#ISSS2016 Boulder

2752 In 1969, Erich Jantsch published his paper about the disruptive forces affecting higher education and society. He was serving as a research associate at MIT and studying the futures of MIT and the American University at the time. Jantsch (1969) said students were concerned about whether the college curriculum was relevant. Meanwhile, society was concerned about the degrading side effects of technology on the systems of human living, cities, and the natural environment. Lastly, Jantsch pointed to the rising concern about the lack of systems and futures thinking. He coined these concerns “disruptive forces” and believed that the university was well-positioned to assume a new leadership role in society in order to assist in transforming these concerns. Jantsch predicted (hoped for) five crucial institutional innovations in order to transform disruptions into “cohesive forces”. Jantsch passed away ten years after the publication of this document and didn’t have the opportunity to see if his ideas came to fruition. Using a mixed methods approach, this study explores the evolution of higher education institutions by posing questions that revolve around Jantsch’s five crucial innovations, including a new purpose for the university, socio-technological system engineering, altering the structure of the university, re-orienting the operational principles of the university, and a more active relationship between the new university and society. Five institutions highly referenced for their innovation will be invited to participate in this research. Jantsch’s “crucial innovations” frame this investigative study. The conceptual framework consists of the concepts of disruptive forces, the three functions of higher education, self-renewal, and integrative planning. This paper will present the preliminary findings to this study. Keywords- Erich Jantsch, higher education, disruptive forces, self-renewal, integrative planning, innovation.

2771 The authors of this abstract sought to discover a way to communicate key systemic insights to a wider audience and the integration of those insights in real-life systems where they will have impact. The Lighthouse is a prototype alternative to traditional methods of disciplinary scholarship. The Lighthouse is a result of applying systems research, specifically systemic innovation, to the very system by which systems research is performed and communicated. A designed socio-technical system is added to complement the disciplinary organization, by taking advantage of recent advances in knowledge media research and development, and contemporary communication design. By design, The Lighthouse undertakes to fulfill in the systems movement, and in the CET SIG in particular, a function analogous to a lighthouse – of showing ‘stray ships’ (various change or sustainability or thrivability initiatives) a way to the safety of a ‘harbor’, which is an outpost of a ‘continent’ where issues can be handled and understood systemically. The Lighthouse focuses on a single key issue: Whether the evolution and control of core societal systems can be relegated to free competition (“the market”) – or whether it must be informed by systems research and insights. The current prototype has three phases: (1) synthesis or federation of points of view and results relevant to our issue, through a media-enabled transdisciplinary dialog of experts; (2) rendering the results of Phase One in accessible, communicable and engaging formats by applying state-of-the-art communication design; (3) strategic placement of the results of Phase Two in public sphere, and public awareness. The Lighthouse prototype is designed to evolve continuously, by observing how it meets the real-world challenges, and assimilating insights and results from relevant disciplines, notably the systems research and the knowledge media R&D. In this way this prototype of media-enabled transdisciplinary research is also conceived as a prototype ‘boundary object’ linking two communities and interests – systems research, and IT innovation. By it, systemic insights are allowed to directly influence technological, and also social-systemic innovation. The Lighthouse is part of our initiative to develop the CET SIG as a systemic innovation hub, where the emergence of better ways of transdisciplinary and transcommunity cross-fertilization is being curated.

2778 “On each continent and in each nation one can find creative bubbling, a multitude of political initiatives in the direction of economic, social, political, cognitive, educational, ethical or existential regeneration. But everything that must be connected is yet dispersed, fragmented, separated. These initiatives are not aware of each other, no institution enumerates them, and no one is familiar with them. They are nonetheless the breeding stock for the future. It is now a matter of recognizing, aggregating, enlisting them in order to open up transformational paths. These multiple paths, jointly developing, will intermesh to form a new Path which will decompose the path we are following, and which will guide us toward the still invisible and inconceivable metamorphosis.” (Morin, 2011, p34) Working towards more sustainable systems is a critical endeavor of the 21st century requiring collaborative efforts for the broad development of systemic literacy. This paper explores the potential of patterns and pattern languages as tools for systemic change and transdisciplinary collaboration, investigation and design, and outlines the ways they could be further operationalized to develop and leverage collective intelligence and agency towards Curating the Emergence of Thrivability and Realizing Sustainable Futures in Socio-Ecological Systems. Considering patterns and pattern languages, social organization, and systemic change from a variety of perspectives, the author suggests that the concept of pattern has an unfulfilled potential as cognitive technology for meaning-making, mediation, systemic configuration and exchange of knowledge, both within and across domains of human activity. In particular, patterns have properties that could help address the unity versus diversity dilemma while dealing with complex challenges. Rather than giving a complete theoretical review of the field of transdisciplinarity and systemic change, the paper sets key elements of the context and investigates possibilities and directions for future work. Starting with an outline of the nature and dimensions of the complexity challenges the world is faced with from a systemic and cybernetic perspective, the paper explores the versatile properties and functions of patterns and shows how they could help conceive and develop a whole family of tools for systemic focus, interpretation and connectivity. Finally, it presents possibilities of applications of pattern-based approaches in transdisciplinary intervention contexts, using patterns as boundary objects to bring into focus different dimensions of complexity. Keywords: complex systems, patterns, pattern languages, systems literacy, critical systems thinking

2892 People get empirical knowledge through experience. It makes people being available to imagine something and reason several possible-world which could be happened in the future. Here are differences between knowledge by education and knowledge by experience. Empirical knowledge is not for reaching a certain answer what is required at education. This is useful when we need to have multi-answers and making a response to unpredictable objects. To experience world is meant that something interacts with objects and subjects with cognition. This zone could be called ‘the field where cognition and act coexist’. Furthermore, if we start to concern relations between cognition and act, the following questions are arisen “how to transfer feeling by body to perception in which is cognition part?” and “how people have utilized those abilities in real world?”. I focus on creation process to the above questions. In creation, human would utilize their whole knowledge spontaneously. Thus it is produced by creativity which one of the most important abilities in creation, even though we don’t know where is creativity and what is it precisely. In this paper, I argue how analogical reasoning works between cognition and target object. I discuss possible way how this research reaches to enhance creations in creativity way.