraints, and the whole universe.

~~

There is a similar breakdown due to Ken Wilber who writes about "I/We/Its/It" in

Wilber, K. (1997). An integral theory of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4(1), 71–92.

and another related sequence "Socialization/Externalization/Combination/Internalization" due to Nonaka and Takeuchi, in

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

I used Wilber and Nonaka & Takeuchi material in a paper about how the different roles in education could be "deconstructed" and reorganized in a wiki-like way.  Each of these "roles" is a little semiotic object that is meant to hook together with other related objects.  A nice idea, in principle, but I think the weakness of this earlier work was that it remained "in principle".



In my thesis I extended I/We/Its/It with a fifth term, Context, similar to Cohn's Globe.  The point of this extension is that it doesn't sit well for it to remain "just" theoretical.  Things play out in real time at the contextual or global level.  This is related to what Rasmus was tentatively calling "transcommunication" in a recent note, though I suggested "epicommunication" or "episemiotics".

~~

Often, groups steadily lean towards one of the four factors “I”, “We”, “It”, or “Globe”. This disturbs Living Learning.  In educational groups, for example, in general the “It” is emphasized, whereas those groups fall short of the other three factors. - Philipp Bachmann, Theme-Centered Interaction. Ruth C. Cohn’s pattern language for facilitating groups (PLoP 2015 conference version)






Comments

  1. "The I, as a psychic individual, can only be thought in relationship to we, which is a collective individual. The I is constituted in adopting a collective tradition, which it inherits and in which a plurality of I ’s acknowledge each other’s existence." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation#Bernard_Stiegler

    ReplyDelete
  2. And:

    The we is also such a process (the process of collective individuation). The individuation of the I is always inscribed in that of the we, whereas the individuation of the we takes place only through the individuations, polemical in nature, of the I ’s which constitute it. - ibid.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Extra channels

In the following, I would like to clarify the connection between channel and context and concomitantly the difference between metachannel and parachannel . Paul Kockelman urges us "to notice the fundamental similarity between codes and channels" (2011: 725) but instead of that purported fundamental similarity points out the contrast between them. I argue that context , or objects and states of affairs (Bühler 2011[1934]: 35), demonstrate a closer relationship to channel than to code. This is largely because the first three fundamental relations, sender or subject , context or object , and receiver or addressee , belong to Bühler's original organon model while code , contact and message , which were previously implicit in the organon model, are made explicit as additions to the model by Jakobson (1985[1976c]). Thus the most productive approach would be to pair a component from the original organon model with an additional component in the language functions model.

Metacommunicative cues

In the previous post on Extra channels I finished with a distinction between diachronic and synchronic metacommunication. In this post I'd like to respond to some comments by the co-author of this blog, Joe, in some of his previous posts, by invoking Jurgen Ruesch's concept of metacommunication . Gregory Bateson was interested in thinking about cybernetics, but didn't seem to feel constrained to think about it using a strictly computational or information-theoretic paradigm, while still being informed by the ideas. This gave him the freedom to talk about ideas like "context", "relationship", "learning", and "communication" without needing to define them in precise computational terms. Nevertheless, he handles the ideas fairly rigorously. (Joe, Phatic Workshop: towards a μ-calculus ) Gregory Bateson and Jurgen Ruesch, among many other notable thinkers, were part of the Palo Alto Group of researchers tasked to apply new methods (a

RJ schematized

I schematized Roman Jakobson's definition of the phatic function, and upon looking at it for a while thought that I either drew a fish or a side-view of Jakobson's face, the left column being either a back-fin or Einsteinian scientist-hair, and the upper triangle in both cases serving as an eye. I'm slowly making progress with the paper on RJ's phatic function.