Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘from the reading room’ Category

Margaret Wheatley works in the area of leadership and organisational change from the perspective of what we can learn from living reality. She has the complex adaptive systems concept at the core of her work. I recently stumbled across her writings, particularly her four “principles of living systems”. Here they are -

  1. Participation is not a choice
  2. Life always reacts to directives, it never obeys them
  3. We do not see “reality”. We each create our own interpretation of what is real
  4. To create better health in a living system, connect it more to itself

The first principle relates to the reality that everyone, every thing, every aspect of our world, our universe, exists inextricably embedded in the contexts of its existence. A living organism is an “open system”, with information and energy constantly flowing into and out of it. A living system is dynamic and perpetually changing and “co-evolving” with the other elements of the ecosystem in which it lives. You can’t change a part of a person without producing changes in the rest of that person, and you can’t change a person without setting off a cascade of unpredictable changes in the world in which that person lives (and vice versa – you can’t change something in someone’s world without setting off changes in that person). Participation is not a choice, it’s an inevitability.

The second principle is the core of adaptation. Every individual is unique and cannot be controlled like a robot or a machine. You can force people to behave a certain way for a period of time, but ultimately all the organisations and political systems based on force collapse. You can’t force the sun to shine, the wind to blow, the rain to fall, or Life to obey your commands.

The third principle is something we often forget. Iain McGilchrist, in The Master and His Emissary, highlights how the left cerebral hemisphere is particularly well developed to “re-create” reality. It creates “re-presentations” of the raw information and energy which flows into the person. These representations allow us to make sense of the world and to literally to grasp things better. It’s a fantastic development and is probably at the core of our industrial and technological development as a species. We also know now that the part of the brain just behind the forehead, the mid-prefrontal cortex, has many, many functions, but amongst them is a map-making facility. It’s crucially involved in creating, what Dan Siegel calls, “a me map, a you map and a we map”. We never know any of this reality directly. Rather we constantly create our perceptions and our understandings, influencing those creations with our memories, our hopes, our beliefs, our values and our desires.

The final principle is Margaret Wheatley’s way of talking about integration. When a system is well integrated there are healthy, mutually beneficial relationships between all the connected parts. That produces coherence and harmony. It’s the basis of health.

When I first created this blog, I wrote a permanent page on “ACE” – “Adaptation, Creativity and Engagement“. It was really interesting for me, therefore, to discover this quote from Margaret Wheatley (which I believe, essentially highlights the same characteristics)

Over many years of work all over the world, I’ve learned that if we organize in the same way that the rest of life does, we develop the skills we need: we become resilient, adaptive, aware, and creative. We enjoy working together. And life’s processes work everywhere, no matter the culture, group, or person, because these are basic dynamics shared by all living beings

 

Read Full Post »

Cloud Atlas

Why did I leave this book lying unopened on my bookshelf for about four years? I don’t know. However, while recuperating last week, I read it, and, boy am I glad I did. What a superb piece of writing it is. Maybe you’ve been out to see the movie by now (I haven’t), but Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell, is a story cycle. It is six interlinked stories, with each story ending on a cliff-hanger before going on to the next story, right up to story number six, then we pick up all the threads, revisiting first story five, then four, then three and so on. The range of genre and styles is astonishing, with everything from a sixteenth century travel journal to science fiction set in the twenty third century. I loved it all. Each story links to the others in a multiple of ways and the very last couple of pages sum up what it’s all about.

Here is what it is all about (don’t worry, no plot spoilers revealed here)

What precipitates outcomes? Vicious acts and virtuous acts. What precipitates acts? Belief.

The character, Adam Ewing, goes on to write….

Belief is both prize & battlefield, within the mind & in the mind’s mirror, the world.

What a great phrase! ….the mind’s mirror, the world.

If we believe humanity is a ladder of tribes, a colosseum of confrontation, exploitation and bestiality, such a humanity is surely brought into being……If we believe that humanity may transcend tooth and claw, if we believe divers races & creeds can share this world as peaceably as the orphans share their candlenut tree, if we believe leaders must be just, violence muzzled, power accountable and the riches of the Earth and its Oceans shared equitably, such a world will come to pass. I am not deceived. It is the hardest of worlds to make real.

With that, Adam decides to dedicate himself to the cause of the abolition of slavery, mindful of how he is likely to be vilified, and attacked for doing so, and how is father-in-law will say

only as you gasp your dying breath shall you understand, your life amounted to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean.

And Adam will reply

Yet what is any ocean but a multitude of drops?

What do you believe? What kind of world are you creating?

Read Full Post »

This week I sat next to a student on the train. She was revising her notes on “clinical research”. I was struck by her list of keypoints under the heading “the scientific method”

  • Observation
  • Description
  • Explanation
  • Prediction
  • Control

I have a life long interest in science, but for me, science is just one form of enquiry. I’m actually an insatiably curious person. I love learning. I’m constantly reading. I read on the train, I read in cafes, at home, at work, everywhere. Having a kindle reader on my iphone and my ipad has made it even easier to weave reading into my day. I have thousands of books in my own library. I have google searches set up, rss feeds delivered to my MrReader app, Flipboard and Zite apps on my ipad…..I’m a reader!

But I’m also a photographer and a writer, as you can see if you browse through this blog. And I’m a thinker. I love to learn, to reflect, to understand. I love that every work day I get to spend time with people and try to understand them.

I observe, I describe and I explain.

But predict? I’m not so keen on that one. I find life so complex and every human being so unique, that I find it impossible to predict the future. In broad brush terms, or in generalisations, or statistical probabilities I can have a bash, but I know that for this person, right here, right now, I can’t predict how things will go.

And control?

Control?

No thank you. Way too much compliance and control going on in our society for my liking and it doesn’t seem to be improving much. I’m a lot more keen on values than I am on control.

Is science about control? I thought it was about discovery and wonder. I thought it was about learning with every new insight that we have more to learn.

I was very impressed the first time I read Deleuze and Guattari who described three ways of thinking -

Art – which is thinking about percepts and affects

Philosophy – thinking about concepts

Science – thinking about function

I like that. Science for me is about discovering patterns, and getting some insights into how something works. That’s what I loved about my undergraduate medical degree – discovering the anatomy, physiology, biology of how the body works. It’s been years and years of daily medical practice, of reading, of reflecting and of thinking, which has brought me to my present place of understanding how a person works. And I sure haven’t got all THAT figured out!

There’s something that jars with me about science directed towards control. But maybe that’s because I don’t like to be controlled!

 

Read Full Post »

Ocean steps

I so admire the way John O’Donohue expressed himself. Here’s a phrase he used in his interview with Krista Tippett.

The ancient conversation between the ocean and the stone

He mentioned this in discussing the relationship between the visible and the invisible. I especially liked the way he describes

the visible world is the first shoreline of the invisible world

and how he said that human beings are THE PLACE WHERE THE INVISIBLE BECOMES VISIBLE.

In another interview, I heard David Sloan Wilson say that

Evolution only sees action. Whatever goes on in the head is invisible to evolution unless it is manifested in what people do.

But see, if John is right, and I think he is, then the human being is the place where the invisible becomes visible. Yes, that is partly through our actions, or our choices which lead to our actions, but it is also through our very bodies. Everything that occurs in that inner invisible world, and most of what occurs is not accessible to the conscious mind, changes the way our bodies and our brains function. Those changes continuously interact with the world in which we exist. Even our rate of breathing changes the gases in the air around us. As bodies warm up, so does a room, and as a room warms up, so the body responds. In countless, continuous ways, what happens inside us changes the world outside us, which in turn, changes the world inside us.

We are in continuous ancient conversation – between our invisible reality and our visible reality.

It strikes me that it is pointless to think of a human being as if the invisible is irrelevant, unimportant, or in any way of lesser significance to visible, “objective” reality.

Read Full Post »

Connectivism is an approach to learning based on the idea that knowledge is not an entity, but rather a process within a network.  As described by Stephen Downes,

“At its heart, connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks. Knowledge, therefore, is not acquired, as though it were a thing. It is not transmitted, as though it were some type of communication. What we learn, what we know — these are literally the connections we form between neurons as a result of experience. The brain is composed of 100 billion neurons, and these form some 100 trillion connections and it is these connections that constitute everything we know, everything we believe, everything we imagine. And while it is convenient to talk as though knowledge and beliefs are composed of sentences and concepts that we somehow acquire and store, it is more accurate – and pedagogically more useful — to treat learning as the formation of connections.”

How different is this from the “Grandgrind” view of education?

NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!

(Gradgrind – the teacher in Dickens’ Hard Times)

I was never a fan of the Grandgrind approach, but its becoming ever more clear just how foolish and unrealistic it is.

Read Full Post »

Mount Fuji from the sky

Kathryn Shultz has written a fascinating and thought provoking piece in the New York Magazine about the self-help industry, challenging the unspoken philosophical flaw at the root of much of it. The full article is worth a read, but the main point she makes is where is this bit of the thing called the self which stays intact, immune to the addictions, fears and anxieties experienced by the rest of self and able to change that bit. Are there two selves in the self? The one with the problems and the one with both the solutions and the wherewithal to sort out the other one?
Not only has nobody ever found these two selves, nobody has even found THE Self!

I particularly loved her reference to Josh Rothman writing about clouds -

The journalist Josh Rothman once wrote a lovely description of what a cloud really is: not an entity, as we perceive it, but just a region of space that’s cooler than the regions around it, so that water vapor entering it condenses from the cold, then evaporates again as it drifts back out. A cloud is no more a thing, Rothman concluded, than “the pool of light a flashlight makes as you shine it around a dark room.” And the self, the Buddhists would say, is no more a thing than a region of air with thoughts passing through.

Read Full Post »

Global brain

Howard Bloom’s “Global Brain” [ISBN 0471419192] is a great and stimulating read. He describes “complex adaptive systems” as having five characteristics -

Diversity generators, conformity enforcers, inner judges, resource shifters and intergroup tournaments.

These are an interesting five characteristics to highlight (there are, of course, other characteristics of “complex adaptive systems”) and Bloom takes his time to describe in gripping and convincing detail how each of these characteristics has contributed to the evolution of life on this planet.

You could read this book as a critique of orthodox Darwinism – the selfish gene, individualised kind of Darwinism – with a very convincing case being made for group selection as a key part of the engine of evolution. He really does make a good clear case for group as opposed to individualised “survival of the fittest” evolution.

I especially like his first two characteristics – diversity generators and conformity enforcers.

All human beings create a sense of self out of the need to be an individual, to be unique, to be different, and the need to belong, to share, to connect and to fit in with others. Diversity generation creates difference, whilst conformity enforcement creates connections and rules.

Diversity generators and conformity enforcers also remind me of Thomas Berry’s lovely idea of wildness and discipline

However…….I ended up not satisfied with the relentlessly competitive theme. His other three characteristics all contribute to a series of survival of the fittest battles. I think there is truth in this but think for a moment about the human body. Our heart and our liver don’t fight each other for resources with the winner taking all. Something else happens – mutually beneficial relationships are established.

Mutually beneficial relationships are the key characteristic of integration, and integration strikes me as a key way in which Life evolves. Through increasing amounts of mutually beneficial connections, complex adaptive systems become both more complex and more adaptive.

It’s not all about competition.

Read Full Post »

There was an amazing story recently in the NY Times about a Greek man living in the US. He was diagnosed with lung cancer in his mid 60s and given the prognosis of 9 months to live. He decided that instead expensive treatments and a costly funeral in the US, he would return to his native Greek island of Ikaria.

He moved back in with his parents and went to bed to be cared for by his wife and mother. But he started to feel strong enough to go out so reconnected with childhood friends and re-established his Sunday trips to church.

As the months passed he felt strong enough to do some gardening (a common activity on the island) and planted vegetables thinking he might not live to enjoy them, but he would enjoy growing them. Not only did he live to enjoy them but with his regular routines now of plenty of sleep, regular walks up the hill, spending time in the garden and in the evenings with his friends at the bar, and his weekly visits to the church he began to feel well enough to tackle the old, neglected family vineyard.

Three and a half decades on he is now 97, producing 400 gallons of wine a year from his vineyard and seems to be cancer free.

What can we learn from this inspirational story? Well, the author of the story in the NY Times concludes this -

If you pay careful attention to the way Ikarians have lived their lives, it appears that a dozen subtly powerful, mutually enhancing and pervasive factors are at work. It’s easy to get enough rest if no one else wakes up early and the village goes dead during afternoon naptime. It helps that the cheapest, most accessible foods are also the most healthful — and that your ancestors have spent centuries developing ways to make them taste good. It’s hard to get through the day in Ikaria without walking up 20 hills. You’re not likely to ever feel the existential pain of not belonging or even the simple stress of arriving late. Your community makes sure you’ll always have something to eat, but peer pressure will get you to contribute something too. You’re going to grow a garden, because that’s what your parents did, and that’s what your neighbors are doing. You’re less likely to be a victim of crime because everyone at once is a busybody and feels as if he’s being watched. At day’s end, you’ll share a cup of the seasonal herbal tea with your neighbor because that’s what he’s serving. Several glasses of wine may follow the tea, but you’ll drink them in the company of good friends. On Sunday, you’ll attend church, and you’ll fast before Orthodox feast days. Even if you’re antisocial, you’ll never be entirely alone. Your neighbors will cajole you out of your house for the village festival to eat your portion of goat meat

 

Those are probably reasonable conclusions but what inspires me most about this this story is the series of simple, pragmatic choices this man made. He didn’t set off to “beat cancer”, or to find the elusive magical cure. No, what he did was chose, moment by moment, day by day, to live. He might have died in his bed within days of returning to Ikaria. He would have had the death he chose, if that were the case. But he was not at any point focused on trying to determine the detailed outcomes.

Here is what inspires me about this story – at each stage he was focused on how he would live today and at no point did he think how to escape death.

Read the whole article here.

Read Full Post »

I’ve long been bemused by the lack of reference to health in healthcare training. The standard clinical textbooks of Medicine not only have no chapters on health, books like Davidson, still a standard medical school text don’t even have an index entry for health.

Then the other day I stumbled on an old document from 1938 entitled “The Wheel of Health”, by G T Wrench MD. The content of the text is not what I want to mention today, but I’d like to share the following paragraphs from the author’s introduction.

Why was it that as students we were always presented with sick or convalescent people for our teaching and never with the ultrahealthy? Why were we only taught disease? Why was it presumed that we knew all about health in its fulness? The teaching was wholly one-sided. Moreover, the basis of our teaching upon disease was pathology, namely, the appearance of that which is dead from disease. We started from our knowledge of the dead, from which we interpreted the manifestations, slight or severe, of threatened death, which is disease. Through these various manifestations, which fattened our text-books, we approached health. By the time, however, we reached real health, like that of the keen times of public school, the studies were dropped. Their human representatives, the patients, were now well, and neither we nor our educators were any longer concerned with them. We made no studies of the healthy–only the sick.

 

1938! He could have written that today!

Does this not surprise you?

Read Full Post »

The other day there I came across a reference to an Alan Watts teaching about the limitations of reductionism. I’ve tracked it down -

You cannot understand life and its mysteries as long as you try to grasp it.  Indeed, you cannot grasp it just as you cannot walk off with a river in a bucket.  If you try to capture running water in a bucket, it is clear that you do not understand it and that you will always be disappointed, for in the bucket the water does not run.  To “have” running water you must let go of it and let it run. ~Alan Watts from “The Wisdom of Insecurity”.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 206 other followers