Webinar 11 Nov 2022 Paul Pangaro

Designing Conversations for Variety

[huwlloyd]

This was for me perhaps one of the best metaphorum video presentations and subsequent conversations. It (firstly) helps demonstrate how coherence can bring about further coherence. Sorry to miss the live conversation.

As I see it, the underlying tensions pertain to a developmental paradigm. On the face of it, the VSM presents a schema for what viability looks like, but not -- apparently -- about how it comes into being. Yet we would expect that by looking into all systems -- such as the rings in a tree, or the swirls in a shell -- that the history of the system's formation is evident in its structure.

By looking into (effective) processes of formation as (Paskian) conversation design -- which is by no means mere chatter, quite the opposite! -- we can see further how the history of the formation of viability is indeed evident. Like Pangao, I too divide the 5th system into two functions and, like one of the suggestions that arose, relocate one of the functions (that determines the unit of analysis and of variety or complexity) to mediate between systems 3 and 4.

Perhaps by way of refinement, we may note that "agreeing (up)on" and "designing" are synonymous terms both of which require manifestation, prototyping, finding appropriate units or pivot points, and iterations.

I very much liked the appropriate reprise of the difficulty in harnessing the VSM within design conversations and the (unspoken) appropriateness of referencing this within the 'language' formation conversation, i.e. to frame all participation as developmental also.

This conversation, and my reading between the lines, helps to elucidate the nuances regarding the comments that Stafford made concerning the similarities and commonalities the VSM shares with Pask's CT (Conversation Theory).