Love this comment.
May I ask to what extent, if any, AI was used in its writing? (I’m trying to calibrate my awareness of that “good writing” looks like it various ways, as I am largely unpracticed)
Thank you @liquidprism for your thoughtful comment 
I’m really touched by it.
To your question: the words come through me, drawn from over two decades of work in campaigning, strategic communications, digital diplomacy, and conflict resolution. That journey has shaped how I write and speak, anchored in listening deeply, understanding where others are coming from, and responding with presence and care. Even when differences arise, I try to meet them as invitations to dialogue rather than division. At its heart, it’s often not about negotiating winning points, but about engaging worldviews, exploring the spaces and building bridges between us with curiosity and reverence.
I believe we can walk alongside one another, even with differing perspectives, in a kind of cross-pollination. There’s been, and continues to be, a lot of unlearning and re-learning on that path. The challenge is to remain authentic while honoring heritage, and to apply what we know with humility. And yes, for transparency I’m always in conversation with ideas, people, and sometimes AI. Since much of my GameA work involves civic technology, these tools are part of my ecosystem, though the essence always comes from lived experience and intention.
Soon, we’ll be opening a tent within the Oasis Community Call about weaving together the cultural fabric of the 2R Forum and hope to explore these very questions and more. I would love to continue the conversation there with you.
Grateful again for your comment and the spirit in which you offered it.
1 Like
To all Vervaeke eductioners!
I’m curious if this space can come alive, transforming from a digital to a living space.
Inspired by this thread I’m organizing a contemplative hike in the theme of meaning cultivation from Sunday 6th of July till Thursday 10th of July in the serenes Ardennes of Belgium. I want to provide a space for dialogue as we explore our inner landscapes while finding peace in nature’s beauty. Each day, we’ll hike approximately 15 to 20 kilometers, allowing the conversations to evolve naturally, and following the through line between different perspectives. Evenings will be spent dining at a local village, and afterwards, we’ll retire to our cozy accommodations for a restful night. Whether you’re seeking reflection, connection, or simply the joy of the outdoors, this hike promises to be a meaningful experience. 
Price: €250 (included: accommodation, excluded: food)
Join the Whatsapp group to sign up: WhatsApp Group Invite
More info on: Contemplative Hike Ardennes — Sage Adventures
Hope to meet you on the hike
Matthijs
1 Like
Snowden could hardly be framed as anyone’s fan. He is given to sweeping and dismissive statements that center his views as a given, and, if not strawmanning, certainly does not steelman the views of others.
1 Like
Having spent over a dozen hours with Snowden in person last year, I wracked by brain from examples of anyone he explicitly praised. Came up empty. So here is Copilot for the assist:
Who does Dave Snowden admire the most?
Copilot said:
Copilot
Dave Snowden has expressed deep admiration for Max Boisot, a late friend and fellow complexity theorist. Boisot’s I-Space framework was a major inspiration for Snowden’s own work, particularly the development of the Cynefin Framework. Snowden credits Boisot’s ideas as foundational in shaping his thinking around knowledge management and complexity science
Snowden also tends to admire scientific rigor and transdisciplinary approaches, drawing from fields like anthropology, cognitive neuroscience, theoretical physics, and material engagement theory. He is notably critical of management gurus who rely on oversimplified case studies, preferring methods grounded in natural science and complexity theory.
If you’re interested, I can also summarize how Boisot’s I-Space framework influenced Cynefin, or explore other thinkers Snowden has referenced in his work. Would you like that?
1 Like
Thanks I’ll be looking into this for some insight:
I admire Dave’s work, but I’m afraid we have had a few clashes. I sense he is more interested in being right rather than curious or collaborative, but maybe I just rub him up the wrong way.
You and 99% of humanity. From Dave’s own account, the family dinner table of his youth was the intellectual equivalent of a gladiator school. Nothing much changed for him in that regard after he left the parental home.
For sure! I also see Dave as having a strong streak of self-assurance. Interesting to see Copilot’s flagging of Boisot, who I haven’t heard of. Trivia: I first came across Dave in person nearly 50 years ago, though I was a nonentity with zero charisma and he doesn’t remember me from that time 
as I confirmed when I met up with him a few years ago. (He was a prime mover in the Student Christian Movement in those days, late 70’s and maybe early 80’s.)
From what I heard and gathered about his personal history, he needed that self-assurance. So really I’m not at all surprised at these reports. Like I try to do with all-comers, I appreciate his very interesting and insightful work — I often help people get closer to the correct pronunciation of “Cynefin”. While valuing the Cynefin model, I’m not so convinced by the triangle model of his Sensemaker framework. (If anyone is particularly insightful about this I’d be curious and open to dialogue.)
I see Dave’s triangle model as missing the point that George Kelly was making, decades ago. In his Personal Construct theoretical framework, he had any number of bipolar constructs, and the triads he used were to identify the constructs. I wish I could find a piece I remember reading very recently about how his triangle model came to be.
I don’t know much about Kelly’s work or what he was getting at. Further clarification would be most welcome! As far as I can tell, Snowden uses triads to mix things up. A comparable approach was Edward De Bono’s “good-bad-interesting”. The third category of “interesting” livens up discussions and opens creative horizons.
What I took away from Snowden - and plan on keeping - is to go for raw data first, analytical frameworks later. Generally, a grounded theory approach.
Yes please, I would like that
1 Like
I now recall the Deleuze comes up in Snowden’s talks. Copilot did not catch that. The general thrust of a lot of this is to keep thinking fluid and to not fixate on particular ideas, especially in advance.
===================
Yes, please summarize how Boisot’s I-Space framework influenced Cynefin, or explore other thinkers Snowden has referenced in his work.
Copilot said:
Copilot
Great! Here’s a summary of how Max Boisot’s I-Space framework influenced Dave Snowden’s Cynefin Framework, along with other key thinkers Snowden has referenced in his work:
Boisot’s I-Space and Its Influence on Cynefin
Boisot’s I-Space (Information Space) Framework
Boisot’s I-Space is a model for understanding how knowledge flows and evolves in organizations. It maps knowledge along three dimensions:
-
Codification – how structured or formalized the knowledge is.
-
Abstraction – how general or context-free the knowledge is.
-
Diffusion – how widely the knowledge is shared.
The I-Space shows how knowledge moves through a cycle: from uncodified and abstract (tacit knowledge) to codified and widely diffused (explicit knowledge), and back again.
Influence on Cynefin
Snowden drew on Boisot’s insights to shape how knowledge and context interact in complex systems. Key influences include:
-
Contextualization of knowledge: Cynefin emphasizes that knowledge is not universally applicable—it must be interpreted within context, much like Boisot’s view of knowledge moving between abstract and concrete forms.
-
Movement between domains: Just as knowledge in I-Space flows through a cycle, Cynefin allows for movement between domains (e.g., from Complex to Complicated) as understanding evolves.
-
Tacit vs. explicit knowledge: Snowden’s emphasis on narrative, sense-making, and human experience reflects Boisot’s concern with the limitations of codified knowledge.
Snowden has said that Boisot’s work helped him understand why knowledge management often fails—because it ignores the non-linear, contextual, and emergent nature of knowledge.
Other Thinkers Snowden References
1. Mary Douglas (Anthropologist)
- Her work on cultural theory and risk perception influenced Snowden’s thinking about how different groups interpret the same data differently.
2. Stuart Kauffman (Complexity Scientist)
- Kauffman’s ideas about self-organization and adjacent possible helped shape Cynefin’s Complex domain, where cause and effect can only be understood in retrospect.
3. Bruno Latour (Science and Technology Studies)
- Snowden draws on Latour’s actor-network theory to emphasize the distributed nature of knowledge and the role of non-human actors (e.g., tools, systems).
4. Edgar Morin (Philosopher of Complexity)
- Morin’s emphasis on interconnectedness and uncertainty aligns with Snowden’s critique of reductionist thinking in management.
5. James C. Scott (Political Scientist)
- Snowden appreciates Scott’s work on local knowledge and resistance to top-down control, especially in complex systems.
2 Likes