Living Better In a Better World: An Ecosystemic Approach to the Problems of Difficult Settlement or Solution In Our Times (original) (raw)
Related papers
2011
Quality of life, natural and man-made environments, physical, social and mental well-being are currently undermined by all sorts of hazards and injuries; political, economical, social and cultural disarray normalise atrocious behaviours and violence throughout the world, in a context of dehumanisation, depersonalisation and reification. A theoretical and practical multidimensional ecosystemic approach and planning model is posited, intertwining, as donors and recipients, four dimensions of being-in-the-world: intimate, interactive, social and biophysical. Events are not reduced to fragmented representations of reality, but considered as configurations, resulting from a dynamic field, expressing the connections and ruptures between the different dimensions. Instead of being directed to the bubbles of the surface (reduced, taken for granted problems), projects of change contemplate the dynamic configurations formed by the intersection of the different dimensions "inside the boiling pot".
Living Better in a Better World: Development and Sustainability in the Ecosystemic Model of Culture.
Problems of difficult settlement or solution in the contemporary world cannot be solved by segmented academic formats, market-place interests and mass-media headlines; instead of dealing with "taken for granted issues" (the apparent "bubbles" in the surface), public policies, research and teaching programmes should detect the issues and work with them deep inside the "boiling pot". The conceptual direction and the legitimacy of development strategies should be examined in view of a comprehensive framework, not surrendering to specialisation and fragmentation, but promoting a multi-level approach. The present crisis breaks through the core of different societal institutions – education, justice, governance – and reflects a disordering of thought, perceptions and values, embedded into the prevailing power-driven ethos and anomic individualism, which diverts human concern into technological invention, fragmented business embedded scientific advancement and unlimited material consumption and production. Human-induced environmental change imposes a reconfiguration of state control and political authority, in which power is shared on ethical grounds, in a transnational basis. Policy discussions and policymaking require a comprehensive ecosystemic approach embedded into the cultural, social, political and economical institutions (more critical than individual motives and morals). Changing the dominant perspective of powerful political and economic actors, in view of new paradigms of growth, power, wealth, work and freedom, requires a comprehensive framework for problem solving, encompassing the dynamic and complex configurations intertwining, as donors and recipients, four dimensions of being-in-the-world: intimate (subject’s cognitive and affective processes), interactive (groups’ mutual support and values), social (political, economical and cultural systems) and biophysical (biological endowment, natural and man-made environments). The process of change should strengthen the connections and seal the ruptures between the different dimensions, enhancing their mutual support and dynamic equilibrium, as they combine to induce the events (deficits and assets), cope with consequences (desired or undesired) and contribute for change (diagnosis and prognosis). Keywords: Education, Economics, Environment, Culture, Health, Politics
HOW DOES CHANGE COME ABOUT ? / ABOUT SOCIETAL INTERACTIVE CHANGE An inter/trans-disciplinary attempt to the complexity of a contemporary change prospect SPIRITUALITY-BIODIVERSITY / CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP OF WELFARE – a Past, Present, and Future Outlook eliciting the Heritage, Contemporary Challenge, Near and Next Perspective. Does Humankind matter beyond limitations and paradoxes? Are “Contemporary World Changes” possible, and how to be proceeded? Are all these probabilistic and/or fuzzy patterns, or else? How could be done the initial steps toward ’Innovative Social Relations’ for “Sustainable Development“ through Social Signal Processing – within a cybernetic and systemic background addressing an incompleteness / inconsistence (Gödel, 1931) of our human elicited and disseminated information/knowledge/data? [versus the only “N-1” characteristics from a set of “N” rational desired characteristics cognitively described into the current systemic context] Purpose – This (e-)book aims to constitute an initial and open global study addressing the open stance “Past, Present, Future” as a challenge to analyse the possibility and to elicit a part of the procedures related to “Contemporary World Changes”, and to propose the initial steps toward an ‘Innovative Social Relations’ for “Sustainable Development” corpus through Social Signal Processing. It is to gain the conceptual basis toward the elicitation of the constructs: new type of entrepreneur, and a new type of entrepreneur of PEACE – the both types within Knowledge Society Mind/Conscience/Consciousness Society. Design/methodology/approach – The nucleus of this critical global study is addressed to the contemporary and near future (e-)World – Including an Interacting Forum of (e-)readers from an open societal systemic background. The nucleus is step by step extended to eleven inquiries, their explanation, the associated guide by the content of the table presenting four cases of the relation between different modelling approaches according to an extended System Theory to a (Non)Systemic Theory – on the background of KNOWLEDGE vs. FRAME concepts, subsequent to an ordered list of I – XXIV inquiries, and their details – addressing a so called Social Signal Processing toward the constituting and developing of an ‘Innovative Social Relations’ for “Sustainable Development” corpus. All these would be the locus for (re)acting the proposed 'SPIRITUALITY-BIODIVERSITY / CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP OF WELFARE' composed construct as an innovative perspective for the open stance “Past, Present, Future”. Findings – 'SPIRITUALITY-BIODIVERSITY / CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP OF WELFARE' composed construct as a perspective for the open stance “Past, Present, Future”. So, our Humankind beyond the space-time continuum could transit from the contemporary Knowledge Economy/Society by eliciting Contemporary World Changes, within a multi-staged approach toward a Mind/Conscience/Consciousness Economy/Society. A primal role would be assigned by the coherent, cohesive and concordant implementation of the triadic construct Generosity versus Creativity and Solidarity, and the elicited way to attain the scientific and supposed praxis realm toward an ‘Innovative Social Relations’ for “Sustainable Development” corpus through Social Signal Processing / toward a new type of entrepreneur, and toward a new type of entrepreneur of PEACE – the both types within Knowledge Society Mind/Conscience/Consciousness Society. Originality/value – It is obvious that a critical analysis and synthesis of our worldwide (post-)crisis events must deal with an original approach within an added gnoseologic and/or epistemic value, and expected responsible 'points' - as societal turning points - yesterday, today, tomorrow....
A Global Voice for Survival: An Ecosystemic Approach for World Changes & Development Design
Problems of difficult settlement or solution in the world cannot be solved by segmented academic formats, marketplace interests or mass-media headlines; instead of dealing with taken for granted issues (the apparent " bubbles " in the surface), public policies, research and teaching programmes should detect the issues and deal with them deep inside the " boiling pot ". Policy discussions and policy making require new paradigms of growth, power, wealth, work and freedom embedded into the cultural, social, political and economical institutions (more critical than individual motives and morals). Urban planning cannot be subordinated to the interests of business corporations, cities cannot remain as privileged centers for profit and capital accumulation, transforming citizens in mere users and consumers, but must preserve and develop mankind heritage, encompassing history, values, architecture, landscapes, the arts, the letters. Being-in-the-world is more than living on it, it demands an ecosystemic approach, the construction of a new social fabric, as new structures emerge in the socio-cultural learning niches and develop critical capacities to operate changes in the system. Problem solving implies dynamic and complex configurations intertwining four dimensions of being-in-the-world, as they combine, as donors and recipients, to induce the events (deficits and assets), cope with consequences (desired or undesired) and contribute to change (diagnosis and prognosis): intimate (subject's cognitive and affective processes), interactive (groups' mutual support and values), social (political, economical and cultural systems) and biophysical (biological endowment, natural and man-made environments). An integrated ecosystemic approach to education, culture, environment, health, politics, economics, ethics and quality of life should develop the connections and seal the ruptures between the different dimensions of being-in-the-world, in view of their mutual support and dynamic equilibrium.
Building a New World: An Ecosystemic Approach for Global Change & Development Design
University Library of Munich, 2015
To build a world where people are self-resilient, live dignified lives, ensure healthy and prosperous future and co-existence for all living beings in harmony, justice and peace requires more than one actor, that actors be aware of each other’s actions, and that they dynamically adjust their own behaviour (and possibly their own goals), taking the behaviour of others into acccont. New paradigms of power, growth, work, freedom and wealth should be associated with new ways of being-in-the-world, in the benefit of environment, health, culture, education and citizenship. Quality of life is a by-product of a complex and dynamic configurations, intertwining four dimensions of being-in-the-world: intimate, interactive, social and biophysical. In an ecosystemic model of culture, each dimension supports the other ones, as donors and recipients (principles of singularity and complementarity). For planning and evaluation of public policies, research and teaching programmes, problems should be defined and dealt with deep inside the “boiling pot”, where they emerge, not in view of the segmented “bubbles” of the surface (consequences, taken for granted issues). In order to develop the connections and seal the ruptures between the different dimensions of being-in-the-world, in view of their mutual support and dynamic equilibrium, an integrated ecosystemic approach to education, culture, environment, health, politics, economics and quality of life is posited to define and deal with the problems of difficult settlement or solution in the contemporary world.