China and the Primal Episteme

The ancient possibility of knowledge that China possesses is well placed to resonate effectively with the Primal episteme. This is because it incorporates a knowledge of mankind alongside that of other things.

The ancient possibility of knowledge that China possesses is best appreciated in contrast to the dominant possibility of knowledge in the Modern Western world. One of the key defining features of the Modern Western world is the Modern episteme as defined by Michel Foucault. Within the Modern episteme the role of “epistemological man” is central and definitive (Foucault 1970; Birkin & Polesie 2011). Briefly the significance of “epistemological man” means that knowledge in the Modern Human sciences is a knowledge that has been created

of man, by man and for man.

This means that knowledge in the Modern Human Sciences is made possible by reflexive self-referencing; a kind of species-solipsism. This helps to explain how Modern progress has benefit man at the expense of the natural world. It has done so because knowledge in the Modern human sciences did not recognise a natural world as may be proven by a quick examination of any standard Modern text explaining how mankind is to be organised to increase its own wealth; i.e. economics, accounting and management where  nature per se does not exist. This is a key driver of unsustainable development.

So how does ancient China differ? It differs in many ways that for the moment we can represent simply by Tian Xia which may be translated as “All under Heaven”. The concept of Tian Xia is closely associated with civilization and order in classical Chinese philosophy, and it has formed the basis for the world view of the Chinese people and nations influenced by them since at least the first millennium BC. A first point to notice is the age of this concept - the first millennium BC - which is indicative of its intrinsic sustainability. (In contrast the Modern episteme in the West lasted a mere 200 years old before it undermined its own existence with unsustainable forms of development.)

We should be aware that Tian Xia in its application and development in China was not of course all good. It did for example underpin the idea that the Chinese emperor acted with a Mandate from Heaven and as such was effectively the centre of the world and all powerful.

However, the significance of Tian Xia for present purposes is that it was not based on a possibility of knowledge that referred its own origins back to itself as in the Modern episteme’s knowledge of man, by man and for man. Tian Xia embraced – as it says – “All under Heaven”.

Tian Xia or "All under Heaven"

Getting over Financial & Economic Crises

The Financial Crises of 2007/08 is judged by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. As a result of the 2008 crisis, significant financial institutions, notably banks and stock markets, lost trillions of $US. In turn housing markets lost value resulting in evictions, foreclosures and unemployment. People saw their savings, pensions and endowments loose overnight the kind of money that takes decades of hard work to save. We are still suffering from this crises as more key business suffer or fail, high street shops and house-hold names go out of business; and  the European sovereign-debt crisis has ruined countless lives  in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and now Cyprus.

The 2008 crisis took much of the Financial & Economic world by surprise in spite of global studies and close attention from all quarters. The causes of the crisis are difficult to identify and has given rise to extensive debate. It is a global crisis and all of us are involved. The search goes on for ways to stop it happening again.

A significant amount of blame for the crisis has to be the “financialization” of the economy:

Sustainable Business Models: what can change?

The book “Intrinsic Sustainable Development: epistemes, science, business and sustainability” (Birkin & Polesie 2011) is about the impact of an emerging episteme upon ourselves, society and business. Basically an episteme is what makes knowledge possible. It can seem disturbing, even frightening, to think that our world – our whole world – can change because of a change in the possibility of knowledge. But other people see this as liberating: an exciting opportunity to venture forth into new unexplored territories just as the explorers of old.

But consider too that the world does change for individuals and groups in accepted ways. Although PR does not subscribe to any revealed religious orthodoxy, consider how the members of a religious groups, even the humbling Methodists, may regard themselves as “reborn”, “renewed” or “saved” when they accept the Faith for this brings with it a new episteme – a new possibility for knowledge; caused in this case by the recognition that we live in a God-made world. In a way, Buddhism owes its whole existence to overcoming whatever “episteme” makes knowledge possible in an individual’s life – the Buddhist seeking enlightenment and freedom from this world is doing nothing less than overcoming the episteme by means of which a world is brought into existence. Finally, every page of the holy book of Islam, the Koran, exhorts followers to “know yourself” – excellent advice and you can think of this as getting to know the knowledge that that has created our view of ourselves and the world.

But you may ask what has this got to do with business?

Quiet Revolutions

Revolutions can be bloody as the Arab Spring and Syria demonstrate but revolutions can also be quiet events. Quiet revolutions do not involve guns and bombs but are arguably far more effective in bringing about lasting change.

A change in values for example can change the world in which we live. This happens because we never see or know everything that we encounter: we always select information, images, sounds and ideas. This selection has its roots in a natural process called “autopoiesis” which literally means “self-making-poetry”. We effectively make up poems and stories about ourselves and the world in which we live. In this sense we create our own worlds and this is done in accordance with the values we posses. So changing values does change worlds.

At a deeper level still, changing knowledge changes worlds.

The Philosophical Burger

Do you eat ready-made beef, chicken or pork burgers? If you do, then you are performing the impossible because these food items no longer exist.

“Burgers” are on the menu for millions of people each day and with a generic name this patty is real enough. But it is the named specific burger content, the beef, chicken, pork, rabbit etc., which raises the ontological questions: the precise concern is not about the existence of burgers but is about the existence or otherwise of beef, chicken, pork, rabbit or whatever burgers.

Is this trivial? Burgers provide nutrition in a world where people are starving. So what if your beef burger does contain horse meat, pork, chicken or other poultry, donkey, onion, wheat flour, water, beef fat, dehydrated meat powders, soya protein isolate, salt, onion powder, yeast, sugar, barley malt extract, garlic powder, white pepper extract, celery extract, onion extract, rusk, stabilisers (diphosphates and triphosphates) and beef fat? It tastes good!

Anyway who is naïve enough to expect a beef burger to contain just beef?

Sustainable Business Models: A Working Concept

It took many years for the older boy and Greybeard to accept the implications of the transition to a new, Primal episteme. It took even longer for them to work out the implications of this change.

Hence as they sat with QC in a small boat crossing the sound from Helsinki in Finland to the island fortress of Suomenlinna, the reviews they gave of their work was actually the result of decades of difficult work. For example, the older boy had prepared graphic illustrations of some of the consequences for business of the transition to a Primal episteme. In the following figure, the older boy represents Modern companies with a bulldozer motif and Primal ones with a sailing dinghy.

Modern and Primal Business Models Illustrated

The ‘‘Bulldozer’’ company image captures the Modern episteme’s forceful, invasive institutional growth. Since such companies have defined their origins in their own terms, they cannot be anything else. Leaders, the ‘‘drivers,’’ of such companies need to learn only how the company works, its ‘‘mechanics.’’ Then they are obliged to develop the company by growing it and moving it forward as the distinct and separate entity that it is. In effect, this kind of management forces an understanding of companies and their roles onto the world. Much power is required so that this forceful act can overcome any social, environmental or ecological resistance as well as constraints on company
growth.

Hence the desired direction in which the ‘‘Bulldozer’’ company heads is determined by the internal functions of the company itself. This is still the standard model in existing Modern business as far as you may judge from the content of books in mainstream management schools, where businesses appear to operate in social and ecological vacuums.

In contrast, the ‘‘Dinghy’’ company is vulnerable and far out at sea; this is a company operating in the Primal episteme. In this image, the fate of the company is uncertain and dependent on factors external to the company (as winds, tides, currents and weather in the illustration). To direct this kind of company, knowledge of its constitution and capabilities is certainly essential; but just as essential are the diverse crafts, skills, knowledge and needs that staff possesses or may acquire for harnessing multi-sourced extrinsic energy and materials together with knowledge and experience of the external systems and forces that contribute to the being and becoming of the company.

The desired direction in which the ‘‘Dinghy’’ company then heads is hence to be determined by collective personal, social, and ecological knowledge, needs, capabilities and potentials in addition to the company’s own. In this way, the reality that ‘‘Dinghy’’ companies create seeks to be as close as possible to what is known of the ways the company intervenes in existence; it is no longer the imposition of a company-made reality onto different worlds.