Towards an emergent AoH taxonomy

Thank you, George, for your rigour and your erudition. This is a really important point that you are making here, and I suggest that we make it very clear when we are using 'pattern' as the the 'pattern language' community uses it. It would be a tragedy to lose the benefits such a powerful tool through sloppy use of language!

However, I doubt that we will be able to turn back the tide on this one. Language is a living thing that does not lend itself to our control (as a professional linguist, I have noticed enough evolution of language to have spotted the 'pattern'!) It seems that, at least among the AoH community, the word 'pattern' is also being used, now, to refer to exactly the other meaning you referred to "the underlying conditions and assumptions" that, when assembled together, create certain manifestations in the world.

I looked up the definition of pattern using the google define function (you can see the whole list here - it ranges from bingo to molecular biology). The most generic one I found was "Any composition with a repeated element and/or design, most often these are varied and produce interconnections and obvious directional movement".

There is something satisfying, also, about following surface manifestations down (or up, depending on how you view it) to find its roots. I think this is what the AoH community instinctively does, and what makes it so powerful. It sits in circle - both physically and virtually - and inquires into the depths of what makes its work so powerful. As I understand it, this practice, too, can be seen as a pattern. It is a pattern which has as a side effect a collective deepening of the community and it exerts a developmental pull on the individuals participating. Hence it actively contributes to the evolution of consciousness.

Yesterday I read an article by Oscar Motomura on chaordic organisations. Talking of the art of defining chaordic principles, he writes:

"The capability for abstraction
To define principles that truly represent the essence of an organization requires an exceptional refinement of he capability for abstraction. In addition, those who define principles must do so in a way that those who are to implement them (“ordinary” people, regular employees) will understand them, especially in their spirit even more than in the letter of the principles.

"The challenge ahead is going to be to find enough people in our organizations, as well as in society, capable of he necessary level of abstraction. Given the type of education that people in leadership positions tend to receive (little attention to philosophy, for example), the number of people capable of working with essential principles is not going to be sufficient. The challenge is going to be to transform inds trained to deal with procedures into minds capable of creating principles."

This, I posit, is one of the truest gifts that the AoH community is bringing to the world - rather an unintended consequence, perhaps: the understanding that the conscious distillation of principles - crucial if we are to develop wisely as a global society from now on - is best done collectively. And the practice to prove it: once a group of individuals comes together in a circle within a container of trust, we all instinctively seem to know how to do this work.

Chris, thanks for responding!

Can you say more about what you mean by the 'competency/mastery continuum'? Do you mean that there is a certain order in which people need to grok this stuff? That there's a movement from surface to depth, or simple to complex?

Does it make sense for our taxonomy to be arranged according to continua? Or is there some other way of looking at it that I'm not seeing, that might be more helpful for the purpose of a taxonomy?

I'm new to all this, and I feel rather blank!