what „difference in itself“ means for creativity and the power this „raw connection“ creates: „the power to seek new ways of being in the world generate, as well as the courage and sustenance to act where there are no charters.“ (Lorde, Sister Outsider, p. 111)

Arguably, it designates the name of how we can begin to think that which hasn’t been imagined yet, the mechanism for change that isn’t modification within an existing regime.”

(Pont, Antonia. A Philosophy of Practising: With Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition, 2021., p. 105)

This new thought of difference – difference in itself – does not find and name what is different between existing concepts. It is a concept in itself.

It also reminds me of @AntoniaPont‘s „A Philosophy of Practising“ with its beautiful treatise of „practising“ who writes the following on „difference in itself“:

“[The] aim would be to think difference on its own terms.

„Within the interdependence of mutual […] differences lies that security which enables us to descend into the chaos of knowledge and return with true visions of our future, along with the concomitant power to effect those changes which can bring that future into being.

Was ich gefühlt feststelle: dem Gefühl nach wird v2.2 auf dem iPhone rascher und problemloser erkannt / gelesen als die „alte“ neue Version.

Whatever: mit dem alten „neuen“ SwissPass habe ich nun einen praktischen FIDO2 Backup-Key den ich gut und gerne irgendwo sicher aufbewahre. Aber vernichten?! Nada! 🧐😊

To me, pace layering also offers a fascinating lens on the work and thinking of people like @debcha („caring for infrastructure“ vs „the fashion of making“), @swardley (layers in value chain maps), to Christopher Alexander‘s 15 Fundamental Properties and Nikos Salingaros‘ work.

Finally looking at, and taking the time to go through, @stewartbrand’s writing has instantly helped me clarify quite a few confusions about me, (my) life and things I had difficulty connecting to each other. 😊

Although: this might feel uncomfortable, as we tend to think in these exact categories („jobs“, „layers“) ourselves, most of the time…

Which brings me to my last point: Thanks, @calebmeredth for having surfaced the „Pace Layering“.

and less focused on an outcome („job“ or „layer“) and the gaps to close to get there.

In the end, we should not fool ourselves: The kids might still end up starting in „fashion“, maybe to our own horror as we probably have gotten more interest by then in the slower paced layers.

With pace layering and the question of our kid’s future lifes and occupations in mind, you‘d reframe the question such that the kids rather think about their „direction of travel“ in the now while having the different layers and the stories they want to see emerge there in mind.

Rather than trying to „define the ideal future state, and [trying] to close the gap.“, complex systems require „describing the present and see what you can change,“ and „[defining] a direction of travel, not a goal“. (From https://youtu.be/MsLmjoAp_Dg)

IMHO, this is an „observable direction of change“, inspired by a wish to make a longer lasting difference than one of pure fashion. Which brings me to the idea of „vector target“ or „Vector Theory of Change“ that @snowded and @TheCynefinCo are writing and speaking about a lot:

Interestingly enough, @stewartbrand mentions (e.g. in “Pace Layering: How Complex Systems Learn and Keep Learning.” https://doi.org/10.21428/7f2e5f08) that we tend to be more into „fashion“ when we‘re younger – and move to interest in the slower paced layers when getting older.