The Cybernetics of Foresight-APFC-2012-Clemensx

businessunknownInternet and Web Development

Nov 12, 2013 (3 years and 11 months ago)

270 views

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Discussion Draft
: v1.
2

Abstract:

Economic trends, climate change hypotheses, disruptive technological innovations, and geopolitical turbulence aside:
an estimated nine
-
billion humans in 2050 will require requisite governance systems that are inclusive, harmonious and
designed to be equita
ble across a broad range of sustainability criteria.

The challenge of ‘seeing’ our futures and their complexities better


without ‘Crisis!’ as a response


has never been
greater.

The paper explores how
cybernetic
s

can enhance a

requisite
21
st

century fo
resight
ing

‘toolkit’
.


Delivery: Short presentation

and draft discussion paper
.

Event:
Asia
-
Pacific Foresight Conference (APFC)
,

Perth, Western Australia, 16
-
18th of November, 2012

Keywords: Foresight

history
,
cybernetics, systems thinking,

methodology, tools and techniques
, organisational anthropology

Author: Russell Clemens, Perth, Western Australia

Status: Draft for comment.

Contact: rshclemens@gmail.com
(Linkedin)

© Clemens 2012

CC BY
-
NC
-
ND

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/
deed.en


Background

This paper accompanies a short presentation at the
third
Asia
-
Pacific Foresight Conference

(APFC)
held in
Perth, Western Australia, 16
-
18th of November, 2012
.


A

cybernetic perspective of
f
oresight and futures thinking indicates possible
directions
for 21
st

century

foresight

praxis
.

The
paper
engages with
the general themes
raised
in
“Imaginal Visioning for Prophetic Foresight”
(Markley
2012)
to
support a
cybernetic

discourse within the fore
sight domain.


P
ast and future
relationships between foresight and cybernetics

are explored

using narrative based on two
key figures in 20
th

century foresighting: Stafford Beer (1926

2002) and Pierre Wack (1922

1997).

Symbols can help frame our thinking
about culture and organisation as patterns of symbolic discourse
(Geertz 1973). Rich multifaceted pictures of common shared symbols can help inform our understanding of
the recurrent themes which most strongly link our values, beliefs, and actions (Smircic
h 1983a, 1983b). In as
much as this knowledge helps provide a ‘sense of place’, the icosahedron, enneagram and the viable systems
model (VSM) can form part of a 21st century foresighting toolkit


e.g.,
by way of historical narrative of its
emergence (lita
ny), and in respect to its utility for helping organise systemic thinking and practice.

A
generalised
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) approach is applied
which broadly considers the boundary
between the ‘real’ world and thinking about the ‘real world’ (e.g., see Checkland 1981, p. 212)

as moving
between ‘science’ and ‘art’ as a ‘new promethean’ as suggested by De Ropp (1972)
.


In addition, t
he mythological
distinctions between Prometheus and Epimetheus
are seen as bifurcating the
foresight/futures domain into situations of concern which attract different strategic responses by way of
action research.

T
he APFC
participants
are

assumed to be
conversant with fu
tures thinking



f
ocus
is
therefore
placed
on
explaining
c
ybernetic perspective
s

for

21
st

century foresight ‘toolkit
s

.


Some g
eneral
prior knowledge in the
concepts
covered
is assumed.
O
verall intent is to signal where further
research could be directed.

The material may

be expanded
at a later time
with more attention
given to

explaining and linking key terms and concepts.



The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Context

The third
Asia
-
Pacific Foresight Conference

(Perth, Western Australia, 16
-
18th of November, 2012) provides
context to “reflec
t on futures and foresight practice” in
the world’s second
most remote modern capital cit
y
.

Conference design themes included reference to ‘21 December, 2012’


the eschatological date in popular
culture which has also been exploited by the film industry.
The date is the last recorded in the 13
th

“bak’tun”


a long 400
-
year sequence within the ancient Mayan calendar


although little evidence exists suggesting
the Mayans considered it an ‘end of the world’ scenario (Stuart 2012). Terrence McKenna’s “novelty

theory”
and "timewave zero" computer program to interpret the universe's interconnectedness and organized
complexity over time also drew attention to this date (McKenna, T. and McKenna D., 1994; Bell and
McKenna, 1997).

The conference’s location within a
n urban zoological ‘jungle’ setting, close to where the European “Black
Swan” myth was proven to be a scientific fact (
Cygnus atratus
) in the late 17th century, provides added
‘sense of place’ context for the anthropologist. Prior to Willem de Vlamingh

discovering black swans in
Western Australia in 1697, and transporting a small number to Batavia as proof of their existence, Europeans
had generally considered all swans were ‘white’ (allegedly influenced by Juvenal, a Roman poet of the late
1st and earl
y 2nd century AD).

While 19
th

century European language excludes ‘uncivilized’ people from this mythological knowledge
-
shifting experience, it is clear that discovering
Cygnus atratus

had far deeper symbolism within the ‘civilized’
European mind than many

other biological novelties in that era.

Mankind were wrong, it seems, in concluding that all swans were white. . . . As there were black swans, though
civilized people had existed for three thousand years on the earth without meeting with them. (Mill 1856
, p.
344 and quoted in Morris 1898, p. 451)

Eurocentric perspectives of that time applied ‘black swan’ to describe improbable situations, although
‘swan’

could also refer to ancient Greek myths (e.g., relationships between the male god, Zeus, and the human

female, Leda) and even foster sinister associations in the superstitiously minded through the colour ‘black’
and its implications in language and folk lore relating to animals (e.g., cats, birds, devils, etc).

The
Black Swan Theory

(Talib 2007) describes
rare ‘shock’ events which surprise an observer with major
consequences and are then improperly rationalised post
-
event. In addition to rare events occurring beyond
the realm of normal expectations, and assumed probabilities derived through scientific metho
ds, Talib’s
theory focuses on the psychological and cultural biases which generate ‘blind
-
spots’ in respect to significant
rare events occurring in history.

The increased ‘speed’ of the 21
st

century (Gleick 1999) and its subsequent social, economic and
en
vironmental consequences, involves greater risk of being ‘blindsided’ (Harris 2002). The economic and
political consequences of inadequate systems of governance are now manifesting in loss of public
confidence, increased stress and heightened economic anxi
ety.

Introduction

The engagement with contemporary foresight literature is achieved through considering the issues raised by
Markley (2012).

The structure of th
is

paper is as follows:



Markley’s (
Ibid.
) comments on foresight and prophesy are outlined and
guide a narrative on the
common historical conte
xt of foresight and cybernetics.



S
imilarities between Causal Layered Analysis
(CLA)
(Inayatullah 1998, 2004) and the four
-
domain
framework developed by Luc Hoebeke (1994, 2000)
are explored
.




C
ybernetics
is introduced
through
Heinz von Foerster
’s

(199
5
)
perspectives on the relationships between
second
-
order cybernetics
and
ethics.

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012



Discussion
centres on the impacts of the emerging global internet phenomena on
cultures
and
organisations


seeing a
deeper str
uctural layer

beneath


the
CLA

to aid
insight into
emerging ‘
cultures
of feasibility


during
the 21
st

century.




C
onclusions suggest cybernetic insights
help
manag
e

variety
and complexity;
inform

strategy and policy
;

reduce
individual stress
;

facilitate

system
viability
;

and
i
ncrease

probabilit
ies for

sustainab
le futures

emerging

through good governance

this century
.

Attachment A


details the historical emergence of the enneagram since 1912.

Attachment B


a SSM Rich Picture used in the presentation

to d
escribe the 200
-
year span

in focus
.

Prophetic Foresight

Markley (2012) believes future viable systems will need greater input of “higher intuition” in situations
where “systemic disruptions and transformative change” abound


specifically:

1.

A “prophetic”
form of foresight involving “moral or wisdom” is increasingly desirable.

2.

Useful statements regarding the future must first seem ridiculous (Dator’s Law).

3.

“Worst
-

and best
-
case” scenarios will involve epochal change on “spaceship earth” with a
civilizationa
l tipping point occurring around 2020 (Ibid., p. 11).

4.

A post
-
collapse bifurcation point may occur in coming decades during a “fourth wave” leading to
either a “sustainability era” (wise future
s
)
based on a “civilizational reformation”
or full civilization
al
collapse
in
its absence.

5.

Laszlo’s (2001) 3
-
C’s (“conquest, colonization and consumption”) describe three waves during the
preceding 10,000 year development cycle as shifts from “nomadic era”, “agricultural era”, “industrial
era” and “information era” re
spectively; while “connection, communication and consciousness”
describe the transition to a future “fourth wave” centred on civilizational tipping points within the


information


era.

6.

“Higher level” consciousness and approaches are required to extend fore
sight related capacities and
activities


e.g., see
Markley and Harman (1982); Harman and Rheingold (1984); and Markley (1996).

Markley (2012) contends his “imaginal visioning” methods apply across all aspects of futures research,
forecasting and strategic

planning but observes that difficulties exist in working with “unprepared”
corporate cultural climates which inhibit this approach:

However, as noted earlier, there needs to be an organizationally receptive climate for such methods to be
considered credible. Thus, preliminary work often needs to be done to create a hospitible political climate for
using what are sometimes disparaged as

“high wu
-
wu” ways of thinking outside the box of the currently
dominant paradigm


even though that same paradigm greatly limits the creativity and wisdom that is so
urgently needed in times of disruption and radical change
. Courageously pioneering work al
ong these lines is
definitely needed!

(p
p
. 13
-
14
, original emphasis)

Laszlo’s (2001) “C’s”
are
discussed in respect to their
applicability in

describ
ing and modelling
the
transformations between past, present and future



special focus
is
placed on the Ma
rkley’s (2012, p. 6) “. . .
leading up to a MegaCrisis/tipping point toward
disintegration
”.

(See Box 1 in ‘Diagnosing
the situation’)

Markley (Ibid.
,

p. 11, Figure 2) describes his civilizational ‘tipping point’ around 2020 and
a
subsequent

desirable ‘re
formation’ bifurcation
-
point
occurring during the subsequent decade


this
allows
map
ping
to
Hoebeke’s (1994) innovation domain
outlined
below.



The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Interpretative
Frameworks

The
CLA
frames
four classes
of phenomena
(
litany
;

social causes
;

discourse/world
-
view
;

myth/metaphor
)
which
support discussions
that

loop

around
data

meaning

episteme

myth


(Inayatullah 2004).


Hoebeke (1994, 2000) describes four
‘work
-
system’
domains of human activity
(added
-
value; innovation;
values systems;
spiritual
/sacred
)
aligned
to
time
-
span
s

developed by
Jaques (1997)

which
indicate

the
cognitive capacit
y

needed
to
‘work’
without
immediate
direction

by others
.

A work system is a purposeful definition of the real world in which people spend effort in more

or less
coherent activities for mutually influencing each other and their environment. (Hoebeke 1994)

The
se

frameworks
are
referred to as

CLA
l
ayers
’ (1


4
) and ‘D
omains


(1


4) respectively.


Table 1 summarises the
‘better work systems’ domain

feature
s
.

Domain

Time Span

Function

Method

Focus

Strategic Dilem
m
a

1. Added
-
value

1 day

to

1
-
2 years

Transforming
product for
clients
.

Production to
specifications
.

Time, volume,
quality, price
.

Waste, efficiency.
Using
the
right
means?

Adapt to change
.

2.
Innovation

1
-
2 years

to

5
-
10 years

Detect change in
operating
environment
values & create
added value for
the future
.

Focus on
discovery of
new emerging
trends
.

Desirability,
feasibility,
transferability,
systemicity

(*)
.


Choices between
alternative pro
ducts
& services.


Bifurcation point.

3. Value
-
systems

5
-
10 years
to

20
-
50 years

Create elements
of new culture
through new
language,
descriptions &
prescriptions
.

Permanent
debate between
representatives
of different
world views,
traditions &
cultures
.


Generative,
tolerant,
dialectical,
congruent
.

Irreversible
consequences of
whole system
change.

Tension between
ideology & value
systems.

4. Spiritual

Beyond 20
years

Deal with
personal
mortality
.

Focus on
creativity &
universality
.

Art & personal
beh
aviour
.

Life & death
.

(* the complex, dynamic behaviour exhibited by systems, or systems
-
of
-
systems)

Summary based on Hoebeke (1994, pp. 169
-
183)

CLA
layers
and
D
omains

can be
approximately
correlat
ed to give additional definition to each

framework


e.g.,

l
itany and data


can be seen as products of activities of the

added
-
value


domain level

while

discourse
and world
-
view


describe similar
phenomena

to

value
-
systems

.


Myth and metaphor


align well with ‘spiritual’
while


social
systems and
causes
’ describe
those
systems
engaged in ‘innovation’ and emerging
market
s
.

Table 2 indicates
typical
activit
ies

associated with
each
CLA class

and their

possible

indicative
Domain
systems
timespans
.



The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Table 2. CLA
attributes

c
orrelated
with Work
Systems Domains

Table 2.

Making Work Systems Better Domains

Causal Layered Analysis

Levels

Layer
\
Domain

Add
-
value

Innovation

Value systems

S
piritual

1.
L
itany

Market place



text
/
word product
s


New emerging
markets
; public
relations; research
&
development

Policy debate
;
competition;
win
-
lose;
measurement

Ritual observance
;
personal
ego
identity
; ritual
formula; mantra

2.
S
ocial
System
C
auses


Ngo’s, churches,
protest movements

Systems thinking
dividing ‘
real world

& models; SSM

Cooperation;
collaboration;
synergy
; win
-
win; viability

o
utreach, activism,
social welfare
;
quality;

curiosity

3.
Di
scourse

/

Wo
rld
-
view

Education
programs;
discourse;
presentation

Political discourse
;
theory dev.;

speculation

Sustainability
discourse
;
consideratio
n;
meta
-
system

Ecumenical dialogue
;
contemplation;
autopoiesis;
languaging

4.
Myth

Profane symbols
,
rituals
&
observances
;
evaluations;
language; history;
archaeology;
literal
narratives

Interpretations
;

ideologies
;
deviations
;

creative
destruction
;
change;
complexity;

debate
;

Cultural
interactions
;
art;
learning

Sacred

s
ymbols
; o
ral
tradition
; p
oetic
narrative
; sacred a
rt
;
zero; void; silence;
recursion

Inayatullah (2004) notes futures studies
are
trend
ing

away
from focus
ing

on “empirical

/

prediction” to
wards

“interpretation and ethnography”
with
conceptual evolution
of the discipline
continu
ing towards a
“poststructuralism”
approach focused on
highlighting
the missing elements of forecasts

with
in
a
stratified

layered approach to reality

.

Research into c
omparing
layers and domains
may help
indicate
possible
rate
s

of change
and key “missing
events


across the four layers/domains
.

This theme is developed in later sections when considering
theory development on the study of ‘shocks’ in
the r
eal
‘external’
world and the
world of the
observer’s perceptions



i.e.,
mapping missing elements,
shocks and
‘loop’
exit points.
Harris (2002) covers the strategic importance of understanding “blindsiding”
risk
and he
presented
a keynote on this theme at
the World Future Conference held in Toronto, 2012.

What is
C
ybernetics?

Norbert Wiener
(1948)
applied the term “
Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the
Machine”
in 1948 to describe circular organi
s
ation in systems which
can be seen
as having
purposeful
goal
seeking behaviour
.

Weiner, a mathematician and
p
rofessor of
m
athematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, chose
the word ‘cybernetics’ following the Macy Conferences
(New York from 1946 to 1953) which
involv
ed
scholar
s from various disciplines. Cybernetics derives from the Greek word meaning ‘steersman’

and can be
related to ‘governance’
. Wiener was also influenced in this choice by Claude Shannon who suggested a
degree of
political
strategic ambiguity
may be appropria
te
:

Use the word ‘cybernetics’, Norbert, because nobody knows what it means. This will always put you at an
advantage in arguments. (
American Society for Cybernetics, no date)

Many definitions of cybernetics exist and numerous individuals have influenced
the direction and scope of
cybernetics. Cybernetics takes as its primary domain the design or discovery and application of principles of
regulation and communication


i.e., a focus on ‘doing’:

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Cybernetics treats not things but ways of behaving. It does n
ot ask "what is this thing?" but "what does it do?"
and "what can it do?" Because numerous systems in the living, social and technological world may be
understood in this way, cybernetics cuts across many traditional disciplinary boundaries. The concepts w
hich
cyberneticians develop thus form a metadisciplinary language through which we may better understand and
modify our world. (American Society for Cybernetics


ASC, no date)

A number of definitions of cybernetics
may
appl
y

to
futures thinking
.

Heinz von Foerster (199
5
)
suggests
four

to
describe
second
-
order cybernetics
(
i.e.,
the “cybernetics of cybernetics”)

and ethics:



Margaret Mead



. . .
a form of cross
-
disciplinary thought which made it possible for members of
many disciplines to communic
ate with each other easily in a language which all could understand.”




Stafford Beer


“. . . the science of effective organization.”



Gregory Bateson


“. . .
a branch of mathematics dealing with problems of control, recursiveness and
information.”




Gordo
n Pask



. . .
the science of defensible metaphors
.



According to Foerster

(199
5
)
:



Cybernetic

thinking represent
s

a
risk of “
paradox
” within
theory


entering
as if it was the “cloven
-
hoofed foot of the Devil stuck in the door of orthodoxy”


through
circular closure (

A implies B, B
implies C, and C implies A

)
;

reflexivity (

A implies B, and B implies A

)
;

or, in the worst case scenario,
self
-
reference (

A implies A

).



The

trend
away from simply “l
ooking at things out there
” to also “
looking at look
ing itself
” emerged
from
advances in neurophysiology and neuropsychiatry

at that time
.



Wittgenstein’s comments on ethics

(
in

Tractatus Logico
-
Philosophicus
)

point to self
-
reference




It is
clear, however, that ethics has nothing to do with punishment and
reward in the usual sense of the
terms. Nevertheless, there must indeed be some kind of ethical reward and punishment, but they
must reside in the action itself.
” (
Wittgenstein
)



Ethics

should remain implicit in language and not degenerate into moralization

through be
coming

too
explicit



e
thics become
s

manifest
,

without becoming
too
explicit
,

through
the
use of
its “twin
sisters”


“Metaphysics” and “Dialogics”.

Therefore, c
ybernetics represent
s

a
form of cross
-
disciplinary thinking

which applies

defensible

metaphor
s

to facilitate viable
scientific
-
based

organisation
based
on ethical
control

and
supporting
dialogue ‘loops’
focused on recursive
information
.


A cybernetic
language
can
‘emerge’

around f
ive

interrelated
common
systems
principles
:
emergence,
control,

hierarchy, communication,
and
information
.

The broad CLA mapping of cybernetics can
therefore
be
indicated by each of the four definitions above


i.e., Layer 1


Mead; Layer 2


Beer; Layer 3


Bateson; and
Layer 4


Pask.

C
ybernetic communicatio
n
then
becomes a potential five
-
channel (variable)
activity

which can be
interpreted through the CLA
framework


and vice versa. Cybernetic meaning can emerge from the CLA
when relationships and information recursion loops are focused on issues of ‘control
’, ‘hierarchy’,
‘communication’, ‘information’, ‘emergence’ and ‘ethics’.

For example, epistemological ‘politics’ can be reframed as fundamental issues across apparently
conceptual
boundaries based on

interpreting
core cybernetic principles related to c
ontrol, hierarchy, communication,
information, emergence and ethics

within the observers’ paradigms
. This
cybernetic
‘variety’ span
(of six)
provides the necessary orthogonal ‘twisting’ for meaningful information distinctions and cybernetic
communication a
cross CLA layers


and also with ‘cybernetics’ itself as a meta
-
discipline.



The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

What is
Cybernetic
F
oresight?

Management cybernetics
(Beer
1975, 1979, 1994
)
places foresight
within
a
viable system
’s s
ystem
-
four

(
S
4)

function

which focuses on the

viable
organisation’s
larger
external environment and future

(see Figure
2
)
.

Hayward (2004) explores the VSM’s relevance to futures thinking
.

Clemens (200
9
)
outlines
practical
environmental scanning

and strategic planning

application

in public sector

environments
.

Ethics and other
s
econd
-
order cybernetic principles correlate well with
CLA layer 3 where

Politics is
acknowledged and self
-
interest
[is]
disclosed
.
” (Inayatullah 2004)
.


While


a
cknowledging the unknown


is central to futures research

(Ib
id.)
, c
ybernetic research considers
the
unknowable
as a

defensible metaphor


and links
ethics with metaphysics and dialogics

(
e.g.,
von Foerster
199
5
)
.
For a VSM perspective, a

boundary
of uncertainty
with ‘closure’
is formed which
Beer
(
op. cit
.)
describes
as “undecidables”
.

The
cybernetic
‘unknown’ can
be appreciated as significant
and meaningful
‘variety’ for the system in focus



i.e., o
ntological certainty
(of the uncertain)
transforms into
a
strategic

variety


management

issue for
achieving
the
system

s purpose
.

For the viable system,

c
reeping unknowns and subjectivities
” (
Inayatullah 2004
)
are strategic risks to be
managed
:

not just acknowledged

as ethical disclosure

issues
.

E
xpress
ing the ‘unknown’
in different ways
,

from a number of
perspectives
,

resolve
s

back into issues
of
emergence,
control, hierarchy, communication,
information and ethics

a
s

they relate to the purpose of the system

in focus

(and the observer

in action
)
.


If “f
reeing methodology from politics


is a

never

ending ta
sk
” and controlling “for these variables” is
achieved through “layering them”

(Ibid.)

then cybernetic

control


can be interpreted
as
structural design

and notional

hierarch
y

of the CLA
’s

layers
.
In this case,

c
ontrol


is
therefore
distributed as a
form of
systemic
‘culture’ and ‘poli
tics

emerges as
strategic
b
ehaviour

within
the recursive loops of language and information
flowing through the CLA layers
in the minds of the observers


a process which Maturana and Varela (19
88
)
describe as “languagin
g”
.


Biology of cognition and ecology of mind

Cybernetics
, by definition,

link
s

the
biological
and physical sciences


i.e.,
animal

and

machine.

A

“biology of
love” (Maturana and Verden
-
Zoller 2008)
then
facilitates the emergence of anthropological
insight
through
the observer’s “ecology of mind”
considering itself
in dynamic relation with its environment
(Bateson 1972).


Restated
:

ethics applies
,

and the
requisite ‘ecology of mind’ for ethical cybernetic behaviour and
governance
action is based on ‘love’ and distinguished from
other
biological behaviour based on ‘aggression’


i.e., in
Maturana’s terms, between “Homo sapiens amans” and “Homo sapiens arroggans”
respectively

(
Maturana
and Verden
-
Zoller 2008
)
:

I want a cultural chang
e, I want to contribute to a work of art in the domain of human existence, I want to
contribute to evoke a manner of coexistence in which love, mutual respect, honesty and social responsibility
arise spontaneously from living instant after instant such con
figuration of emotioning because we all cocreate
it in our living together. (Maturana 1971)

This situation is described here as ‘cybernetic foresight’. To do otherwise may still produce foresight but it
risks
lack
ing

the ethical dimensions needed to interr
elate with
those
sustainable and “wise” futures
suggested by Markley (2012).

Cybernetic foresight provide
s

useful
‘exit’ loop
s

by promoting
thinking about conceptually ‘higher’ and
‘lower’
recursion levels which
‘frame’
t
he
CLA
framework.
Cybernetics provides a
‘meta
-
frame’ for the
CLA
which helps
facilitat
e

and guide
broader discussion and
potential
transformation from
political discourse
towards
viable
s
trategic action.

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Cybernetic ‘
environmental scanning
’ is a VSM
S
ystem 4 function along

with marketing and research and
development


i.e.,
basically any
system
function that might be located within
an organisation’s
“Development Directorate” (Beer 1979).


Cybernetic ‘s
trategic conversation
’ (
van der Heijden 2005
)
therefore
becomes an emerge
nt communication
‘loop’
which
investigat
es

common
boundaries of concern
(
and ‘exit’ points
)

through

‘verbs’

and languaging
behaviour
based on
core
cybernetic
principles
.

Figure 1, illustrates
a
conceptual
SSM
“human activity system”
(see Checkland

1981, p. 287)
engaged in a
strategic
cybernetic conversation
.


Each
observer
-
participant is mirroring the other in their metal, emotional and physical languaging activit
ies
.
Each is attempting to overcome natural incommensurability b
y

seeking to understan
d the other’s position in
respect to the core principles


effectively Covey’s
5
th

Habit

where empathic listening encourages similar
response
in the other

(Covey 1989).

Figure 1.
SSM r
ich picture of
conceptual
cybernetic
foresight
‘strategic convers
ation
’.


Projects on the ground

In the case of Stafford Beer and President
Salvador

Allende (29th president of Chile, 1970


1973), this
‘strategic conversation’ took the form of explaining the VSM and its potential role to guide a cybernetic
-
based Chilea
n economy
with
a project
later
known as

Cybersyn



a portmanteau of the words "cybernetics"
and "synergy".


When Beer finally arrived at his description of VSM ‘System 5’, Allende exclaimed, somewhat in relief it
appears:

“at last, el pueblo.” (. . .
,

th
e people):

Taking up Flore’s invitation, Beer flew into the capital of Chile, Santiago, on 4 November 1971, . . . On 12
November Beer met President Allende himself and explained the VSM to him. When Beer drew the box for
system 5 of the VSM diagram, he wa
s thinking of it as representing the president, but Allende “threw himself
back in his chair: ‘at last,’ he said, ‘el pueblo’” (Beer 1981, 258)


the people. Beer was so impressed by this he
told the story often. Allende was apparently similarly impressed
with Beer and the VSM: “‘The President says:
Go ahead


fast’” (257). (Pickering 201
0
, p. 257)

Allende died in a military coup on 11th September, 1973 staged by the army general, Augusto Pinochet,
whom he had trusted and recently promoted to head the milit
ary.


The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Problem Situation

The paper describe
s

the relationships between
cybernetics and foresight
/
futures thinking.

Pr
actical issues
raised by Markley (2012)
related to
desirable change
within

cultures of feasibility


are linked
to

real
-
world cybernetic action research in Chile (circa.) 1973.

S
econd
-
order cybernetic
s
involve
s

requisite ‘
ecology of mind


and
ethical action

(von Foerster 199
5
)
.

T
he fundamental cybernetic
-
foresight
issue
is
interpreted as
observer

variety


overload



i.e.,
the inability
for the observer to absorb the levels of
variety being
presented by the situation
(s)

of concern
under
consideration

in the ‘external’ environment
s (i.e., of both the system
-
in
-
focus and the observer in
‘observing’)
.

Ross Ashby (1956) d
efined ‘variety’ as the number of possible variables and states of a system. He observed
that a governing system requires models with variety equal to, or greater than, the system being governed.

In other words, in effective foresight systems
,

the ‘observ
er’ must have models and frameworks able to
sufficiently
attenuate high
-
variety ‘external’
complex
world

situations
. The cybernetic
-
foresight
definition of
‘variety’ can therefore refer to
the
apparent complexity when
an observer’s
mental models do not contain
sufficient capacity to accommodate
and synthesis
the apparent

complexity


being observed.

The
working
hypothesis

is therefore described as
: a relationship
exists
between an observer’s interpretation
of a situation as

Crisis!


and their cognitive capacities
(innate or developed)
in respect to the information
they are attempting to

appreciate



i.e.,

appreciative systems


undertaking
the activity of attaching
meaning to communication
with the environment through an “appreciat
ive setting”

(as defined by Vickers
1968,
1983)
:

I find it surprising that we have no accepted word to describe the activity of attaching meaning to
communication or the code by which we do so, a code which is constantly confirmed, developed or changed
by
use. I have for many years refe
rred to this mental activity as ‘
appreciation

; and to the code which it uses, as
its

appreciative system

; and to the state of that code at any time as its

appreciative setting

. I call it a system
because, although
tolerant of ambiguity and even inconsistency, it is sensitive to them and tries to reconcile
them‘. (
Vickers 1983
,
p. 43
)


T
he SSM
CATWOE
variables
(below)
for investigating cybernetic
-
foresight

are described in Table 4
.

Table 4. SSM CATWOE descriptions fo
r a 2012 cybernetic foresight research exercise.

CATWOE

Components

Comments

(C)ustomers

Foresight community

APFC 2012 & future sustainable generations on the
“spaceship
e
arth” (see Markley 2012).

(A)ctors

Stafford Beer & Pierre
Wack

Key 20
th

century foresight leaders involved in cybernetics,
foresighting & systems thinking (& others influencing them).

(T)ransformations

From 20
th

century
foresighting towards
21
st

century praxis

Emerging “wise” futures based on different levels of
consciousness from those which created the situations of
concern we now face.

(W)eltanschauung

‘Cybernetic foresight’

Systems thinking
+
Futures thinking
focused on 21
st

century
synthesis of cybernetics and foresighting praxis.

(O)wners

Observers &
participants of both
domains

Responsible, ethical futurists and foresighting meta
-
systems.

(E)nvironment

Epistemological &
organisational

A 200
-
year temporal span considering the emergence of the
enneagram symbol in Europe 1912


2012


2112.

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Diagnosi
ng

the situation

The paper now explain
s

who
Stafford Beer

and Pierre Wack were and their respective roles within the
foresight discipline

during the 20
th

century
. It explain
s

their
significan
ce

to futures thinking

and foresight
practice
in the
past, present
and future.

This
step
proceed
s

as a
historical
narrative
based around the emergence of the enigmatic ‘enneagram’
symbol within European thinking at the beginning of the 20
th

century

(
circa.

1912
)

and its impact on the
praxis of Beer and Wack
.

The
enneagram

is

explained briefly and its current relevance for modern c
ybernetics and foresight

praxis
explored



including i
ts capacity to facilitate
thinking and
i
nsight
i
nto underlying cultural patterns

and
dynamics influencing developed
and emerging
econ
omies in relation to desirable
systemic change
in

the
21st century
.

Insight into t
he ‘p
roblem solution
’ will entail understanding the implied ‘pattern’ of
patterns

and

shocks


in
any system in focus

through
math
ematics
, geometr
y

and
musical structure
.

Al
though the enneagram’s applicability as a
useful
cybernetic foresight tool is yet to be determined, and
research is needed to develop the 'logic' behind the symbol’s contemporary use as a foresight tool, the
modes of thinking required to develop its potent
ial are already embedded
with
in
the
futures thinking

domain



i.e.,
foresight is a natural extension and progression for cybernetic thinking.

Both
Stafford Beer and Pierre Wack had close
contact
with the enneagram and
its traditional sources.

Beer developed management cybernetics
and applied it
with
in organisational settings and at national levels
(e.g.,
Chile
circa. 1973).
Wack
successfully
applied scenario planning at Royal Dutch Shell

in the 1970s and
helped engineer successful strateg
ic res
ponse
to
exploit
the Arab Oil embargos during
that
decade
.

Both Beer and Wack used meditation to help develop ‘higher’ intuition and ‘prophetic’ foresight capacities
and skills. Beer developed his “
development directorate


philosophy while
living
in a sma
ll Welsh cottage
following his
experiences in Chile in 1973. Wack burned incense in his office at Royal Dutch Shell and
holiday
ed
in India meditating with gurus.


The
journey
s

of b
oth are
useful
case studies
of
Markley’s
(2012)
observation re
lating to
the need for cultural
environments of

feasibility


to allow
viable
systemic change to occur


and
, by way of extension, for
systems
to emerge

within a global
“human scale” (Max
-
Neef 1992)
internet journey
t
o a sustainable
future in
2112
.


Box 1 maps Lasz
lo’s (2001) six “C’s” to demonstrate the reconstruction of the situation of concern as a
cybernetic
foresighting
model.



The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Box 1
.

Laszlo’s (2001) six “C’s” mapped to the enneagram


Note:
the
basic
construction of the enneagram is outlined in Figure 3
below.

A
ccording to Ouspensky (1949) and Bennett (1983a) there is, based on the musical scale mapping (not shown), a
‘resonance’ between the points ‘5
-
7’ and points ‘8
-
9’ with the latter indicating a soft ‘qualitative’ linkage in the nature
of the type of
‘shock input’ needed at point 6 if the cycle is to be completed at the next ‘higher’ recursion or ‘octave’.

The role of technology has been mapped
,

in this scenario interpretation
,

at point 3. This replaces ‘food’ or ‘fire’ in other
versions (e.g., in Ben
nett 1983a). Again, in most enneagram diagrams, ‘fear’ is a core issue or feature of the ‘5
-
6
-
7’ arc,
while something like ‘fear’
(or awe or respect)
would also be expected in the ‘8
-
9’ ‘si
1
-
do
2
’ semi
-
tone step

‘up’
.

As an example of using
convenient
lita
ny
-
level
language examples


while the nature of the ‘5
-
6
-
7
-
5’ arc
-
loop might
suggest application of emerging internet communications (e.g., crowd sourcing etc, to build, introduce and maintain
‘community’), the nature of the challenge could be interpreted

as resonating with that attitude which ‘mankind’
(and
individuals)
should property approach a (for him or her) ‘deity’


i.e., at the transition/transformation point described
by the 8
-
9 or ‘si
1
-
do
2
’ interval. Von Foerster’s (199
5
) approach describes the

situation as a relationship between
‘dialogics’ and ‘metaphysics’ behind which ‘ethics’ is veiled

and can emerge
in
-
situ

(with, according to
Wittgenstein
, its
inherent ‘reward’ within the action itself)


i.e., the coordination of the coordination of acti
ons (Maturana
op. cit.
).

The completed image from the
APFC 2012

presentation
applying Markley (2012)
is
included
below:


Stafford Beer

Stafford Beer (
op. cit.
) developed cybernetic management following his experiences in Chile in the early
1970s while working for the Chilean Government of Salvador Allende. Before the military coup on 11th
September, 1973, Beer was employed by Allende to implement the
VSM

within

Chile’s economy.

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

While working in Chile on the Cybersyn project,
Beer met members of Oscar Ichazo’s
Arica School
who
introduced him to the enneagram as a meditation mandala



p
rior
brief contact
with the concept
s

was
provided
through G. J. Bennett
,
a stu
dent of P. D. Ouspensky and G.

I
.

Gurdjieff

(Beer 1994, pp. 202
-
5)
.


The VSM
describes
five
viable
system functions:



System 1 (S1)


represents primary activities performing the work of the organisation.



System 2 (S2)


coordinates multiple VSM S1 activities and intercommunication.



System 3 (S3)


provides the operational structures and controls (rules, resources, rights and
performance responsibilities) for VSM S1 functions while also maintaining an
interface with the VSM
S4 and S5 levels.



A

VSM System 3* (three star) function provides VSM S3 with audit and feedback information on VSM
S1 operations.



System 4 (S4)


monitors the external environment for how the organisation needs to adapt to stay
viabl
e.



System 5 (S5)


embodies the identity of the whole system, provides system closure, makes policy
decisions, balances demands from different parts of the organisation, and steers the organisation as
a whole within its total environment. VSM S5 can be al
erted by an algedonic (pain/pleasure) link
from VSM S1 when urgent attention is required.

Figure
2

describes the dynamic homeostat operating within a viable system between
VSM
System 3 and
VSM
System 4 with oversight
provided
by
VSM
System 5.

Beer (1994)
describes a process called ‘syntegration’
or ‘team syntegrity’
based on the geometric symmetry
of the icosahedron to facilitate this homeostatic dynamic

(note: these portmanteau terms were later
trademarked)
.
Beer
also speculated on
the
deeper
relationship
s between the
enneagram

symbol
and the
icosahedron
structure while
seeking p
ossible implications for designing
time
-
efficient group dynamic

systems

to help facilitate desirable
organisational
outcomes.

Figure
2
: VSM
s
ystem
e
lements &
r
elationships

(simplif
ied)


The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Pierre Wack

Pierre Wack developed a high degree of foresighting capacity and successfully led Royal Dutch Shell to
anticipate the
Arab
Oil Crisis

(October 1973


March 1974). Wack
(1985a, 1985b)
described scenario
planning at Royal Dutch Shell as
“shooting the rapids” involving two modes of thinking:

Scenarios deal with two worlds; the world of facts and the world of perceptions. They explore for facts but
they aim at perceptions inside the heads of decision
-
makers. Their purpose is to gather and t
ransform
information of strategic significance into fresh perceptions. This transformation process is not trivial

more
often than not it does not happen. When it works, it is a creative experience that generates a heartfelt ‘Aha' …
and leads to strategic i
nsights beyond the mind's reach. (
Wack
1985a)

Belgian and u
nconventional, Wack was persuaded to resign the editorship of a Franco
-
German philosophy
magazine to join Royal Dutch Shell as the head of their planning department at a time when businesses
experi
mented with making better use of the non
-
rational side of human nature (Economist 2008b).

Royal Dutch Shell created an effective cultural niche
with
in the organisation
for the enigmatic Wack who was
then able to maintain a degree of cultural separation an
d dissonance with respect to the dominant
organisational work culture:

By the standards of Shell executives, Wack was wacky. He almost invariably had an incense stick burning in his
office and his own favourite guru was not Peter Drucker or Douglas McGrego
r but a bizarre bald Russian called
Georges Gurdjieff. (Economist 2008a)

Wack utilised this opportunity
at Royal Dutch Shell
to practise the modes of thinking developed by G. I.
Gurdjieff, a spiritual teacher who had studied Sufi mysticism and brought its
ideas to the West:

Wack visited him regularly during the second world war when Gurdjieff was based in Fontainebleau, south of
Paris, . . . After Gurdjieff's death, and while employed by Shell, Wack continued to spend several weeks a year
meditating in Ind
ia with another guru. (Ibid.)

Wack’s success within Royal Dutch Shell cannot easily be separated from his meditation practices which
included embracing Gurdjieff’s
4
th

Way
, Indian meditation and Japanese Zen. Gurdjieff’s approach entailed a
system of ideas

and methods aimed at promoting accelerated personal development


i.e., perhaps
understood as
a rapid

wiki
_
wiki


approach which resonated with Wack’s own view that effective front
-
line
foresight praxis needed to be ahead of the game if it was to usefully contribute to desirable
strategic
organisational outcomes.

I had the feeling,” said Pierre Wack, “of hunting in
a pack of wolves, being the eyes of the pack, and sending
signals back to the rest. Now if you see something serious, and the pack doesn’t notice it, you’d better find out


are you in front?” (Kleiner 2003)

The

Future’
a
s
a

Symbolic Viable System

Capaci
ty for imagination and abstraction are necessary to appreciate the future

and c
ommunicat
e

this
appreciation
within organisational
culture, language, strategy, history and purpose:

The future is an abstract concept through which human beings bring symbolic
order to the present and
meaning to past endeavors. Speculative pondering of what “might be” appears to be a key attribute of what it
means to be human. Human coping strategies are often centered on the organization of present activities in
the context of
both past experiences and future goals. Yet, it is not until the last part of the twentieth century
that research in the academic sense has been formalized, moving this intense interest in the future beyond the
role of the Delphic oracle or the religious p
rophet. (Weingand 1995)

Pierre Wack
demonstrated
these qualities to a sufficient degree to both attract Royal Dutch Shell and
maintain his organisational cultural niche within th
at

organisation
’s conservative culture
.
It also suggests
why higher levels of

imagination ‘capacity’ are linked to ethical behaviour


i.e., reduced use of the
The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

imagination may be a natural human response
(and outcome)
to cope with imagined
risk of the possible
consequences of unethical behaviour and situations.

T
he
Enneagram
as an
A
nthropological Symbol

i
n Cybernetic Literate

Both Beer (1994) and Pickering (2010) include the enneagram symbol.
Beer

devotes a section to his personal
account of becoming aware of the symbol, its description

and

history
. He also
includes theoretical
spec
ulation on possible conceptual links with the icosahedra geometric structure which he used to develop
S
yntegration
®
.
Pickering
signal
s

its
use

in
modern cybernetics thinking

about “sketches of another future”
.

Figure
3

explains
the basic enneagram symbol
construction
based on Bennett (1983a) and Ouspensky (1949).

Various subsidiary interpretations of this basic
enneagram
symbol
exist


e.g.,
centred on
models of the
Western musical system
;

personality character typing
;

project and process development
;

and

mapping
theological ‘sins’ (i.e., missing the mark).
Modern p
resentation
s

of the enneagram
a
lso
include other
symbols or images
(triangles, mandala, swans, bees



e.g., see Nott 1961; Bennett 1983
a
; Naranjo 1990;
Hurley and Dobson 1991
)
and can even be re
presented in rotated formats
(e.g.,
Bakhtiar 1993
,

who claims it
originated in Sufi
oral
traditions

of
‘folk’
psychology
).

T
he enneagram symbol can represent three forms of
closed
cybernetic
process or cycle:

1.

The recursive circular ‘logic’ associated with
the
o
uroboros and the decimal system’s

zero

;

2.

Triadic ‘logic’ associated with structure and unity of a whole
(
e.g., within theological systems
)
; and

3.

The dynamic process of repeating
‘looping’
patterns representing dynamic
closed
organisation (e.g.,
as
obs
erved
in mathematics

through
recurring fractional patterns

and sequences of numbers
).

Figure
3
: Enneagram
construction


The enneagram’s distant history is shrouded in mystery. Gurdjieff is generally credited with either inventing
the enneagram or
transmitting it to Europe from some ‘vague’ Asian region discovered during his travels
with a group of ‘seekers’ in the late 1800s (Gurdjieff 1963)



see Attachment 1

for a summary of key events
.

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Its emergence into the public domain during the latter half

of the 20
th

century
(circa. 1950) has
involved
considerable passion and vitriol among the various groups claiming to represent its authentic past, present
and future.

The enneagram can represent two cybernetic principles

related to dealing with complexity
:

1.

A variety attenuation (reduction) technology when dealing with complexity by reducing a situation in
focus to
within
the natural cognitive limits suggested by Miller (1956); and

2.

A

second
-
order


tool to understand ‘observer’ psychological bias and pote
ntial blind spots.

Two ‘laws of seven’
are relevant
in respect to
understanding the process of
attenuating variety for the
human observer:

1.

The “Law of Seven,
P
lus or
M
inus
T
wo” de
scribed

by Miller (
Ibid.
) to reflect on
the
very
common
occurrence of the nu
mber

seven


in
human
descriptions of
patterns


e.g., days of week, colours,
musical notes, ‘sins’ etc
.


2.

The

Law of Seven


underpinning the enneagram
,

as described by Ouspensky (1949) and
Bennett
(1983a)
, which

interprets recurring patterns and processes across nine variables and the
seven
-
tone
heptatonic musical scale
.

I
n

addition, t
he e
nneagram personality typing
system
(Ichazo 1991a; Naranjo 1990; Palmer 1988) frames

observer


characteristics and suggests s
trategic response

direction


under
conditions of
stress
(disintegration)
or
optimal growth (integration) implied
through the

three
patterns
.


One key distinguishing feature of the enneagram model
,

compared to other
‘typing’
systems
,

is the ability to
appl
y mathematics
and geometry
to represent
two directions of

flow
’ (or drift)

between various
system
state variables
with
in a whole system
description


i.e., one direction representing a path of systemic
disintegration (unviability) and
the other
, a
reverse

direction representing integration
towards
viability.

Theoretically, any whole
-
system
description
can be represented as nine variables, states or steps (circle
path) with inherent non
-
linear relationships to
the
other
eight
variables (triangle or hexad)
depending on
their sequence
and position

within the nine
fundamental
steps

or states
mapped to the circle
:

Our customary way of thinking and talking about the world is in terms of objects and events, both of which are
abstractions. Gurdjieff saw the world as the universal process of the transformation of energies, regulated by
two fundamental laws and various '
second
-
grade' laws arising from their interaction. The two basic realities
are relations and transformations. The first are governed by the Law of Threefoldness,
. . .
and the second by
the Law of Sevenfoldness,
. . . .

The interaction of these two laws i
s represented by the Enneagram symbol.
(Bennett 1973
a
, Appendix II)

Law of Seven (Miller)

Miller’s

Law of Seven: Plus or Minus Two


(195
6
)
observe
d

the
common
recurrence of the ‘seven theme


in
human affairs and suggests this
may represent

features and li
mitations of the human

memory to
appreciate
around seven elements or chunks of information. It is o
ne of the most cited papers in psychology (
Gorenflo

and

McConnell
1991).

However,
Cowan (2001) proposed that working memory
is limited to

about four chunks i
n young adults

and
less

for
children or the aged
.

Farrington (2011) regard
s

Miller’s observations on

the numerous occurrences
of the ‘seven’
theme
in human affairs
is
little more than shallow ruminations about “probably nothing more
than coincidence”. Thes
e criticisms revolve around the issue of cognitive overload when the brain is
processing new elements of information in the short
-
term memory and suggest that
limits to
3
-
4 items of
new information is more appropriate.

For Farrington

(Ibid.)

and Cowan (2001)
, the seven wonders of the world, the seven seas, the seven deadly
sins, the seven daughters of Atlas in the Pleiades, the seven ages of man, the seven levels of hell, the seven
primary colours, the seven notes of the musical scale, and th
e seven days of the week do not indicate a
The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

meaningful pattern
for understanding
human
cognitive process.
Rather, the number of items in short
-
term
memory
capacity is reduced
to 3
-
4 items


i.e., the optimum number of ‘dot points’ on a presentation slide

in

order
to communicate

effectively
.

In this paper, the focus is not directly on human memory capacity. Rather, from a
cybernetic
communications perspective, the focus is on why there are so many references to

seven


in the historical
world
-
record
of human

activity


irrespective of the underlying mental
/brain

‘black
-
box’ process, or
processes, involved

in human cognition
. Therefore, Miller’s
Law of Seven

(plus or minus two) is taken as a
convenient heuristic to indicate optimum attenuation limits relevant
to the challenges of interpreting and
communicating long
-
term futures

and complexity
.
The recurring reference to ‘seven’ in human affairs, art
and history
are considered to
have significance


even if we do not fully understand why.
Attributing the
literal

meaning of “magic” to it is to miss the point: the point is the ‘question’ as to why it is so



and how
the phenomena can it be applied usefully
?

Farrington’s
(2011)
reduction to 3
-
4
‘dot
-
point’
items may apply in the modern
corporate
context for
delivering
PowerPoint
presentations to minds increasingly formed and framed by a ‘tweeting’ universe
:

but
it hardly forms
the basis of
a viable model to understand and synthesise complex dynamic

data


entering a
system (and observer’s) operati
ng field

of concern


nor the communications task to carry forward
complex
information through long

time periods

extending over millennia
.
This ‘cognitive capacity’ issue may be a
topic for
future
research, education and training systems which focus on for
esight praxis.

Effectively, the enneagram reflects Farrington’s
(Ibid.)
lower range
(of 3
-
4)
in its triangle structure and
Miller’s
upper range in its nine
-
point c
ircle.

The hexad is
,

in fact
,

two
-
sets
-
of three
variables
and the number
‘seven’ is not
directly referenced in the patterns



except by way of the mapping of
Western
musical scales.


Second
-
order cybernetics suggests that the 7
th

position is represented by the observer considering the
symbol


i.e., ‘meditating’ on its potential significance
with respect to a situation
-
of
-
concern.

The
refore, the
enneagram could be considered
as a
thinking
medium without any content



e.g.,
as
"a light bulb creates an
environment by its mere presence"
(
McLuhan

1964)
.
From a
cybernetic
foresight perspective, t
he

enneagram helps create a mental ‘space’ for the observer to consider

closed
-
loops


and the

whole
-
systems


models
they
may
embody

or represent
.


Law of Seven


(Gurdjieff)

The enneagram’s

Law of Seven


suggests meaning and insight can be derived from considering the
architecture of the seven
-
tone heptatonic musical scale with its two shorter intervals between the musical
notes “mi
-
fa” and “si
-
do” represented by single semi
-
tones

when

compared with two s
emi
-
tones in each
of
the
other intervals (Ouspensky 1949, p. 126).

Speeth (1989, p. 23) lists the percentage increase in the musical intervals of the octave as:

Interval

Do
1
-
Re

Re
-
Mi

Mi
-
Fa

Fa
-
Sol

Sol
-
La

La
-
Si

Si
-
Do
2

% Increase

12.5%

11%

6.5%

12.5%

11%

12.5%

6.5%

Relative
Vibration

Do
1
=1

Re = 9/8

Me = 5/4

Fa = 4/3

Sol = 3/2

La = 5/3

Si = 15/8

Do
2

= 2

According to this
perspective
, the ‘Law of Seven’ can describe the succession of events once a creative
process begins
.
By way of example, i
t
can also be
used to refer to the repeating “essential characteristics” of
every eight element in the chemical periodic table

(Ibid.)
:

The Law of Seven governs successions of events. It states that whenever any manifestation evolves, it does so
nonlinearly. There is a
n orderly discontinuity in every progression of things, in every series.” (Ibid., p. 24).
. . .
The octave relationships in the Law of Seven exist in all processes, according to Gurdjieff. Seeing them is a
matter of arraying whatever is to be studied appro
priately or finding the right metric. (Ibid., p. 25).

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Whether this view is taken as an ontological or epistemological statement is
fundamental
to its applicability

in cybernetics and foresight
. Speeth’s
(Ibid.)
view of Gurdjieff’s philosophy/cosmology app
ears to be strongly
ontological


i.e.,
it is, and represents,
a feature of

reality

.
This
view is
supported by Ouspensky (1949)
where
it is used to map the
sacred
process
of creation
(
i.e.,
something from nothing)


e.g.,
not just as seven
mythical
‘days’ of biblical creation, but also seven layers
,

or strata
,

of manifestation between the unknown
-
unknowable ‘source’ and the physical universe as manifest

for scientific investigation
.


Second
-
order cybernetics might suggest this can be applied to ‘mea
ningful’ representation of the imagined
interval between recursion levels in any system
-
in
-
focus.

Gurdjieff considered this
musical scale ‘
patterning feature’
especially

significant and highly

relevant to
understanding

three
-
centred


systems that spanned three “octaves”


i.e.,
systems with
three levels of
domain or system recursion
s

(of significance)
which
can
, by way of example,
be
seen as
being
reflected in
humans as

physical

,

emotional


and


mental


activities (see Ouspensky 19
49).

The focus in this paper is simply on the symbol’s utility as a cybernetic device and
mental
‘technology’ to
help
bridge between modes of thinking. A

second
-
order cy
bernetic interpretation of th
e enneagram system
f
ocuses on how observers can choose to

arrange their thinking so that apparent patterns appear significant
to them. This process
aligns with scenario thinking

methods
designed
to
‘test

flexibility
and agility
of
thinking
rather than
simply
focus on
issues related to
the nature of ‘reality’
itself

(although speculation on
the latter is not discounted

as being potentially relevant

in some situations
)
.


However the
cybernetic ‘
boundary


between the ontological and epistemological
domains
is somewhat
fuzzy. Sound

is a significant conduit for inf
ormation
and
vibrations
‘communicate’ by
travel
ling

in a medium
(
e.g.,
air or water)
.
Sound becomes ‘music’ when
structure
and rhythm align with
an observer’s cultural
‘reality’ to
impact on an
observer’s fundamental psycho
-
physical
process

(e.g., dance)
.

Musical
vibrations and cultural perceptions

are
strongly
linked



e.g.,
“The number of the notes that make
up a scale as well as the quality of the intervals between successive notes of the scale help to give the music
of a culture area its peculiar sound

quality.” (Nzewi, M. and Nzewi, O. 2007, p. 34).

Figure 3 provides a
n

illustration of
Maturana’s account of linguistic interaction as ‘languaging’
within t
he
biology of cognition
and structural coupling described in autopoietic theory
(Maturana 1970
,
197
1
;
Maturana
and

Varela 198
8
)
.
In this
5
-
step example, a ‘musician’
(i) takes action to play a musical instrument
(ii), and the biological ‘interval’ (iii) impacts on the observer/beholder (iv) whom would otherwise be in the
unengaged pre
-
condition (v).

In
this example, applying and adapting the symbols used in the biology of cognition (Ibid.), the circle
represents the biological observer; the arrows, the bi
-
directional interactions between observer and the
environment; and the straight line represents the
external environment for the autopoietic system.

The
wave
-
lines (iii) indicate assumed information and communication within and through the medium


which is
therefore the ‘message’ (hinting at McLuhan 1951).

Figure 3. Structural coupling between musician
-
music
-
medium
-
music
-
dancer


Adapted from
http://supergoodtech.com/tomquick/phd/autopoiesis.html

(
accessed
November 2012)

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Gurdjieff created
sacred
music and dance through his students a
nd helpers

(e.g., T
homas de Hartmann and
Jeanne de Salzmann
,

respectively
)
. In recent years videos of these
works of art
have become
more easily
available to the public
through the internet

e.g., see dance sequences in the film “Meetings
w
ith
Remarkable M
en” (
1979
, d
irected by Peter Brook
).
The enneagram’s two
distinctive
‘shock
-
points’


per
circle
-
cycle


is based on music structure

and the shorter intervals

between four notes in the Western form
.


Ouspensky (1949,
p
p
.
290
-
1
) notes the apparent
mismatch of the implied
two
‘shock points’ when
combining math
ematical
and musical
-
scale

based interpretations

to the same enneagram diagram. He
suggests there is a ‘secret’ in this situation which hint
s

at the nature of the quality of the shock at

point
-
six


based on what type of

shock


is implied between the musical notes “si
-
do”

when that mapping framework is
applied
, at scale, to a system
-
in
-
focus within its assumed recursion
-
level relationships with ‘higher’ and
‘lower’ systems environments
.

Discussi
on

To the extent that we are in the ‘heroic age’ of modern foresight and cybernetic traditions, the lives of
Stafford Beer and Pierre Wack help frame the
narrative
and
identify
future
challenges presented by
dominant
global
culture
s

in respect to emerging
technology,
knowledge and practice.

Both men delivered significant ‘shocks’ to the world of governance and commerce

in the late 20
th

century
;
both practised forms of meditation; and both adopted unorthodox modes of living and work

practice
. To
some extent, both represent De Ropp’s (1972)
“N
ew Prometheans


as leading systems
thinkers
and futures

practitioners who applied knowledge of the arts and the sciences to work in harmony with Nature.
Both
also
stood
on the shoulders of
past
gi
ants

in these fields
.

According to Plato, both Prometheus and Epimetheus distributed traits among humankind. Prometheus is
known as the archetypal intelligent "forethinker, culture hero and trickster figure” while Epimetheus was
largely considered an “afte
rthinker” who unwittingly accepted the

Pandora box


gift from the

gods

.
Prometheus represents VSM S
ystem
4
and
strategic thinking
,

while Epimetheus represents VSM S
ystem
3
thinking focused on production and materialism


i.e., where “thoughtless bodies
and their thoughtless
motions operate” (Hansen 2005; Strauss 1953).

Until now, the enneagram has largely been the concern of the Promethean camp. The

wisdom


(or
otherwise)
of trying to integrate it into modern management praxis may underpin much of the
controversial
and passionate
debate surrounding its emergence
into public domains
in the latter half of the 20th century
.


Whether this
controversy
continue
s
,

as the 21st century unfolds, or
whether
its principles and concepts
become more imbedded in the o
perating ‘logic’ of normal business practice

is yet to be seen.

Either way,
it
has p
otential utility for the practicing futurist

to better understand and ‘sense’ their place within work
-
system cultures
.


Myth and Metaphor


Buzkashi

In respect to myth and
metaphor: the enneagram’s history (including Gurdjieff’s deliberately eclectic
‘unreadable’ narratives (see Gurdjieff 1950) provides a rich source of ideas and oral history.
He inherited this
capacity and tradition from h
is father
who
descended from Ionian Greeks and was an amateur asokh, poet,
singer of songs and storyteller within the oral tradition
s
.

Gurdjieff believed others in the future would draw from his works to feed their own creativity

(e.g., Bennett
195
9a
)
. The conscious
efforts he took to make his first series ‘unreadable’ for two generations (i.e., ‘
. . .
Tales
to his Grandson’)
appears to
have been designed to withstand cultural forces and dynamics of the host
transmission systems (i.e.
,

European thinking

and behaviour
)

during the 20
th

century
as
a
possibl
e

stratagem
at the CLA layer
-
3 of
applied
political epistemology.

The controversy surrounding recent redrafting of his original publications to make them “more accessible”
(e.g., by Jeanne de Salzmann
et al
) may be see
n as either genuine concern for the erosion of the original
The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

communications

(
as
they were
intended by the author
)
; or alternatively, as the conscious efforts of his
selected helpers to now open the doors for a wider
public
audience. In this regard, it is in
teresting to note
that Wilhelm Reich, who was imprisoned in the 1950s for contempt of court and had several tons of his
research materials seized and destroyed by the US Government, also closed his estate for 50
-
years until a
new generation emerged with hi
gher capacity to appreciate its significance (see Boadella 1985).

In any case, the ‘headless goat’ is an apt metaphor for
Gurdjieff’s

efforts.

Beer’s version is the
organization
with the responsiveness of a

d
ecerebrate

cat
” (e.g., see
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPiLLplofYw



accessed
November 2012
)
.
N
ote
:

an ‘ethics’ warning
applies


this video may disturb sensibilities


view

only if you
wish to see a scientifically damaged live animal
moving
as a living
zombie

metaphor


for
a

typical non
-
viable
corporate
organ
i
sation
.

Written in the style of the protagonist, much in the vein adopted by Schaetzel (1998)

in his “
SATAN, CEO:
Minutes of the Centennial General Meeting

, Gurdjieff (1950) can be in
terpreted in a number of ways (seven
according to its author). It is possible that one of these ways involves considering Gurdjieff as an arch futurist
and prophetic ‘seer’. If so, then his references to ancient past events and cataclysms (e.g. Atlantis

si
nking
beneath oceans
) may equally refer to possible future events and
climate change
scenarios



whether they be
exploring rising sea waters or
advancing
glacial ice sheets
.

If this alternative radical
futures
view is adopted, then various strategies for
sustaining modern knowledge
systems following
such a

hypothetical massive ‘future shock’ scenario, involving near total communication
and social
system
breakdown, are well described in his
highly

codified
narrative
works

(First Series)
.

Whatever his purpos
es actually were, there is little doubt that
Gurdjieff

was designing a system to ‘throw
the bone’ ahead a generation or two


i.e.,

tales to his grandson’ (circa. 25
-
50 years) provides an image
describing the communications
challenge and
process from a sy
stems/cybernetic
s
/futures

perspective
.

In practice, this
rough approach

resonates with his rustic sense of humour and perhaps invokes a traditional
‘Buzkashi’ metaphor


i.e., a rough
-
and
-
ready Afghan national sport involving the struggle over a headless
goat carcass that may continue for days



or
,

as
Kökbörü
,

denoting the grey wolf as the holy symbol of the
Turkic people
.
The former
certainly describes well, by way of metaphor, the
late 20
th

century
‘games’
between the
various
enneagram protagonists
and
is suggestive of its sources
-
of
-
origin in Afghan regions
.

As a classic ambiguous VSM ‘System 5’ governor


of the ‘4th Way’ homeostat



Gurdjieff claimed that
people cannot perceive reality in their current normal ‘every
-
day’ states because they do not po
ssess
sufficient consciousness and instead live in a state of a hypnotic "waking sleep." His comments may
also
apply equally to those who know his system and fixate on its symbols and rituals as it does to those who do
not know
of
the
4
th

Way

system
and it
s world
-
views


i.e.,
knowing when to turn off ‘Ro
ute 66
.
’?

ON ROUTE 66, NEW MEXICO
-

If the United States of America ever had the ultimate Main Street, that would be
Route 66
-

The Mother Road, as John Steinbeck coined it; the graphic illustration of the
American Dream,
Utopia finally achieved.
. . .

It isn't easy to find one's path among a tsunami of healers, "philosophers", religious leaders, clairvoyants,
acupuncturists, reflexologists, skull realigners, aura readers, ayurvedic practitioners,
Gurdjieff
fanatics
, multi
-
purpose Buddhists and art gallery gurus. Still, options abound. And cool nuclear physicists working at nearby
Los Alamos
-

where the atom bomb was invented
-

never fail to commute to Santa Fe to dance salsa at El Farol.
(Escobar 2012
, under
line added
)

Certainly the public venting of spleens over the last 50 years on matters related to authenticity, identity
,

and
harmonious development centred around the enneagram
,

can only support a view that the ‘system’ is in
chaos and highly un
-
viable. However, that
‘situation’
may be also interpreted as a
cunning
cybernetic
‘design’
strategy
for a

hybrid o
ral
-
based communications system (
see
Innis
1948,
1950; McLuhan 1951)
desi
gned and imbedded within both written and oral traditions to maintain its
‘own’
long
-
term epochal
systemic ‘autopoiesis’, viability and sustainability.

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Given the cultures of elite social
European
strata which tended to surround Gurdjieff in the 1920s, and

later
‘carr
ied
’ his works forward, it
is
entirely possible that he took
deliberate
steps to design in
to the system
suitable

antidotes


to th
ose culturally limiting
features he saw

with
in the


human transmission

system
.

Recasting the Issues and Defining

Possible Solutions

R
ecasting the future towards utopian cooperation may be ethically sound within the sustainability context.
However, greater openness and transparency which expose
s

corrupt
and incompetent
governments,
corporations, organisations and ind
ividuals to systemic

audit


and cultural

feedback


will also challenge the
underlying
geopolitical
power structures.

Scenarios grounded in future demographics and environmental change can only reflect a certain level of
reactionary causal change focused

on
CLA
litany and social
system
causes. This may be adequate for routine
corporate planning and foresight purposes. However, probing more profound cultural change dynamics in
the
CLA
discourse and worldview levels requires
deeper
understanding and requisi
te mental ‘technologies’
based on changing the prevailing mindsets of observers

to overcome apparent ‘complexity’

and potentially
paralysing anxiety
rising
within their observing (and participating) systems
.

Increasingly, the underlying
dominant
myths and

metaphors will need to be reconsidered


not just for their
ethical utility

with
in an emerging

global


(or globally connected and integrated) civilisation


but also for
their pragmatic competitive advantages in respect to delivering a sustainable and safe living
environment
at
the local ‘human scale’


as suggest desirable by Chilean economist and environmentalist, Manfred Max
-
Neef (1992).


The cybernetics

of foresight suggests that this deeper challenge in the modern context can be reduced to a
meaningful
dynamic between at least t
hree

fundamental systems of ‘appreciation’


those systems
of
thinking
based around

‘three’,

‘seven’
and ‘nine’
variables.

The
future,
over the next 100 years
,

in its aggregate forms of local and global (‘Glocal’) manifestations, will
be increasingly determined by those cultural and social systems with
inherent
requisite variety to
accommodate exponential increases
of

information
variety

and situational complexity

in their domestic and
foreign policy environments
.

At the social and litany levels this will favour those governance systems which can deliver peace and
prosperity for the majority of stakeholders. At the deeper levels o
f discourse and worldview, this future will
increasingly manifest as stress and crisis in those systems of belief
and ideology which
promote elitism,
exceptionalism and growth through the politics of conflict.

Although deeper change may occur in respect t
o the legitimating power of those old myths and metaphors
(
which sustain elitism, exceptionalism and growth through conflict
)

there
may also
be deeper fundamental
forces at work. These deeper ‘forces’ can be conceptualised through the ‘fibrillating heart’
metaphor
outlined by Gleick (1998).
‘Shock theory’
(or

therapy

)
then takes on different meanings under this scenario.

While ‘Crisis!’ is increasingly experienced
as a response
at the higher litany and social levels
, cybernetic
-
based foresight systems
wil
l engender evolutionary advantage to those
organisational and
cultural systems
which can adapt
sustainably
to
the
new
and
higher
rates of change and
variety.

Wise futures imply wisdom.

Education for Sustainable Development

I
n December 2002
,
the United Nations
(UN)
General Assembly proclaimed the UN Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development
:
2005
-
2014
.

A

decade of education for sustainability
is
producing a cohort of
young educated people
now
entering the workforce
well
versed in the th
eory, language

and

values
of the
‘trialectical logic’
underpinning
sustainability’s triple bottom
-
line
approach reflected in
Elkington
(
1997).

Our biggest challenge in this new century is to take an idea that seems abstract


sustainable development


and
turn it into a reality for all the world’s people. (Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the U
N
, no date)



The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

The enneagram is a convenient ‘new’
abstract
symbol with possible relevance to foresight praxis


especially
in the Asian region where
emerging
economic

prosperity and natural cultural capacities for synthesising
‘mystical’ traditions
coexist easily
with daily living (e.g., China
, India

and Indonesia).

If the enneagram
is aligned within the CLA framework then it can help
expose the deeper
circular
causal
ity
and
dynamics
involved in understanding
litany
-
level activity

from ‘below’
. How far this process develops
depends on
how effectively
myth and metaphor

are
related
through ‘social
system
’ and ‘world
-
view’ layers
.

T
he enneagram symbol can be placed in
the 4
th

CLA
layer
as a defensible metaphor


it concerns
(and
contains)
narrative
on
myth, the scared and the spiritual.
It relates to CLA layer 3 through mathematics,
geometry and music. It has
‘alleged’
historic
prophesy uses

within
oral Sufi traditions
.

It has been
used
by
leading
futurists

(
Beer and Wack
)

as
a
meditation device
to

facilitat
e

“higher intuition”

in their praxis.

Relating to the
enneagram
through CLA layer 3

‘discourse/world
-
view’ is clearly possible through its
ecumenical use across Islam
ic/Sufi, Christian/Jesuit, and Buddhist (Arica) domains



and across cybernetics,
anthropology
,

psychology
and biology
domains
. The

political


tensions associated with its emergence during
the 20
th

century demonstrate its ‘
political


impact on systems of
emerging
epistemologies.

At
CLA
layer two, its adaptation to personality typing has allowed
‘plain English’


good enough


insight into
character
neurosis

and
social welfare challenges.
It has also been adapted to management cybernetics
through the VSM and the development of Syntegration®

by those charged with developing Beer’s legacy
.

CLA l
ayer one litany has a solid history

of ‘data’

that is now
becoming
increasingly revealed through th
e
study of its

emergence during the

20
th

century
as ‘
history




and
,

according to Riso (1996)
,

it

is still
a “work in
progress”
and
open to new interpretations and applicat
i
ons.

Th
ese

linkage
s

will
likely
increase in importance as global internet
-
based tec
hnologies and associated
information communication and entertainment systems

begin to dominate individual and collective
behaviour

at the human
-
scale
.

The Future
environment
. . .

The increase in rates of exchange of knowledge and ideas across multiple
ge
o
-
cultural
internet enabled
digital
boundaries
and domains
will
likely
induce systemic stress and cultural
-
political
response
where
lower
variety attenuation capacity
exists. This will increase the rates of cultural change
, systemic failure
and risk of
soc
ial and political reaction.


The
cybernetic
enneagram
system
can be applied to und
erstanding
complex
system dynamics
through its
capacity to facilitate
a common language and
cross
-
disciplinary

discussion.
A
pplication
a
s a

useful systemic
and cultural
diagnostic tool
is only beginning to emerge.

Its applicability to understand cultural systems

for
foresight praxis
is yet to be fully explored


although the developments in personality typing provide a
convenient
matching
taxonomy

for discussion (if not f
or diagnosis)
.
Although initially shrouded in folk lore,
the enneagram character
-
typing system has been matched with the Myers
-
Briggs and Millon personality
inventories and found to have
some
“diagnostic, prognostic, and heuristic value for the study of pe
rsonality
structure and dynamics” (Wagner and Walker 1983
; also see Brent 1994
).

Some examples of typing national
-
level

cultures
also
exist
which can inform strategic thinking
and discussion
about


blind spots


and
other
core issues

at national cultura
l
and civilizational
levels



e.g., the apparent
absence of ‘fear’ and ‘deceit’ as situations of concern in Western theological traditions

(see
Beesing
,

Nogosek

and
O’Leary
1984, p. 126
)

and the effects of this ‘blindsiding’ on governance systems
.

Cultura
l boundaries
(and policy)
will
continue to emerge as
VSM System 5 ‘identity’ issues
in the emerging
global internet age.
In 2005, the General Conference of UNESCO approved the
Convention

on the protection
and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions


participants
noted 85 per cent of films shown in the
world were from the U.S.
A.

(Symons 2005).

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

In respect to social causes, discourse and worldview: the enneagram may offer a usef
ul technology to
navigate through CLA domains according to natural circular
cybernetic
looping
patterns

and ‘logics’
.
The
enneagram can facilitate holism (whole
-
system thinking) which conforms to Miller’s convenient
, and

apparently natural
,

heuristics of b
etween five
-
and
-
nine interrelated variables or system elements.

Conclusions

T
his paper presents a cybernetic
perspective

of the challenges associated with interpreting the future
‘present’


as it will be in 21 December, 2112


based on cybernetic
foresig
hting
principles.

The guiding myths and metaphors for this exercise have been selected from a menu of real
-
world and
psychological options. A

sense of place


suggests
its presentation at the third
Asia
-
Pacific Foresight
Conference (2012)

held in the ‘Blac
k Swan River Colony’ should be taken into account

when working ‘on’ the
system in focus


i.e., emerging, sustainable, cybernetic foresight systems
.

With one eye on the long
-
term planning horizon through to 2112, and another on
the ‘
blind
-
spots


with
in

the

systems of perception available to the observer, a third perspective
emerges
through dialogic
on
understanding the
implications of
foresight

and cybernetics

history for foresight
system
development.

In some contexts,

f
ear


and

deceit


appear to be ethical/moral weak points
in
subsidiary

governance
systems
.

Theory suggests
additional ‘shocks’
are
needed to allow th
ose

system to transform and evolve to
higher levels of appreciative capacity.

Gurdjieff hints at the role of musical scale s
tructure
and performance
which
underlay

European culture and worldview
.
Von Foerster (1995) hints at the role of ethics in success.

By way of metaphor,
breaking the closed circle for
Gurdjieff’s
‘Yezedi’ may code a
s

meaningful for
neutralising or overcomin
g the effects of the dominant musical
-
cultural environment in any specific context.
His lack of use of the enneagram symbol in written form (apart from dance movements) may indicate a
perspective on its overall value within the larger oral traditions and a

sense of risk in
respect to
various
systems and cultures with inherent bias to
wards
becom
ing

fixated on it as
in a form of ‘
idolatry

.

In addition, history is not being lost as fast as in the past

(
see
Mead, no

date)
. A
ssuming the Internet
growth
continue
s beyond the direct control of the corporate world and
S
tate
governance
systems, then a new
market place of ideas, facts and opinions will circulate and feed increasing rates of growth in human
interactions and knowledge. The ‘gap’ differential between the

expert in a
futures
-
thinking
discipline and the
average lay
-
person may become less. Therefore, professional practitioners will increasingly need to be
sufficiently ahead of the

pack


in order to add
perceived
value

to the customer
. An emerging era of aus
terity
will only likely accentuate this situation.
Wack’s words
may
still apply: “Are you in front?”

Looking forward towards future research

An i
nformal ‘straw poll’ survey conducted at the World Future Conference held in Toronto during 2012
(
in
respect to
awareness of
Pierre Wack
)
indicated very little memory of him now exists in the foresight
community
. T
hose few who did remember his efforts at Royal Dutch Shell
p
ut his success down to “luck”.

This paper provides some insight into why this
cu
lture of

forgetting


may
exist
, and why it should be
addressed as a situation of concern by those who
occupy
responsible position
s

in the
foresighting
discipline.

For operational levels of concern

in organisations

(V
SM S3 and below
)

systemic and cultural
blind
siding

in
the ‘here
-
and
-
now’

may have less consequence
: these can be filled by professional
‘S4’
consultants

on hire
.

However, for the world’s
foresight
domains
(networked V
SM System 4
“Development Directorate
s

)
it is
fundamentally critical that the

full
est

range of

systemically desirable


and

culturally feasible


diagnostic
tools
be
developed
to contribute to
the world’s
longer
-
term
sustainability
:

Are we out in front?

F
uture directions in cybernetic foresight
will
likely emerge from larger
-
scale
work now occurring
in
Syntegration®
development
, and by smaller
-
scale individual efforts of
globally aware
,
skilled
and networked
practitioners mak
ing

local
‘work systems’ better through
the
application of
systems thinking,
management
cybernetics and foresighting
praxis

in their immediate
‘human
-
scale’
environments

of action.

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Attach
ment 1



History of the emergence of the enneagram in European history 1900
-
2000

Enneagram emergence in Russia
and Europe in the
1900s

G. I.
Gurd
jieff appeared in Moscow in 1912, shortly after Ouspensky published his
Tertium Organum

in 1911
(see Ouspensky 1934), and subsequently developed groups in Moscow and St Petersburg where he outlined
the enneagram as part of his
4th Way

teaching methodology.

Prior to 1912, the official narrative involves members of a small group of ‘seekers of truth’ who individually
and collectively journeyed throughout the Middle East, Asia, Tibet and India in the late 1800s seeking access
to spiritual and sacred knowledge
(see Gurdjieff 1963).

Gurdjieff was the one member of this group who
elected to
undertake the
public
task of wider
transmi
ssion of
the
ir

knowledge
.


Gurdjieff and many of his key Russian followers fled to France and Britain via Constantinople to escap
e

t
he
Bolshevik revolution. The ‘teaching’ system continued under their direction from the early 1920s through to
the late 1940s. In Britain, the system developed some degree of independence through the acrimonious split
between Ouspensky and Gurdjieff in 192
4 (Ouspensky, 1949, p. 387).

The teaching in France continued under Gurdjieff’s direction until his death in 1949.
Pierre Wack

met
Gurdjieff in occupied France during the
Second World War (
WW2)
and applied
the
4
Th

Way

system approach
a
s a successful
practicing
futurist at Royal Dutch Shell
(Collyns and Tibbs 1998).

Gurdjieff’s impact on 20th century European thinking is difficult to estimate.
However, h
is direct impact on
Pierre Wack during the
WW2

has
influenced the development of
the
foresight
disci
pline
and
his indirect
impact on Stafford Beer
has
influenced
management
cybernetics. Beer was influenced indirectly through
contact with John G. Bennett, a student of both Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, in the Athenaeum Club in London
where both were members (B
eer, 1994).

Gurdjieff’s institute at Fontainebleau
-
Avon entered popular media of the time as the “Forest Philosophers”
(Roberts 1924). Roberts’ plain English descriptions of key aspects of Gurdjieff’s system show similar
characteristics with what later be
come known as cybernetics


i.e.,
perspectives orientated around the
themes of
control and communication involving the

animal


(human) and
the ‘
machine

:

First, he [man] must learn to know himself as he is, namely, a tripartite machine wholly subordinate
to
circumstances. To realize this, he must observe himself at every and any moment of his life, when he is
working or resting, happy or unhappy, vigorous or weary; he will soon see that it is not he but outside
circumstance that controls his actions, emoti
ons and plans.

The next thing for him to do, when he has realized his lack of self
-
mastery, is to set to work to harmonize his
three centres. They ought to enter equally into everything in which he is concerned; when this is the case he
will be harmonized
. Then he will be immune from reactions, and he will himself be responsible for his acts. He
will no longer be
rudderless, automatic, a toy

of the outside world. (Ibid., p. 5


underline emphasis added)

All of Gurdjieff’s books were published posthumously
except one which was subsequently
quickly
withdrawn
from
private
circulation (i.e., Gurdjieff 1933). There are no published images of the enneagram in
Gurdjieff’s
publications. Nott (1961, p. 7) includes a partial representation of the enneagram in a progr
amme pamphlet
for a
series of
dance performances by the Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man (circa. 1923). In
addition to various esoteric
‘toolkit’
style images, it contains the words: “The Science of the Harmonious
Development of Man accordin
g
to the method of G.

I.
Gurdjieff
.”
(See
top
image in Attachment 2)

Ouspensky (1949) is the earliest public source of the enneagram symbol together with an outline of its
context, construction and interpretation. This was published posthumously following his death in October,
1947 after the manuscript was endorsement by Gu
rdjieff shortly before his own death in October, 1949.

In his detailed rendering of Gurdjieff’s lectures from (circa.) 1916, in Moscow and St Petersburg, Ouspensky
sets down the definitive narrative underlying the original enneagram symbol as it was first

introduced to
elite European circles

at that time
:

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

The teaching whose theory is here being set out is completely self
-
supporting and independent of other lines
[Hebraic, Egyptian, Persian and Hindu] and it has been completely unknown up to the present tim
e. Like other
lines it makes use of the symbolic method and one of its principle symbols is the figure which has been
mentioned, that is, the circle divided into nine parts: . . . (Ibid., p. 286)

Ouspensky (Ibid., pp. 123
-
8) maps the enneagram to the seven
-
tone heptatonic musical scale and applies
special significance to the apparent semi
-
tone discontinuities found in the scale between notes. These
structural features were further developed by Bennett (1983a)

to interpret other domains of activity
.

Although
, Pierre Wack’s level of practical involvement with Gurdjieff’s system is unclear,
and his likely
knowledge of Ouspensky’s work minimal,
the impact of Gurdjieff’s system on scenario planning at Royal
Dutch Shell cannot be dismissed when reviewing foresight

theory and practice in the 20th century.

Gurdjieff continued to work with small groups during the war (e.g., Patterson 1999) and Wack was likely
involved in one of these
small
groups. The French groups focused on dance and movements with the
assistance o
f Jeanne de Salzmann (1889

1990)
who was
also
a pupil of Emile
-
Jaques Dalcroze.

As noted above,
Beer did not meet Gurdjieff personally and first became aware of the enneagram through
J
ohn
.
G.
Bennett in London’s Athenaeum Club where both were members. Benn
ett met Ouspensky and
Gurdjieff in Constantinople in (circa. 1919) while he was working for British Intelligence and was
instrumental in Ouspensky’s subsequent resettlement to Britain.
Gurdjieff was declined entry to Britain
allegedly due to his involvemen
t in the “Great Game” between Britain and Russia in Afghanistan and Tibet in
the late 19
th

century.

Bennett worked with Ouspensky
in Britain
until a major estrangement occurred
between them
in 1945 and
he
only reconnected with Gurdjieff 18 months before
the latter’s death in 1949.

Enneagram


emergence in Latin America,
U.S.A.,
Islamic Spain
,

Persia
, UK & Indonesia

Oscar Ichazo (1991a
,

1991b;
Donovan 1975
) claims independent contact with contemporary representatives
of the original sources of the enneagr
am tradition
. These c
laims are disputed by Friedlander (1991) and
Moore (1992) who allege
s

direct plagiarism. Around 1950, at the age of 19 years, Ichazo met someone in La
Paz, Bolivia who belonged to a small group in Buenos Aires “that met to share their

knowledge of various
esoteric consciousness
-
altering techniques” and became a “coffee boy” at their gatherings (Keen 1973).

Regardless of Ichazo’s claims of access to the original sources ‘behind Gurdjieff’


a feature of ambiguity
which Bennett (1973
b
) associates with
Naqshband

Sufi schools


his impact on increasing public awareness
of the enneagram as a character typing framework has been significant.
For example, see the
Ridhwan
School

developed by
A. Hameed Ali, an author and spiritual teacher
syne
rgising
modern psychology and
therapy
(c
all
ed

the
Diamond Approach



e.g.

Almaas (1988)


also see

www.ahalmaas.com

(
accessed
November 2012
)
, who was
influenced by
Chilean
Arica

school along with popular alternative
culture
writers
in such as Carlos Castaneda.

Acrimonious friction exist
ed

between the Gurdjieff
-
group and the Ichazo
-
group (Moore 1992) and this
theme has continued between Ichazo and Helen Palmer in respect to her popular 1980s

publications
(e.g.,
Palmer
1988)
on enneagram character typing (
see
Ichazo 1991a)


e.g., see
United States Court of Appeals
Court, No. 771, Docket 91
-
7859 (1992)

(
http://floridalawfirm.com/arica.html

accessed
November
,

2012)
.


Rodney Collin (Smith) met Ouspensky in 1936 and became one of his key pupils in London. After Ouspensky’s
death in 1947, Collin moved to Mexico with his wife and a small group. He published translations of
Ouspensky’s works in Spanish and started (or visit
ed) groups in Peru, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay


clearly
a possible early
Gurdjieffian
-
Ouspensky based
source for Ichazo’s
subsequent
enneagram

development
.

Ichazo (1991a) does not dispute becoming aware of Gurdjieff’s system after moving to Argentina f
rom
Bolivia. However, he claims the material can be traced to other traditions


especially ancient Stoicism,
Pythagoras, Plato, the Sceptics, the Epicureans and the Cynics


and therefore belongs to the public domain:
The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

in essence, in the
Arica

system “. .
. the enneagram is 'key' for representing that transcendentality on the
grounds of Trialectical logic.”

Causation is analyzed by Formal logic in the dilemma of cause and effect. Hegelian Dialectics analyzes it in the
trilemma of thesis, antithesis, and s
ynthesis, or positive, negative, and neutral, . . . [I]n Arica Trialectics,
causation is analyzed in the tetralemma of action, reaction, function, and result. The Laws of Trialectics are not
just the Law of Causation (action, reaction, and neutral), but th
e exposition of logical principles of identity.
(Ichazo 1991a).

Ichazo assumes the intellectual capacity to appreciate ‘wholeness’ emerges from the inter
-
relationship of a
t

least three sets of independent factors where the 3rd factor is not a point of syn
thesis: “The trialectic of the
three factors held together gives a wholeness to the whole situation which makes creativity and change
possible.” (Kelly and Sewell 1988
, p.

12
-
30).

Idries Shah (1924


1996), a well
-
known writer on Sufi themes (e.g., Shah 19
64), a member of the
Athenaeum Club, and an early member of the Club of Rome (which he subsequently left), makes little
reference to the enneagram and suggests it came to Europe with the Kabbala based on the works of the
Arab philosopher Ibn Al Laith (Shah

1994, pp. 286
-
7).

Don Riso (1946


2012) notes a similar (but not identical) ‘enneagram’ with three equilateral triangles in
Athanasius Kircher’s 1665
Arithmologia

(Riso 1987, pp. 17
-
19; also see Webb 1987). He also outlines the link
with the Jesuits thro
ugh Ichazo’s
Arica

Institute
.
Claudio Naranjo notes that Bessing, Nogosek and O’Leary
(1984) present the Jesuit use of the enneagram which includes reference of two additional classic ‘sins’
making nin
e


i.e., ‘fear’ and ‘deceit’.
Riso (1996, revised ed.)

believes the enneagram is merely a tool and an
intellectual system for developing insight


essentially, a modern creation and “work in progress” without an
ancient oral tradition:

Unfortunately, the first edition . . . was perhaps a source of the
mistaken idea that there was a body of
knowledge about the enneagram which had been transmitted through an ongoing ‘oral tradition’ of some
kind. Nothing could be further from the truth. The enneagram is largely a modern development . . . (Ibid., pp.
xi
-
xi
i).

Laleh Bakhtiar (1993
, 1994
), a long
-
time student of Seyyed Hossein Nasr (e.g., see Nasr
1972
), presents a
version of the enneagram with an additional small triangle in the centre. She claims the modern typological
interpretation of the enneagram
(
i.e.,
by Ichazo, Nanjaro, Riso,
et. al
.) does not originate from the primordial
Sufi tradition
s

she represents and is therefore something quite different.
(Also see
Gomez

nodate)

According to Bakhtiar

(Ibid.)
, the origins of the enneagram originate within

the Sufi traditions of Central Asia
which collected monotheistic wisdoms from all ancient traditions including Pythagorean, Platonic, Jewish,
Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Zoroastrian religions. Both Gurdjieff and Ichazo also claim their
systems
link to ancient Pythagorean traditions.

Bakhtair
(Ibid.)
believes the Sufi tradition inherited a sacred tradition of “Traditional Psychology” and
developed a psychological teaching based on nine elements partly from the works of the 13th century
Islamic s
cholar Nasir al
-
din Tusi


the same traditional psychology, she claims, that Gurdjieff encountered
through the Sufis in Central Asia during his travels.

Gurdjieff’s system has been linked to Sufism, Buddhism and Bon, an indigenous religion of the Tibetan r
egion
(Webb 1987; Moore 1991). The enneagram has been linked to the
Naqshbandi

Sufi group (Bennett 1973
b
)
which appears to have capacity for effective synthesis with indigenous cultural systems. Naranjo (1990)
includes an enneagram with a
n image of a

bee i
n the centre.

Subsequent theory development relating to process (Bennett 1983a) and character typologies (Ichazo
’s
Arica

formulations
, Palmer 1988, Naranjo 1990) indicate its flexibility and utility as a convenient framework to
support cross
-
disciplinary
communication which Margaret Mead
linked
with cybernetics (Foerster 1995).

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

As noted earlier,
Bennett
m
et Ouspensky and Gurdjieff in
Constantinople

in (circa. 1919) while
he was
working for British Intelligence and was instrumental in Ouspensky’s subsequent

resettlement to Britain

with
the assistance of the wife of a powerful newspaper magnate
. On his return to Britain, Bennett worked with
Ouspensky until a major estrangement occurred

and
Ouspensky
publically
repudiated him in 1945
. Bennett
then
re
-
connected

with Gurdjieff
just before
the latter’s death in 1949

and claims he was given special
instructions to continue the work in certain directions
.

After 1948, Bennett searched for new ‘teachers’

and sources. I
nfluenced by Gurdjieff’s hint that a new
developm
ent in the tradition would emerge from the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia)

he

joined the Indonesian
Subud movement
established
by
Muhammad (Pak) Subuh

around 1
956
/57
and s
ubsequently promoted its
international development until he left
the organisation
in
1962 (Bennett 195
9b
, 1983b).

Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo (1901


1987)
established the
Susila Budhi Dharma

(Subud)
Brotherhood in Semarang in 1925

with strong
root
s

in
to

Java’s
cultural history
. In spite of his
den
ying
any
causal link between Subud and

Sufism
, there are similarities. The young Subuh was influenced by a
Naqshbandi

Sufi shaykh
(
Kyai Abdurrachman
)

and Kyai Demang Poncokartoko, the spiritual guide of the
Sultan of Surakarta

(Bancroft 1978;
Cam
p
bell

2010). The Subu
d

symbol does not resemble the enneagram
although it is based around seven concentric circles
intersected by
seven radii.

Peter (
Husein
)
Rofé

(1922


2008) was the first European to take the Subud approach outside Indonesia and
was responsible for intro
ducing Bennett to the Subud practices
(Rofe 1959)
.
Rofé
was born in
1922 in
Manchester, England

to a
Jewish father and Belgian mother
. He travelled extensively and became a
Muslim
convert.

He was the key European face of Subud until Bennett displaced him i
n this lead role

(
while still an
active member
)
.





The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Attachment 2
:
Enneagram as a SSM Rich Picture: circa. 500 (B.C.)


2112

The journey of a constant symbol from its hypothetical source
buried
in
ancient

Pythagorean


history
(although that is far from c
ertain)
through
to
its European emergence in
1912 (Moscow);
and
then on to a
‘Black Swan’ event in
2012 (APFC Perth);
which considered its cybernetic and foresighting purpose
with
in

a
hypothetical ‘
2112


futur
ing

scenario.

Enneagram as a SSM Rich Picture:
From
circa. 500 (B.C.)


To 21
st

December
2112

and Beyond …



References for this

rich picture


are included in the discussion draft

reference list. A
ll images
were
taken as
internet
screen dumps from publically available

images or
from
books owned legally for
non
-
commercial
private use

and
education purposes
.

From top left:

1.


Forest
Philosophers




Nott
(1961, p. 7)

2.

Herald of Coming Good



Gurdjieff (1933, front cover printed 1988)

3.

Pierre Wack


image at
http://ontimewithnowheretogo.blogspot.com.au/2008/04/non
-
advertising
-
planning
-
hall
-
of
-
fame.html

(Accessed November 2012)

4.

Enneagram with bee
--

Naranjo
(
1990, inside cover
)

5.

Stafford Beer


image at

http://mat.tepper.cmu.edu/blog/?p=852

(Accessed November 2012)

6.


Recursive Enneagram in Icosahedron



image used with permission from J. Truss.

7.

Mali
k website images


www.malik
-
management.com/en

(Accessed November 2012)

8.

Google search screen image taken at 12:11 pm
(GMT +8)
on 8
th

November, 2012.



The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

References

Almaas, A. H. (1988).
The Pearl Beyond Pri
ce


Integration of Personality into Being: An Object Relations Approach
.
Berkley California: Diamond Books.

American Society for Cybernetics


ASC. (no date). “Foundations: The Subject of Cybernetics


Defining 'Cybernetics'”.
See
www.asc
-
cybernetics.org/foundations/definitions.htm

(October 2012)

Ashby, W. Ross (1956).
An Introduction to Cybernetics
. London: Chapman & Hall.

Bateson, Gregory. (1972).
Steps to an Ecology

of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and
Epistemology
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

_____________ (1979).
Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human
Sciences)
. New York:
Hampton Press.

Bakhtiar, Laleh (1993, 1994).
God's Will Be Done
.
(
Volumes 1, 2 & 3
)
. Chicago: Kazi Publications.

Bancroft, Anne (1978).
Modern Mystics and Sages
. London: Granada Publishing.

Beer, Stafford (1975).
Platform for Change
. New York: Wiley & Sons
.

___________ (1979).
The Heart of Enterprise
. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.

___________ (1994).
Beyond Dispute: the intervention of team syntegrity
. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.

Beesing, Maria, Nogosek, Robert and O’Leary, Patrick (1984).
The Enneagram: A Journe
y of Self Discovery
. New Jersey:
Dimension Books.

Bell, A. and McKenna, Terrance (1997). ‘Terence McKenna with Art Bell: Art Bell interviews Terence McKenna on Coast
to Coast AM


May 22nd 1997, March 19th 1998, April 1st 1999 & July 16th 1999’. See
http://archive.org/details/TerenceMckennaWithArtBell

(October 2012).

Bennett, John, G. (1959
a
).
The Dramatic Universe: The Foundations of Natural Philosophy
. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.

___
________ (1959
b
).
Concerning Subud
. London: Hodder and Stoughton. (Out of print: see
www.undiscoveredworldspress.com/concerningsubud.html
)

___________ (1973a). Gurdjieff: making a
new world. New York: Harper & Row

___________ (1973
b
).
Gurdjieff: a very great enigma
. New York: Samuel Weiser.

___________ (1983a).
Enneagram Studies
. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser.

___________ (1983b).
Witness: The Autobiography of John Bennett
.
Charles Town, WV: Claymont Communications.

Boadella, David (1985).
Wilhelm Reich: The Evolution of his Work
. London: Arkana.

Brent, Belinda (1994).
A quantitative and descriptive study of distinct and self
-
consistent

attentional styles and their
relation t
o Enneagram typology
.

(Ph.D. thesis). Palo Alto CA. Institute
o
f Transpersonal Psychology

[Sofia University].
See
http://gradworks.umi.com/DP/14/DP14315.html


(October 2012)

Campbell, Dirk (2010).

Subud and Sufism
. Punnetts Town, East Sussex: See
www.dirkcampbell.co.uk/Subud_and_Sufism.html


(October 2012)

Checkland, P
eter

(1981
,
1998)
.

Systems Thinking, Systems Practice
. Chichester
:

John Wiley & Sons.

Clemens, Russell (2009). “Environmental Scanning and Scenario Planning: A 12 month Perspective on Applying the
Viable Systems Model to Developing Public Sector Foresight”,
Systemic Practice and Action Research
, August, Volume
22,
Issue 4, pp. 249
-
274.

Collyns, Napier and Tibbs, Hardin. (1998). “In Memory of Pierre Wack”,
Netview
, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 2
-
10. Global Business
Network. See
www.hardintibbs.c
om/index.php/writing/futures
-
and
-
strategy/

(October 2012)

Covey, Stephen (1989).
The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic
. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Cowan, Nelson (2001). "The magical number 4 in short
-
term memory: A re
consideration of mental storage capacity".
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
,

24: 87

185.

De Ropp, Robert (1972).
The New Prometheans
. New York: Delacorte Press.

Donnovan, Corey (1975). “Buenos Aires Mystery School? Oscar Ichazo, Arica and Castaneda”, (See
www.sustainedaction.org/Explorations/Oscar_Ichazo_and_Castaneda.htm

(November 2012)

Economist. (2008a, August 29). ‘Guru: Pierre Wack’.
The Economist
. See
www.economist.com/node/12000502

(October
2012)

________
. (2008b, September 1). ‘Idea: Scenario planning’.
The Economist
. See
www.economist.com/node/12000755

(October 2012)

Elkington, John (1997).
Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business
. Oxford: Capstone.

Escobar, Pepe (2012, November 6). “THE ROVING EYE: Election kicks on Route 66”,
Asia Times

(Online).
www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/NK06Aa01.html

(November 2012)

Farrington, Jeanne (2011). “Seven plus or minus two”,
Performance Improvement Quarterly
, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp.
113

116.

Foerster, Heinz von (1995)
. ‘Ethics and second
-
order cybernetics’,
SEHR
, Volume 4, Issue 2: Constructions of the Mind
(Updated 4 June 1995). See
www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4
-
2/text/foerster.html

(October 2012)

Friedlander, Joel. (1991). “The Work Today”,
Gnosis
, (Summer), pp. 37
-
40.

Geertz, Clifford (1973).
The Interpretation of Cultures
. New York: Basic Books.

Gleick, James (1998).
Chaos: the Amazing Science of the Unpredictable
. London: Vinatge.

___________
(1999).
Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything
.

New York: Pantheon

Gorenflo, Daniel., McConnell, James (1991). "The Most Frequently Cited Journal Articles and Authors in Introductory
Psychology Textbooks".
Teaching of Psychology

18: 8

12.

Gomez,

Jim (nodate). “Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar Ph.D. The Sufi Enneagram Interview”. (See
www.
sufi
enneagram.com/bakhtiar_gomez%20interview.pdf

Gurdjieff, George (1933).
The Hera
ld of Coming Good: First Appeal to Contemporary Humanity
. Paris. (reprinted in 1988,
U.S.A: SureFire Press)

__________(1950).
All and Everything: Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson


An Objectively Impartial Criticism of the Life
of Man
. New York: Harcourt,

Brace & Company;
London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

__________ (1963).
Meetings With Remarkable Men
.
London
: Routlege & Kegan Paul.

Hansen, William (2005).
Classical Mythology: A Guide to the Mythical World of the Greeks and Romans
. Oxford
University Press.

Harman, W. and Rheingold, H. (1984).
Higher Creativity: Liberating the Unconscious for Breakthrough Insight
. New York:
Tarcher.

Harris, J. (2002).
Blindsided: How to spot the next breakthrough that will change your business forever
. New York: John
Wiley &
Sons.

Hayward, P
eter

(2004). ‘Facilitating foresight: Where the foresight function is placed in organisations’,
Foresight
, 6 (1),
pp. 19
-
30. See
www.metafuture.org/articlesbycolleagues/PeterHayward/Facilitating_Foresight.htm


(October 2012)

Hoebeke, Luc (1994, 2000).
Making Work Systems Better
-

A Practitioner's Reflections
. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Online version (2000) at
http://sprouts.aisnet.org/1
-
18/

(November 2012)

Hurley, Kathleen and Dobson, Theodore (1991).
What’s My Type? Use the Enneagram System of Nine Personality Types
to Discover Your Best Self
. New York: HarperCollins.

Ichazo, Osca
r (1991a).
The Arican
-

Teachings of the Great Telesmatta
-

International Journal of Arica Institute: 20th
Anniversary Issue
. The Arican Institute.

_________ (1991b). “Letter to the Transpersonal Community”. See
www.arica.org/articles/trletter.cfm

(October 2012)

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Inayatullah, Sohail

(1998).

Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method

.
Futures
, 30(8), 815
-
829.

__________

(Ed.)
(2004 ed.)
The Causal Layered Analysis Reader: theory and case

studies of an integrative and
transformative methodology
.
Taipei:

Tamkang University

Press
.

Innis, Harold (1948).
Minerva's Owl
. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

__________ (1950).
Empire and Communications
. Toronto: Press Porcepic.

Jaques, Elliott (
1997).
Requisite Organization: Total System for Effective Managerial Organization and Managerial
Leadership for the 21st Century
. London: Gower.

Keen, Sam (1973) "Interview with Oscar Ichazo"
,

Psychology Today
, July. (See
www.skepdic.com/ichazo.html

)

(October
2012)

Kelly, A., and Sewell, S. (1988).
With head, heart & hand: Dimensions of community building
. Brisbane: Boolarong Press.

Kleiner
,

A
rt

(2003). “The Man Who Saw the Future.”
Strategy & Business
, (
Spring).

Laszlo, Ervin (2001). “Human evolution in the new millennium.”
,
Futures
, 33, 649
-
658.

Leonard, Allenna (1999). ‘A Viable System Model: Consideration of Knowledge Management’
, Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice
, August 1999.

McLuhan, M.
(1964).
Understanding media: The extensions of man
. London: Routledge.

Markley, Oliver (2012). “Imaginal Visioning for Prophetic Foresight”,
Journal of Futures Studies
, September, 17(1): 5
-
24.

__________ (1996). Markley, Oliver. (1996). “Global consciousne
ss: An alternative future of choice.”
Futures
, 28(6/7):
622
-
625.

Markley, O. and Harman, W. (Eds.) (1982).
Changing Images of Man

(a published version of the SRI Report, “Societal
consequences of changing images of man,” by Joseph Campbell, Duane Elgin, Wi
llis Harman (Project Supervisor), Arthur
Hastings, O. W. Markley (Project Leader), Floyd Matson, Brendan O’Regan, & Leslie Schneider.) Elmsford, NY: Pergamon
Press.

Maturana, Humberto (1970). “Biology of Cognition”, Biological Computer Laboratory Research
Report BCL 9.0., Urbana
IL: University of Illinois


As Reprinted in: “Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living”, Dordecht: D. Reidel
Publishing Co., 1980, pp. 5
-
58.

__________
(1971).
METADESIGN
. Instituto de Terapia Cognitiva

INTECO
-

Santiago de Chile. See
www.inteco.cl

(November 2012)

Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1988).
The Tree of Knowledge
. Boston
:

Shambhala.

Maturana, Humberto, Verden
-
Zoller, Gerda and Bunnell, Pille (ed) (2009).
The
Origin of humanness in the Biology of
Love
. UK: Imprint Academic.

(Note:
the various subspecies of humans (amans, arrogans, aggressions)
is the
invention

of
Pille Bunnell
, first presented in Rio+5 in 1997, and published in Bunnell, P.
(
2000
)
.

Attributing
Nature with
Justifications
”,

Systems Research and Behavioral Science
, Syst. Res. 17,
pp.
469
-
480
,

John Wiley & Sons.
)

Max
-
Neef,
Manfred
(1992).
Human Scale Development
. (With contributions from Antonio Elizalde Martin Hopenhayn).
New York: The Apex Press.

McKenna, Terrance and McKenna, D. (1994).
The Invisible Landscape: Mind, Hallucinogens, and the I Ching
. San
Francisco: HarperOne.

McLuhan, Marshall (1951).
The Bias of Communication
. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

___
_________ (1964).
Understanding

Media
. London: Routledge.

Mead, Margaret. (no date).
Margaret Mead > Quotes
,
“For the very first time the young are seeing history being made
before it is censored by their elders.
” See
www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/61107.Margaret_Mead

(accessed
November 2012)

Mill, J. S. (1856).
A system of logic : Ratiocinative and inductive ; being a connected view of the principles of evidence,
and the methods of scientific investigation
, (4
th edition, Vol. 1)
.

London
:

John W. Parker & Son. See
www.aolib.com/reader_27977_495.htm

(October 2012)

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Miller, George (1956). "The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our
capacity for processing
information"
,

Psychological Review
, March, 63 (2): 81

97.

Moore, James (1991).
Gurdjieff: The Anatomy of a Myth
. Rockport, Ma: Element Books.

_
___________ (1992). “New Lamps for Old: The Enneagram Débâcle”,
The Gurdjieff Journal
, Is
sue #25, Volume 7/8
Issue 1, pp. 8
-
12. See
www.gurdjieff
-
legacy.org/40articles/newlamps.htm

(October 2012)

Morris, E. (1898, 1982)
Morris's Dictionary of Australian words, names and p
hrases
. Melbourne
:

Currey O'Neil.

___________ (1898, Ed).
Austral English: A Dictionary of Australasian Words, Phrases and Usages
.

Melbourne
.

F
acsimile as

Morris’s Dictionary of Australian Words

, John Currey O’Neil Publishers, Adelaide 1982. Also see
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301531h.html


(October 2012)

Naranjo, Claudio (1990).
Ennea
-
Type Structures: Self
-
Analysis for the Seeker
. Nevada City, CA: Gatways.

Nasr, Seyyed H. (1972).
Sufi
Essays by Nasr
. London: Allan and Unwin.
(See
www.nasrfoundation.org

(November 2012)

Nott, C. S. (1961).
Teachings of Gurdjieff: A Pupil’s Journal
. London: Routledge
&

Kegan Paul.

Nzewi, Meki and Nzewi, Odyke
(2007).
A Contemporary Study of Musical Arts
. Centre for Indigenous Instrumental
African Music and Dance
,

South Africa: Department of Music, University of Pretoria.

Ouspensky, P., D. (1934).
Tertium Organum: The Third Canon of Thought


A Key to the Enigm
as of the World
.
(Translated from the Russian by Nicholas Bessaraboff and Claude Bragdon). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.

__________ (1949).
In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching
. NY: Harcourt, Brace, 1949;
London: Routledge.

Palmer, Helen (1988).
The Enneagram: Understanding Yourself and the Others in Your Life
. New York: Harper Collins.

Patterson, William (1999).
Ladies of the Rope: Gurdjieff’s Special Left Bank Women’s Group
. California: Fairfax.

Pickering, Andrew (2010).
T
he Cybernetic Brain: Sketches of Another Future
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Riso, Don R. (1987).
Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self
-
Discovery
. New York: Houghton
-
Mifflin.

_________ (1996).
Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for
Self
-
Discovery

(Revised Edition). New York: Mariner
Books.

Roberts, Carl Eric Bechhofer. (1924).
The Forest Philosophers
. See
www.gurdjieff
-
bibliography.com/Current/b_roberts_forest
-
philos_2004
-
07
-
04.pdf

(October 2012).

Rofé, Husein (1959).
The Path of Subud
. London: Rider & Company.

Schaetzel, Stanley (1998).
SATAN, CEO: Minutes of the Centennial General Meeting
. New South
Wales: Prospect Media.

Shah, Idries (1964).
The Sufis
. New York: Doubleday.

_________ (1994).
The Commanding Self
. London: Ocatgon Press

Smircich, L. (1983a) ‘Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis’,
Administrative Science Quarterly
, Vol. 28, No.

3,
Organizational Culture (Sept), pp. 339
-
358. See
www.jstor.org/stable/2392246

(October 2012).

_________ (1983b). "Studying organizations as cultures." In Gareth Morgan (1983 ed.),
Beyond Method: Social

Research
Strategies
. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Speeth, Kathleen Riordan (1989).
The Gurdjieff Work
. USA: Penguin Group
.

Strauss, Leo (1953).
Natural Right and History
. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Stuart, D. (2012) “David Stuart on the Mayan calenda
r and 2012 doomsday predictions” (April). See
http://earthsky.org/scientists/david
-
stuart

(October 2012)

Symons, E. (2005, October 22
-
23). ‘US fumes over cultural snub’,
The Weekend Australian
, p.

27.

Taleb, Nassim. (2007).
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
. New York: Random House.

Vickers, Geoffrey (1968). "Science and the Appreciative System",
Human Relations
, 21: 99
-
119.

____________ (1983).
Human systems are different.

London:
Harper & Row.

The Cybernetics of Foresight


Futures Thinking for the 21st Century


2012

Wack, Pierre (1985a) ‘Scenarios: Shooting the Rapids’,
Harvard Business Review
, (November).

___________ (1985b) “The Gentle Art of Re
-
perceiving”,
Harvard Business Review
,
(
September

October).

Wagner, J. P. and Walker, R. E. (1983),
‘Reliability and validity study of a Sufi personality typology: The enneagram.’
Journal of Clinical Psychology
, Vol. 39, Issue 5 (September), pp. 712

717.

Webb, James. (1987).
The Harmonious Circle: The Lives and Work of G.I. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky, and

Their Followers
.
Boston: Shambhala.

Weingand, Darlene (1995). “Futures Research Methodologies: Linking Today’s Decisions With Tomorrow’s Possibilities”.
61st IFLA General Conference
-

Conference Proceedings
-

August 20
-
25. (See
http://ifla.queenslibrary.org/IV/ifla61/61
-
weid.htm

(November 2012)
.

Wiener, Norbert (1948).
Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine
. Mass: MIT Press.