The course times are now 8:00 AM Flinders time Monday and 5:30 PM EST. The five week course convenes in Flinders time on Monday and In the USA on Sunday. This time allows more of us to participate.

Ken


Subj: Course time , roster, and outline, and a mess of technical difficulties
Date: 3/14/2010 2:19:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: agorasken@gmail.com
To: nury0001@flinders.edu.au, janet.mcintyre@flinders.edu.au, critical_design@comcast.net, jwashi@aol.com, peter@redesignresearch.com, kaisa.hollowaycripps@umassd.edu, CLAquaPoint@aol.com, charlesmorse08@gmail.com, Kenbausch@bellsouth.net, gayle.underwood@gmail.com, TRflanagan@aol.com, Barbara.mcfall@mail.wvu.edu, mack0212@flinders.edu.au
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Dear All,

There is presently a lot of uncertainty over technical issues regarding the wiki and Skype, and also additional uncertainty caused by the US change to daylight savings time.

The time for these classes is 10:00AM Monday Flinders and 7:30PM EDT Sunday. Because of the uncertainties as of this late time, I think we need to postpone this class for one week to get everyone comfortably settled in. The class roster is copied below. The course outline is attached.

Ken

Roster

· Kelly Mackenzie mack0212@flinders.edu.au
· Made Tony Nuryana nury0001@flinders.edu.au
· Janet McIntyre janet.mcintyre@flinders.edu.au
· Kevin Dye critical_design@comcast.net
· Jackie Wasilewski jwashi@aol.com
· Peter Jones peter@redesignresearch.com
· Kaisa G Cripps kaisa.hollowaycripps@umassd.edu
· Craig Lindell CLAquaPoint@aol.com
· Charles Morse charlesmorse08@gmail.com

Knowledge Management Team
· Ken Bausch Kenbausch@bellsaouth.net
· Gayle Underwood gayle.underwood@gmail.com
· Tom Flanagan TRflanagan@aol.com

Auditing the Course
· Barbara McFall Barbara.mcfall@mail.wvu.edu

Ken

POAD 9117 5 9117 5 Module Design
Course Outline
Week One
• Class Preparation
Post photo and bio on the wiki
Read Chapter III: The Problematique
Clarify the 5 assigned Continuous Critical Problems assigned to you in one or two paragraphs and list 2 online references. Post your clarifications on the wiki
• In web conference
Orally present your clarification in one minute or less and respond to questions requesting clarification. Questions will be clarificatory only and the presenter’s interpretation is the official one for each problem.

Week Two
• Knowledge Management Team (KMT) clusters problems
• In web conference
Discuss clusters
• On wiki, vote preference for 5 most important problems

Week Three
• KMT tabulates votes and prepares for ISM
• In web conference
Discuss results of importance voting and Erroneous Priorities Effect
Do ISM
Create tree of influence

Week Four
• In web conference, discuss tree
• On wiki, each participant offers two actions that will address the problems identified in the tree. At least one of these actions must address the root cause(s). One may address other problems in the tree.

Week Five
• In web conference,
Do a superposition by aligning actions with the problems in the tree
Discuss the results
• On wiki
Each participant generates his or her own narrative based on the ISM structure.
[Course grade will rely heavily on the quality of this narrative.]



Subj: Re:Conversation continued here as cannot get onto the wiki regards Janet
Date: 3/14/2010 2:19:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: janet.mcintyre@flinders.edu.au
To: agorasken@gmail.com
CC: 'To@flinders.edu.au:'nury0001@flinders.edu.au critical_design@comcast.net jwashi@aol.com peter@redesignresearch.com kaisa.hollowaycripps@umassd.edu CLAquaPoint@aol.com charlesmorse08@gmail.com Kenbausch@bellso
Sent from the Internet (Details)

A core problem

The approach to the challenge is surely to redress the way we think and practice
Dualisms underpin our thinking and practice. Intersubjectivity requires an appreciation of our place in an interconnected universe (Turner and Whitehead, 2008). As stewards we need to ensure that we uphold freedom and diversity to the extent that we do not undermine the freedom and diversity of the next generation of life. This non dualistic integrated or systemic approach requires a different approach to science, teaching ethics, democracy, governance.


Subj: Re: Conversation on the Continuous Critical Problems and also some initial th
Date: 3/14/2010 2:03:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: janet.mcintyre@flinders.edu.au
To: agorasken@gmail.com
CC: To@flinders.edu.au,
nury0001@flinders.edu.au, critical_design@comcast.net, jwashi@aol.com peter@redesignrese

Dear All
Thankyou so much for participating. I have copied Prof Bosch into this email and Leonie Solomons as they are part of the International Federation for Systems Research.[Prof Bosh has a new Master of Sustainable Development.As you know POAD 9117 is one of the potential subjects which I mentioned.Flinders has agreed to cross list subjects with UQ]
I thought I would share that with you , but will discuss at another time.
My reason for mentioning this is that at the meeting we discussed the many reasons why Systems Thinking has a bad name. It is often associated with closed systems and monist approaches that exclude the lived experience of people who do not happen to be so-called professionals. I think it is important to cite the following paragraph by way of background - even though our discussion is about ' continuous critical problems' we need to focus on why problem definitions ( defined by experts) are bound to fail.

So just to get the discussion going I will say that I support critical - open systems thinking which respects diversity to the extent that diversity does not undermine the freedoms of others or the next generation of life. This is an expanded pragmatic approach- because it considers the consequences for ourselves, others and the environment.
This was the approach stressed by many thinkers linked with C.West Churchman ( and others), but of course it is also the approach of many Indigenous people.
I agree with a great deal of Berlin's work - as a liberal pluralist he places pluralism first - but to what extent can democracy deal with the market challenges that we have unleashed?

“What balance should Berlinians strike between belonging and liberty? My suggestion is
that liberty take priority where there is a conflict. My reason once again appeals …in
favour of liberalism in its Enlightenment form….pluralism implies the desirability of
cultural diversity, but only so far as the cultures concerned themselves promote a diversity
of good. The internal diversity of culture in turn requires that their members possess a
capacity for exercising personal autonomy…a form of politics which maximally
accommodates the full range of human goods, and which equips people to make good
choices among those goods when they conflict. A system which gives priority to
belonging over liberty will not pass this test, since it will favour settled local traditions
regardless of the extent to which these value diversity or personal autonomy. … Finally,
scientism rests on moral monism: the belief that all moral questions have a single answer,
and that the answers fit together systematically. Monism is the ur-faith of nineteenthcentury
utopianism and eighteenth-century rationalism, but of the dominant strand…of
Western thought as a whole…On its face, the monist assumption seems harmless, even
beneficial, since the same assumption underpins the progress we have made in
understanding the natural world. Indeed even in the moral world the monist assumption
may be beneficial in the hands of some thinkers…the problem is that monisim can also be
pressed into service by those with less benign intentions and versions….Berlin’s
alternative to moral monism is
value pluralism…..His idea is that human values are in
reality irreducibly multiple, often incompatible and sometimes incommensurable.”
(Crowder 2004:186-187). Conflicts among values “frequently generate hard choices not
resolvable by any simple abstract rule” (Crowder 2004:190-191).”

Crowder (2006, 2009) outlined: “Three approaches to pluralism and its relevance for
democracy”. The first approach is agonistic, based on the idea that values are addressed
through conflict. The second is culturalist, based on the argument that values are
contextual. The third is liberal pluralism which accepts that diverse values co-exist and
that they can be in conflict (such as equality and freedom), but that through dialogue and
careful thinking a rational decision can be made. Staff seminar held on 3 May, 2009.
Flinders University.



Crowder, G. 2003 Pluralism, relativism and liberalism in Isiaiah Berlin Refereed paper
presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference University of
Tasmania Hobart. 29 September-1 October.
Crowder, G. 2004. Isaiah Berlin.Liberty and Pluralism. Polity .Cambridge.
Crowder, G. 2008. Iris Young and the Politics of Difference. Refereed paper


Aboriginal Australians say:
‘ …the relationship between the people and their country is understood to
have existed from time immemorial- to be part of the land itself’ ( Rose
1996: 35-6 cited in Atkinson, 2002:29)


Respect for the land is something that Systems thinkers have not discovered.....in a sense we are just putting togtether the framented understandings created by the enlightenment.....hope I can get onto the wiki

If we say We are the land- then the dualisms are removed and we are in a very different relationship with one another.....

regards
Janet

Ken Bausch wrote, On 14/03/2010 2:35 PM: