All Endings Are Beginnings, and All Beginnings Are Endings

Throughout this human life, I have moved between the world of the artist-storyteller and that of the design practitioner: this tidal action has given me many opportunities to explore and reflect upon philosophical ideas about our essential human nature, as expressed by people like Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, Freud, Jung, Buber, etc.

One of these ideas -- that of Cartesian dualism--asserts (back of the napkin) that humans have split our thinking "rational" self off from our feeling/intuitive "being" self, and thus, cannot accurately perceive or intervene to prevent the negative effects of our behavior on ourselves and on the world around us.  Outside academia, the shorthand for this bacony-cheesy concept is "the mind-body split."

When I was in graduate school, Cartesian dualism was a perennial topic of conversation, and was sometimes proffered as a root cause of environmental degradation, and as justification for imposing environmental restrictions on people. This was a stance I found problematic, as I do not believe that blaming people is effective, nor should anyone be imposing top-down solutions on the complex, messy process of being human.  Life is complex, and our responses --especially if we are working with design problems like poverty, addiction, environmental degradation, etc. (the so-called "wicked problems")-- must take this complexity into account. 

Working with wicked problems begins with the recognition that developing effective responses involves a process of engaging those people feeling a direct impact, and working with them to explore and address aspects of the problem they can control in a generative, context-specific manner. Top down solutions interfere with this process and so--ecologically speaking - they are categorically inappropriate. 

That said, as a designer and an artist, I have found Cartesian dualism to be a very useful concept in applied ecological design as a starting point for evaluating potential clients. I do this in many ways, one of which involves paying close attention to how a potential client initially sets a design problem. Uncovering the problem set involves listening for and observing how a client describes the design issue of concern, and noticing whether there are any obvious types of Cartesian disconnections being expressed.

For example, is the design problem being presented in emotional language? "Climate change! Climate change! The world is going to end in 12 years! We must do something! Please help us!" (NOTE: in using the term "climate change" as the problem du jour, I am NOT saying "climate change" is a legitimate framing of a highly complex problem: from the standpoint of ecological intelligence & design, it most certainly is not. I am using the term because it is common parlance at this historical moment, and reflects the type of simplistic emotional rhetoric that passes for critical thought in the vast majority of early 21st century policy documents, as well as being a ubiquitious presence in political and social commentary.)

Or is the design problem parsed in dry, boring, legalese? "...whereas, we, the members of the faculty committee, do hereby assert that climate change is a serious problem, one we must focus the curriculm on, and we must ensure that our students place this concern at the center of their academic studies."

Or, is the design problem being expressed as a blend of concrete description and concrete solution? "We can see that our local water table has been dropping for 15 years, and the last 11 years have been increasingly colder than the 40 years before that, combined. We're not sure what's causing these changes, but we see a need to help low income and elderly folks reduce energy costs and make their homes more comfortable..so we'd like to do something along those lines."

Each of these responses provides information about where a potential client is, psychologically and emotionally, in their relationship with ideas, with other people, and with their environment.  How people talk about the problem(s) which concern them also gives me some clues about how they may respond to being challenged with new information - which comes with the terriority of complex change.

For example, the first client group's description reflects emotionality and baseline stress.  They are reactive, not responsive, and their stance reflects a high degree of polarization. They are likely to spend a lot of time defending themselves from new information, and are unlikely to have the internal capacity to respond calmly to being challenged on their framing of the design problem. More likely than not, we'd never get past an initial conversation.

In contrast, the second client group is very emotionally detached -- a stance which, collectively, will hamper their ability to develop their design project and to generate any enthusiasm for what they're doing.  These types of groups often have deep, multiple hidden agendas which are expressed as a highly intellectual stance toward an abstract problem.  As a design consultant, I can often feel their boredom, disinterest and tight control viscerally...and it is toxic. Unless a group with this presentation is open to connecting head with heart--a nuanced process which takes time to engender--their internal dynamics can result in one or two people pushing on a string and the rest of the group passively resisting the process.  In such a scenario, the design consultant can end up functioning like a battery for the string pushers. Pass.

And then there is the third potential client:  this group acknowleges local (microclimate) change and indicates both concrete awareness of what has changed, and why it's of concern. If I asked--and I would--they would likely be able to articulate this in some detail.  Furthermore, they don't appear to be looking for the heroic angle, such as "we're fighting to save the earth!" nor are they reactively on the march for a scapegoat.  They're grounded--literally--in where they are. And they're ready to take responsibility for doing something positive and concrete to make things better. I'd engage with them.

Beyond making initial client assessments, listening for these types of Cartesian splits --which often announce themselves tonally and reflect self-self, self-other, or self-environment disconnections-- informs how I pace group work, anticipate conflicts, and ask questions throughout a design project. 

Using the concept of Cartesian dualism to obtain design information and improve my practice, rather than as a way to blame and control people, has had many positive effects on my personal and professional life.  It has allowed me to have much more interesting conversations about design and ecological literacy.  It has enabled me to work with a much more diverse range of clients, and on a much more diverse range of issues than I would have otherwise.  And it has helped me develop my emotional range and courage as a design practitioner. This, in turn, has influenced my creative work in many wonderful ways. 

At this time in my life I am turning away from technical design work, and toward my own creative projects.  As part of making this change, I am archiving this blog. Going forward, you can find my work at www.sequoia.earth.

Thank you for being my audience over the years at this very sparsely written blog. I have been honored to have had a small, dedicated following, and I hope you will enjoy some of my longer literary works as they appear. 

my dear fellow veterans

 A message from the dandelions

Einstein, applied

nothing real can be threatened

nothing unreal exists

therein lies the peace of God

mental models

Here's an interesting info-graphic (created by Michael Simmons) on mental models-- a topic I touched on in a recent post.  From the standpoint of communication design, these kinds of data-intense graphics can be very useful; however, they can also occlude awareness...most commonly because we've mis-understood or omitted an important component of the so-called "relevant universe" or (my preferred term) the systems ecology under consideration.

For example, what's the meta-message in this graphic?  Descriptively, it's cohesive and interesting.  It's also highly complex.   And I would suggest that, as a complex model (info-graphic) of a meta-model (universe of mental models) it serves (in a very subtle, nuanced way) to convey that--beyond being something to look at and grasp intellectually--this is a subject best left to experts.

Now...I am not arguing that the creator of the graphic was trying to say this.  Nor am I arguing that this facet of the meta-message is harmful.  It's truthful at a certain level: There is complexity in mental models, and in problem solving approaches.   That said, I'm also observing that--through the lens of communication design-- the presentation points toward complexity as a key take-away of the graphic, and that this subtle meta-message may in fact be the primary message for many folks.

And so what? Maybe it's just an interesting way of thinking about cognition, and how we approach problems.  This could be.  And if you are an intellectual omnivore it makes a tasty addition to the plate of ideas.  I'd also say that in the realm of design--where we are engaged with both science and art in the grounded space of solving actual problems--  this graphic represents a useful repetoire of thought-approaches which we can leverage in design work. As a designer working in the realm of complex systems, I am all for mental flexibility and a broad palette of options at every stage of design. However, it is also my position that before we consider external (so-called) mental models (some of which are represented in this graphic) there is another, much more important mental model in play: the one we have inside our own head...the one we may (or more likely may not) even be aware of...the one within which we have squirreled away years (decades depending on your age) of unquestioned assumptions about ourselves, the world around us, and how things work.  This internal mental model--to the extent that it is operating unconsciously and without question in the background--can seriously impair our efforts to co-create positive outcomes in our design work...especially when so-called "human factors" are involved...mainly because it represents a huge blindspot in our ability to perceive the dynamic and constantly shifting world around us. 

Broadly put, the info-graphic represents a core mental model of modern culture's technorationalist approch to problems-- just find an expert and/or their solution and it's all good.  In contrast, I suggest that the primary mental model to concern one's self with in ecologicl design practice (and life) is our own:   What are your beliefs? What skills are they linked to? How does your expression (via words & deeds/skills) align (or not) with your beliefs?  How do these beliefs inform and impact your design work? (And your life, for we are always designing our own lives through our work whether we acknowledge it or not.) 

When you begin to seriously evaluate your internal landscape--your map, your mental model--you are beginning to level up to the realm of ecological design...the artful problem-solving work design practitioners do when we are seeking to integrate who we are and how we show up in the world with the needs we see represented around us in our environment. 

The power of external approaches--as outlined in the graphic--is magnified exponentially when we understand who we are and what makes us tick, and when we bring that awareness to our design practice.  The inclusion of the inner work (self-relationship) is one of the things that distinguishes ecological design from technical design...and this holds true in every area of design: industrial, communication, residential, process, experience, etc.  

Cultivate a deeper awareness of your working mental model, and learn to challenge your assumptions as you become aware of them, and see how this influences your design approach and work in the world.   You might be seriously surprised at the positive yield such a practice provides.   Or not.  All for now.

our greatest challenge at this historical moment: denial and disinformation

A great deal of permaculture design concerns itself with practical, material matters: sun patterns, capturing and conserving energy (of all kinds), establishing ways to live which honor and work with various planetary cycles and systems dynamics, and so on.  However, an area which doesn't get as much airtime as these practical matters, but which is of great importance in permaculture, involves the ethical principles of permaculture design. 

In coming posts, I will discuss how I work with and apply these principles in my life in more detail.  For now, I will simply say this:  deception (also known as disinformation) is an abuse of human energy and intelligence, and as such, is a violation of the ethical principles of permaculture.  As permaculture designers, it is incumbent upon us to learn how to percieve deception, recognize its harmful effects, and respond effectively to counter it.  The ability to do this is the counterweight to disinformation and denial--two dynamics which are epidemic in global human society at this historical moment-- and thus, deception perception and management is of critical global importance.

As permaculture designers, developing our capacity for deception perception and deception management is as essential to permaculture design as is managing pests or making compost. Tolerance of deception is as damaging to human society as ignoring Himalayan blackberry or Kudzu would be to a food forest.  Unchecked and unaddressed, deception spreads by undermining our ability to trust our own perception and our intuitive sense of the truth. It is invasive in nature, and unless we attend to it constantly, it will continue to expand until it fully undermines our ability to live ethically and responsibly.  

The embedded video has more to say about the current state of deception in human culture.  While this video is explicitly discussing the media's response to reports of Extra Terrestrial contact, and how people self-censor accordingly, the dynamic described--the use of social stigma to control perception and behavior--is equally applicable to other issues, such as geopolitics (for example, invoking "conspiracy theory" to silence people who question the official story of 9/11 or seek to investigate it properly) or history (for example, brainwashing college freshmen into believing that the drafters of the U.S. Consitution were "white supremecists" and that destruction of the United States as a sovereign nation is required to atone for this).

In permaculture design, we are tasked with paying attention to the whole...and this includes awareness of our mental models and our thought processes, as well as awareness of who (or what) is influencing our perception.  I encourage you to watch this video and to consider how the current state of deception (in media, politics, education, medicine, etc.) is affecting your ability to foster a generative ecosystem in your corner of the globe. As one permaculture designer to another, I encourage you to learn to observe the patterns of deception in your communicty, and to educate yourselves on the methods necessary to attend to them in a holistic and gnerative manner, just as you would do with any other problematic development in your sphere of influence.  More later.