I'm reminded of Dave Holmgren's permaculture design principle 'Design from patterns to details.'
A few thoughts:
Looking at the rulers' tier of the social hierarchy in relation to England (and we have to include the Church as well as the secular elite), I'd argue we saw its power peak at the Norman conquest, take a wobble at Magna Carta and a sharp dip that it never really recovered from at the Civil War, (regardless of face-saving nonsense by the last Stuarts) ending up at universal suffrage in 1928 with a situation where the structures and institutions of power became significantly more permeable than they'd ever been before. Now however we're seeing the abiliity of wealthy individuals to subvert and supplant traditional power structures grow – with modern technologies whose complexity makes them increasingly opaque to most of us (and apparently even to their creators).
So when we start to look at detail, we find linear development and change. Arguably the nature of society changes so much between Anglo-Saxon England and 21st-century post-Brexit UK that power is a completely different phenomenon now.
This isn't just a minor quibble:
I worry that pattern-seeking (almost by design) tends to filter out detail as 'noise', especially if it's non-conformative detail, creating a selection/confirmation bias. I think it can work very well with systems we know intimately, especially as a teaching aid; otherwise, not so much.
The trouble is, we inquisitive human beings tend to want to extrapolate from areas we know well to areas we're unfamiliar with, ending up with Jared Diamondesque 'theories of everything' which are fun to read, but fall apart when boring academics come along and say 'Yeah, but actually when you look more closely …' (which is their job, after all).
I may be completely muddle-headed about any or all of the above, but at least I've troubled to think about and articulate it – which I wouldn't have done this Thursday morning if I hadn't read your article. So thank you!
I appreciate you taking your Thursday morning to engage with such things Steve. They become much more interesting when discussed. Holmgren and Diamond also came to my mind when writing this. Interestingly, the permaculture movement has come under fire in recent years for incorporating practices from indigenous cultures around the world into its theory without acknowledgement.
I take your point. We don't want to limit the possibilities of any given topic by restricting them to patterns. I was very conscious when writing this—especially as it was a short experiment and not a lengthy research topic—that I relied heavily on my own knowledge and bias. Once I began, I quickly became aware that there were so many reasons and triggers to be explored, and that this would be impossible for me to do justice to in the space of an evening, so I stuck to the one overarching pattern. In his book, Yunkaporta uses a more complex honeycomb structure of patterns to demonstrate the chapters.
And not to mention, I had three, some a little silly, stories to work with :) But, I found the exercise very enjoyable. Looking for connections within things certainly fired up my brain.
And after having completed the exercise myself (opposed to having just read about it), I think there is something in it. I acknowledge that nature is dominated by patterns, and the idea that we too follow patterns in the course of acting out our instincts (if somewhat unconsciously) could be very possible. The saying, "History repeats itself", certainly rings true to me. The place, time, technology and protagonists may change, but human behaviours and actions often don't.
And in that, I see what you have described about England as falling into the pattern of hierarchy and power on a global level. England has been slipping down the lines, while other nations and individuals have been climbing them. History shows us that power and those who posses it, change. But power always seems to exist, even in other forces of nature that dictate what lives and evolves, or in hierarchies that exist in other living species, too. That aspect looks to be constant.
Just to pick up on a couple of things in your comment which struck me:
Permaculture. It's by nature highly eclectic, doesn't claim originality for any of its ideas and doesn't try to 'protect' any of them. It wouldn't surprise me if bits of it were "stolen" from all over. I felt that the section on patterns in the early seminal works was a bit too "Ooh, look at the pretty, recurring pattern," and not enough "Is there really a connection between these similar-looking but apparently very separate things? If so what is it and how might it be relevant to our design needs?" – but then, Mollison and Holmgren wanted to provide an impetus to thought, observation and experiment, not a patent solution to all design problems.
Broadly, I think I agree with pretty much everything you write in this comment. I'd go further: pattern-seeking is essential to our cognition. Without Pattern and its good friend Category, there would be no language, no art, no music, no society. Pattern is one of the ways in which our tiny intelligence attempts to understand the endless, endlessly diverse universe we live in.
Thank you for taking my ramble in the spirit in which it was intended – as a discussion gambit. I agree that these things (most things, actually) become more interesting when discussed. I tend to be cautious these days, though, because I'm aware that some (many?) people post their writings online looking primarily for affirmation and support – and I've had my fingers burnt a couple of times, mistaking posters' intentions. I remember looking at the length of my comment above with a certain amount of consternation!
Unfortunately, most people are never taught how to engage in respectful debate, which is a shame because the skill is required more than ever in the age of social media. I don't expect to agree with everyone all the time, and I don't expect others to always agree with me. But, if we are to disagree on something, we should at least enjoy the process of doing it :)
Nice article, Alia.
I'm reminded of Dave Holmgren's permaculture design principle 'Design from patterns to details.'
A few thoughts:
Looking at the rulers' tier of the social hierarchy in relation to England (and we have to include the Church as well as the secular elite), I'd argue we saw its power peak at the Norman conquest, take a wobble at Magna Carta and a sharp dip that it never really recovered from at the Civil War, (regardless of face-saving nonsense by the last Stuarts) ending up at universal suffrage in 1928 with a situation where the structures and institutions of power became significantly more permeable than they'd ever been before. Now however we're seeing the abiliity of wealthy individuals to subvert and supplant traditional power structures grow – with modern technologies whose complexity makes them increasingly opaque to most of us (and apparently even to their creators).
So when we start to look at detail, we find linear development and change. Arguably the nature of society changes so much between Anglo-Saxon England and 21st-century post-Brexit UK that power is a completely different phenomenon now.
This isn't just a minor quibble:
I worry that pattern-seeking (almost by design) tends to filter out detail as 'noise', especially if it's non-conformative detail, creating a selection/confirmation bias. I think it can work very well with systems we know intimately, especially as a teaching aid; otherwise, not so much.
The trouble is, we inquisitive human beings tend to want to extrapolate from areas we know well to areas we're unfamiliar with, ending up with Jared Diamondesque 'theories of everything' which are fun to read, but fall apart when boring academics come along and say 'Yeah, but actually when you look more closely …' (which is their job, after all).
I may be completely muddle-headed about any or all of the above, but at least I've troubled to think about and articulate it – which I wouldn't have done this Thursday morning if I hadn't read your article. So thank you!
I appreciate you taking your Thursday morning to engage with such things Steve. They become much more interesting when discussed. Holmgren and Diamond also came to my mind when writing this. Interestingly, the permaculture movement has come under fire in recent years for incorporating practices from indigenous cultures around the world into its theory without acknowledgement.
I take your point. We don't want to limit the possibilities of any given topic by restricting them to patterns. I was very conscious when writing this—especially as it was a short experiment and not a lengthy research topic—that I relied heavily on my own knowledge and bias. Once I began, I quickly became aware that there were so many reasons and triggers to be explored, and that this would be impossible for me to do justice to in the space of an evening, so I stuck to the one overarching pattern. In his book, Yunkaporta uses a more complex honeycomb structure of patterns to demonstrate the chapters.
And not to mention, I had three, some a little silly, stories to work with :) But, I found the exercise very enjoyable. Looking for connections within things certainly fired up my brain.
And after having completed the exercise myself (opposed to having just read about it), I think there is something in it. I acknowledge that nature is dominated by patterns, and the idea that we too follow patterns in the course of acting out our instincts (if somewhat unconsciously) could be very possible. The saying, "History repeats itself", certainly rings true to me. The place, time, technology and protagonists may change, but human behaviours and actions often don't.
And in that, I see what you have described about England as falling into the pattern of hierarchy and power on a global level. England has been slipping down the lines, while other nations and individuals have been climbing them. History shows us that power and those who posses it, change. But power always seems to exist, even in other forces of nature that dictate what lives and evolves, or in hierarchies that exist in other living species, too. That aspect looks to be constant.
Just to pick up on a couple of things in your comment which struck me:
Permaculture. It's by nature highly eclectic, doesn't claim originality for any of its ideas and doesn't try to 'protect' any of them. It wouldn't surprise me if bits of it were "stolen" from all over. I felt that the section on patterns in the early seminal works was a bit too "Ooh, look at the pretty, recurring pattern," and not enough "Is there really a connection between these similar-looking but apparently very separate things? If so what is it and how might it be relevant to our design needs?" – but then, Mollison and Holmgren wanted to provide an impetus to thought, observation and experiment, not a patent solution to all design problems.
Broadly, I think I agree with pretty much everything you write in this comment. I'd go further: pattern-seeking is essential to our cognition. Without Pattern and its good friend Category, there would be no language, no art, no music, no society. Pattern is one of the ways in which our tiny intelligence attempts to understand the endless, endlessly diverse universe we live in.
Thank you for taking my ramble in the spirit in which it was intended – as a discussion gambit. I agree that these things (most things, actually) become more interesting when discussed. I tend to be cautious these days, though, because I'm aware that some (many?) people post their writings online looking primarily for affirmation and support – and I've had my fingers burnt a couple of times, mistaking posters' intentions. I remember looking at the length of my comment above with a certain amount of consternation!
Indeed, I welcome it and thank you for it.
Unfortunately, most people are never taught how to engage in respectful debate, which is a shame because the skill is required more than ever in the age of social media. I don't expect to agree with everyone all the time, and I don't expect others to always agree with me. But, if we are to disagree on something, we should at least enjoy the process of doing it :)