Anthony Hodgson

This chapter introduces a new concept, the anticipatory present moment which offers a way of integrating Rosen’s seminal model of the anticipatory system with post-Rosen developments in second-order cybernetics and the ontology of the present moment. The APM is a meta-model that enables systems thinking and futures thinking to be accommodated in a paradigm that transcends the contradiction between the science of systems based on evidence from the past with futures scenarios which derive from the psychology and mental models of practitioners trying to anticipate the future. As well as anticipatory systems theory, the APM arises from a transdisciplinary study including the phenomenology of time consciousness, boundary critique, scenario method, reperception as induction, and multidimensionality of time. The APM provides a conceptual framework which is stimulating fresh ideas about practices which support strategic decision-making.

There is a widespread recognition that many societal challenges need responses that bring about transformational change in individuals, organizations, and institutions. For this, we need foresight approaches that can work with the intrinsic uncertainties of the future while enabling full engagement of our human capacity for creative response and learning. This chapter introduces Three Horizons as a practice that can help people to bring about change in the face of the complexities and uncertainties of the future. Experience has established that it can do this because each of the horizons captures a qualitatively distinct experience of the future in the present and these three perspectives taken together constitute a powerful expression of anticipatory capacity. The chapter proposes a synthesis between the practice of Three Horizons and the theoretical position that anticipatory decision-making requires a second-order paradigm in which the role and presence of the observer/decider is fully acknowledged. The anticipatory present moment is put forward as such a second-order framework, and it is shown how this achieves the synthesis. The theoretical understanding brought by the APM analysis supports the position that the horizons can be regarded as three foundational modes of human anticipatory capacity.

Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.

In March 2016, an interdisciplinary group met for two days and two evenings to explore the implications for policy making of second-order science. The event was sponsored by SITRA, the Finnish Parliament's Innovation Fund. Their interest arose from their concern that the well-established ways, including evidence-based approaches, of policy and decision making used in government were increasingly falling short of the complexity, uncertainty, and urgency of needed decision making. There was no assumption that second-order science or second-order cybernetics would reveal any practical possibilities at this early stage of enquiry. On the other hand, some members of the group are practioners in both policy and in facilitating change in sectors of society. Thus, the intellectual concepts were strongly grounded in experience. This is an account of the deliberations of that group and some reflections on what came out of the various shared contributions and ensuing dialogues. The overall conclusion of the event is that there definitely are possibilities that are worthy of further research and exploration.