Abstract

Traditional GIS base on the assumption of an objectivable reality where geographical processes can be fully modelled by observable and/or measurable quantities or nominal values (locations, attributes, relations). Such systems may be strong and efficient tools for the analysis and control of relations between objects and facts predefined within the system, but it is impossible to answer questions which go beyond the contents and structures of the system. This paper suggests the development of open systems which provide opportunities for new types of questions and responses and facilitate creativity. This move in philosophy from 'systems for control' to 'systems for prospective exploration' may also contribute to a more democrtatic use of GIS.

Reality and the notion of objective GIS

Looking at the relation between 'reality' and its 'representation' in a GIS, there is usually agreement that representation can merely be a model of reality. Nevertheless, by modeling reality in computer compatible form we assume reality to be objective, which in fact is not fully correct. In GIS reality is represented by stated quantities or nominal values (locations, attributes, relations) which are observable and/or more or less accurately measurable. This objective view of reality is also expressed by the 'transmitter-channel-receiver' information paradigm. Of course, this concept is not entirely without difficulties there is noise in the channel: The measures are not perfect, the nature of objects is 'fuzzy' but, nevertheless, statements in terms of probability are possible. This perspective represents a reality of given facts and allows its perfection through more accurate data and a higher resolution. 'Reality' in this view is represented by objects, and GIS in this sense are deterministic and predictable systems which facilitate control of facts and processes defined within the system. If the objects are well defined, then it is possible to derive the missing pieces in a linear-causal manner and in terms of a two-valued logic. This way of viewing the world amounts to the thinking of it as a 'trivial machine', to use the terminology by Heinz von Foerster (1994, 206-207). A trivial machine is characterized through an unequivocal relation between input (cause) and output (effect), results of analyses are predictable and the determination of any relations is merely a question of effort.

Classical Logic, Closed Systems and Quantification

Unequivocalness, to be without contradiction, is a quality that has its roots in classical logic with its three main propositions: self-identity, forbidden contradiction and exclusion of a third possibility. It is a thinking wherein all is clearly divided into objective being (facts, matter) and subjective thinking (reflection). Gotthard Guenther (1963, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1980) has very insistently outlined the restrictions of this two-valued Aristotelean logic: It is impossible to think the process (life, subjectivity) other than in terms of being (matter), i.e. in terms of death (i.e. dead matter). He thererfore postulates the need for logical systems which transcend the two-valued logic. The power of two-valued thinking, however, is its ability to build strong closed systems. The 'closing' of a system is achieved by establishing a finite 'vanishing point', the subordination under a common frame of quality. Quantification and this is a very aim in GIS requires previous qualification, the setting of a common quality. If it is intended to calculate in quantitative terms, then it is necessary to abstract first from qualitative differences: In order to add two apples and three pears, you have to first convert into pieces of fruit! The benefit of commonalities is accompanied by a loss of peculiarity. The establishment of a priori qualities allows to define concepts such as progress and efficiency, but also error- propagation is only understandable if it is clear what the 'true value' is. Standardization and automation again are meaningful only inside such a choosen frame. The establishment of closed systems requires predefinitions in the form of reference qualities. Unfortunately, they are easily taken for granted, the consciousness of their arbitrayness tends to vanish and give way to the notion as being just 'naturally' defined they become 'blind spots'. If the embodiment is forgotten, so-called natural qualities are often overrated, they are claimed to be true outside their restricted range of definition, their settings are used in an inappropriate context. This is definitely the case if process (life, formation, ...) is described by trivial machines, in a logic of being or dead matter. In times of normalty where a tacit consensus about the arbitrary settings exists, that may not create greater problems. In times of crisis (i.e. when the predefinitions are questioned) it becomes obvious that closed systems are insufficient.

GIS for decision support

GIS in a broader sense may be considered as instruments for decision support. If the support is in a context of control, the instruments have to give answers to specific questions. The problem under these circumstances is, that the decisions are already made and so the produced answers are rather used to delegate responsibility. As Heinz von Foerster (1994, 351-352) has pointed out, the only decidable questions are those which are in principle undecidable, because all decidable questions are already decided: a) by the manner that a theoretical framework is defined, inside which the questions are asked, and b) since the rules are determined by which statements (question answer) are connected. To take a decision means to take responsibility. Hence decision support should not delegate responsibility by limiting the scope of inquiry and reducing the range of questions. Decision support should enable to take (real) decisions, i.e. to take responsibility. In the context of control decisions are made at the beginning, in (and before) the design and implementation phase, they are already made hence there is no support for real decisions. But the nature of geographical inquiry relates to living processes and cannot be conducted by closed systems; these rather require the use of 'non-trivial' systems, which in principle are not restricted to predictable mechanisms. To nevertheless explain or predict geographical processes by closed systems accounts to trivializing them. In such circumstances a change from 'answering to known types of questions' to 'providing opportunities for new questions and responses' would be a more adequate approach to handle geographical inquiry. This represents the move from 'reaction within closed systems' to the 'facilitation of creativity and responsibility' or else a move from backward-looking complexity-reducing action to forward-looking creation. And future GIS should facilitate this endeavour.

Within this new approach the real potential of GIS does not ly in their capabilities for quantification, in the reflection about reality but rather in the reflection on reflection, i.e. by making transparent where decisions have been and where decisions could be made. They should help to facilitate humans to "act in the manner that the possibilities of choice are increasing" (Heinz von Foerster's ethical imperative, 1994, 234). This promotes self-organizing forces rather than restricting obedience. The aim of future GIS design is thus to replace closed systems by open tools which allow the expansion of the user's view. This shift in perspective can best be symbolized by the metaphors of 'systems for control' vs. 'open systems', 'systems for decision support' or 'systems for planning'.

Information as process rather than facts

In a open context it is no longer possible to stand outside the inquiry (to remove oneself) as is the case with systems of control. The user is not merely judging reality but is involved in a process of formation in-formation. Explanations tend to fix, to objectivate reality, they stress static aspects. A language of 'substance' hinders the understanding of processes. This problematic can be illustrated by the use of the term 'information'. The normal use of this notion is to perceive it as a commodity: Access to information, information processing, transmission of information. According to von Foerster (1994, 196-197), this view of information represents merely potential information because information relates to process and not substance (information in the sense of in-formation). Information as facts of knowledge are not really in formation, because they lack the experience of processing. We may be overhelmed by facts and counter-facts and still be helpless if we lack experience of creative processing. Information is a process based on experience and is thus dependent on the possibilities of experience.

Conclusions

We have outlined the dominant use of present GIS as closed systems and suggested a move to open systems for creative exploration, where more emphasis is put on the learning process (in-formation) and less on rigid administration of facts. Our aim is not just the development of new methods or techniques but a shift in focus from control to creativity. Whereas our focus has been on background thoughts, the real test of these ideas will be their implementation in actual systems. At this time in this respect we can only offer questions: How should such systems look like? In which sense are they really different from what we have now? What data models and data bases would be needed? Or else, is merely a change in perception needed, can we answer new types of questions with existing systems? Do we need computers to implement these concepts or are we better off to just use good old brain power? Phrased differently: In which ways can computers (i.e. GIS) be best used to support unrestricted imagination and inquiry of (spatial) structures and (spatial) processes?

References

Foerster, Heinz von (1994): Wissen und Gewissen: Versuch einer Brucke. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

Gunther, Gotthard (1963): Das Bewusstsein der Maschinen. Agis-Verlag, Baden-Baden.

Gunther, Gotthard (1975): Selbstdarstellung im Spiegel Amerikas. In: Pongratz Ludwig J. (Hrsg.): Philosophie in Selbstdarstellungen, Band II, Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg.

Gunther, Gotthard (1976, 1979, 1980): Beitrage zur Grundlegung einer operationsfahigen Dialektik, Band 1-3, Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg.

Schmitt, Emanuel (1995): Zum Aspekt der Ordnung in der geographischen Informationsverarbeitung (aspects of order in geographic information processing). MSc thesis, Department of Geography, University of Zurich.

Return to