(see other articles and keywords)
Languaging Co-creation
By John Wood
An article commissioned for a special 'Co-Creation' issue of the CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation 2026 (Guest editor Andrew Dubber)
“The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act.”
(MARCEL DUCHAMP, 2022)
Abstract
This article aims to encourage creative readers to invent new words for important concepts that are ‘unthinkable’ within the prevailing paradigm. The idea that our ‘reality’ is structured by language is not new. It can be traced back to Bhartrihari (450-510 CE) in the 5th century BCE. This suggests that we are imprisoned by the particular metaphors and grammars that are part of the culture’s language. This is not a problem until things happen that are so radically unprecedented that they baffle the majority. Fortunately, by introducing new and insightful meanings into the language we can expand what is ‘thinkable’. But just inventing a new word or metaphor is not enough. As Wittgenstein pointed out, no language can be private. This means that the active process of 'languaging' is always co-creative. The remainder of the article is presented as an alphabetically organised glossary of concepts and neologisms. Feel free to take what you want. Reinvent it, popularise the improved versions and make the world work for the greater good.
Intoduction
Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959) was a Jewish lawyer who saw parallels between the Nazi holocaust and the Ottoman empire’s persecution of the Armenian population in World War 1. However, steeped in the legalistic vernacular of the day, other experts saw such events simply as extreme forms of military aggression. In 1943, frustrated by the tepid response to his arguments, Lemkin invented the term ‘genocide’. This helped the League of Nations to understand what he had been saying. Only then did they implement the new legal paradigm (The Genocide Convention) that continues to influence international relations and behaviours today.
1). Abductive reasoning
The Sherlock Holmes stories were written only a few years after Charles Peirce invented the term 'abductive reasoning' in 1883. Abduction reverses the logic of deductive reasoning. In deduction, once we know that fact A and fact B are the case, then fact C follows naturally. Abductive thought starts with a surprising fact (e.g. C) and asks what unknown facts (e.g. A, B or D) might have caused it. It therefore requires suppositional information from outside the problem space (Ibri, 2022). Whereas AI systems synthesise this heuristically from large bodies of data, humans can also draw upon personal and tacit forms of knowing. Gregory Bateson has described the physiology of the body as a "vast abductive system with its own coherence within itself at any given time” (Bateson, 2002, p. 134). And it seems likely that some of Newton's insights were informed by his early experiences of making things in workshops. Similarly, Einstein explained how the embodied sensation of falling helped him to formulate his theory of gravity .
2). Artificial Intelligence
Some AI systems apply abductive reasoning within Large Language Models. They draw upon case histories using Bayesian-style probability calculations. Some therefore see AI as a co-creative tool, given that it can aggregate, draw inferences and re-confabulate the opinions of many speakers. But whereas AI machines only mash up large bodies of written data from the past human co-creativity harnesses the complex gut feelings of those dealing with a current predicament. In the Menexenus, Plato's idea of 'voices of the dead' may remind us that, while inert data may augment human wisdom it should not replace it. So far, AI is more allopoietic than autopoietic. Which is our more important task: enhancing the co-creative skills of the living, or continuing to training a new species of machine to outperform us? (see 'search' and 'research').
3). Autopoiesis
In urban situations, fashion-conscious individuals may spend a lot of their time honing their self-identity. However, if you are alone in the wilderness, identity can be a life-or-death issue. Imagine that you are wearing a lion suit and a real lion approaches you. Hypothetically, if your acting is convincing, the lion will see you as a comrade. If you are less lucky he might identify you as lunch. Maturana and Varela used the term 'autopoiesis' when explaining how ‘living systems’ self-sustain their survival in their immediate environment (Maturana & Varela, 1980). Their notion of 'living systems' is useful as it can also be applied to non-biological entities such as political parties or commercial brands. One aspect of the theory proposes that a 'living system' will only perish when it can no longer reconcile its interior and exterior identities. This concept can be a helpful building block in understanding the role of collective pride or shame in shaping co-creative strategies. Obviously, autopoietic organisations also consist of individuals who are also autopoietic. This explains why members will shift their identities; i.e. presenting themselves as 'I', 'me', 'us', 'we' and 'they' in different contexts. (see 'Ubuntu' and 'sympoiesis').
4). Bisociation
Arthur Koestler's term 'bisociation' challenges the myth that the brain of a genius such as Sherlock Holmes or Elon Musk is needed for exceptional innovation to occur. Koestler’s theory is based on the belief that all creative thinking is combinatorial (Koestler, 1967). Here, several seemingly incompatible frames of thought are forced together to produce a creative leap that may surprise all. If acts of creation are always co-located, 'co-creative acts' might equally well derive from different regions of one brain, or from different individuals within a group (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). (see 'genius').
5). Catalysis
In chemistry a ‘catalyst’ is a substance that will enhance, or quicken a chemical reaction without undergoing change itself. Catalysis can also stand as a vivid metaphor for acts of creation. For example, a good literary editor can catalyse a text by excising all inessentials whilst leaving the authorial voice intact. In 2021 David MacMillan and Benjamin List received a Nobel prize for jointly inventing a rapid catalysis method. MacMillan was asked how he got the idea, "growing up in Scotland…you learn how to tell a joke and you can get to a punchline…". (BBC News, 7th October 2021. (See 'bisociation', 'emulsifier', 'endo-synergy' and 'exo-synergy').
6). Choral singing
Whereas verbal dialogue is asynchronous, each choir member simultaneously adds their voice to the collective sound. The process can enhance feelings of presence and heighten feelings of affinity with others. It calls for skills of self-moderation in the context of the whole and is, therefore, a co-creative process.(see Damsgaard, et al. 2022). (see 'Ubuntu').
7). Co-authoring
This term may refer to the executive editing of another person's text. But Wittgenstein's term 'language games’ (Findlay, 1955) likens the way we select and re-negotiate words and phrases within conversations to the ad hoc and adaptive nature of game playing. Nonetheless, in a professional context, co-authoring can become uncomfortable if it compels co-creators to challenge cherished assumptions, adapt to new 'realities’ or question their own identity. (see ‘sympoiesis’ & 'co-languaging').
8). Co-languaging
Often, a metaphor underpinning a concept may seem alien or confusing to speakers of another language, even though the extra effort makes it illuminating (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Ossifying the rules and other features of language in dictionaries and phrase books may enable newcomers to memorise nouns and rules. But this is not how babies learn. They apply heuristic thinking to adapt to what others say. Each can learn from the other and apply it to enhance a shared understanding (see 'co-authoring').
9). Conscience
Before medical science became more sophisticated, we identified 'conscience' with the ‘heart’. Today, we might experience similar feelings of shame or regret but attribute them to neurotransmitters or other parts of the endocrine system. Thus, while an AI system may be trained to discuss moral principles based on data from Large Language Models it will not have the capacity for conscience in this human sense. (see 'consciousness').
10). Consciousness
Although philosophical theories of 'consciousness' are too complex to outline here, the word is a derivation of ‘conscience’. Marvin Minsky famously argued that consciousness is merely a “low-grade system for keeping records” (Horgan, 1994, pp. 88-94). He based his observations on studies of LISP, an early programming language which was designed to make very frequent 'inquiries' about its own state. He concluded that computers are, therefore, already ‘more conscious’ than humans. However, until machines can ‘think outside the box’ this seems a dubious claim. (see 'conscience').
11). Context
This term is used as a reminder that no proposition (e.g. co-creative idea) makes sense when isolated. Every proposition has a purpose, usually identified by its creator and, or, its context. Thus it is only definable with respect to some focal event within a frame and not independent of it. (See 'relevation', 'relational learning framework', 'relevation').
12). Conviviality
In an anglo-saxon context 'convivial' means cosy, friendly and celebratory. Ivan Illich (1975) helpfully re-defined it in the ecological sense of 'life forms supporting one another.' Here, conviviality represents the living fields of cohesion that facilitate our collective collaboration and survival. (See ‘Ubuntu‘).
13). Co-optimism
13). Co-optimism
Research has shown that optimists are 'luckier' than pessimists (Wiseman, 2003; Taleb, 2007). This is because the 'glass half-full' mindframe 'relevates' more beneficial opportunities. States of ‘co-optimism', can sustain themselves when teams are 'contagiously optimistic’. One of the team tools we invented to support this idea was to make a more optimistic version of the management tool ‘SWOT analysis' (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats). Our version was called ‘POUT’ (Predicament or Potentials / Outcomes or Opportunities / Unnoticed or Unnameables / Transformers or Triggers). These versions excluded 'Weaknesses' and 'Threats' in order to reduce anxiety or suspicion, in case it should conceal an unforeseen opportunity. One of our team tools was the 'No-Buts' rule, which makes it hard to articulate doubts and negativities within discussions. (See 'co-pessimism').
14). Co-pessimism
Our informal research suggests that pessimism within co-creative teams is more 'contagious' than optimism. We therefore designed team training tools to address this issue. Here, ‘contagion’ denotes what, in systems theory, is called ‘positive feedback’ within the team. If an influencer within a team is convinced that a particular task is impossible then they are likely to be proved right. (See 'co-optimism').
15). Co-semiosis
Where 'co-languaging' may create neologisms the term 'semiosis' ('semiose', verb) refers expressly to the creation of new meanings and, thereby, new opportunities and affordances. In 1670 Henry Stubbes coined the term ‘semeiotics’ from Greek words meaning ‘observant of signs’ and ‘a sign, a mark’ to describe how doctors read a patient’s symptoms. John Locke (1602-1734) later wrote about the 'doctrine of signs', using the term 'semeiotike' to describe how scientists reconcile the nature of things with human happiness, purpose and morality. Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) broadened the term 'semiosis' to any action that uses signs to create, or to interpret meaning. (See 'co-authoring' and 'co-languaging').
16). Creative quartets
When mapping key the agents within creative and co-creative actions I have found the tetrahedron to be a useful starting point, as four rudimentary ‘players’ (A, B, C, D) will always invoke six implied ‘relationships’ (also see fig. 6). The example shown in Figure 2 was designed prompt a co-creator (A) in order to facilitate working with a co-creator (B). Figures 2 and 3 both remind us of the value of relationships, as they indicate whether outcomes will be more ‘synergistic’ or ‘dysergistic’.
Fig. 1 - A Creative Quartet
The version shown in Figure 2 shows an interpretation of John Ruskin's (1819–1900) writings about the multiple benefits of the craft culture. Although it uses the same format it is presented as an overview for system designers, rather than for individual agents (Wood, 2022). It is a good example of a ‘synergy-of-synergies’. (see 'context' and exo-synergy').
Fig. 2 - the craft economy mapped as a four-fold framework
17). Entredonneur
Richard Cantillon created the term 'entrepreneurship' around 1730. Etymologically speaking it suggests 'taking from between'. Disappointingly, Cantillon described it merely as a risk-taking activity. The economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) later emphasised the co-creative nature of the concept. It is unfortunate that the intermediary nature of the word has become normalised as ‘taking’ rather than ‘giving’ as, in reality, it is hard to find any enterprise that is either exclusively selfish or altruistic. My neologism ‘entredonneurship’ (Wood, 1990) offers the concept of ‘giving from between’ as a companion term for ‘entrepreneurship’. Using both terms together is intended to challenge traditional models of accountancy by which corporations conveniently conceal their exo-dysergic practices by dismissing them as ‘externalities'. (See ‘exo-dysergy’, ‘exo-synergy' & 'co-optimism').
18). Emulsifier
It is almost impossible to keep oil and water mixed together without an emulsifier to bind them. Sometimes, while a diversity of opinions can be potentially productive within a team (see 'bisociation), they can also lead to vehement disagreement or mutual avoidance. A human 'emulsifier' is likely to be someone emotionally literate enough to facilitate creative collaboration between the parties concerned. (See 'catalyst', ‘co-pessimism’ and ‘Head/Hand/Heart/Humour’).
19). Endo-dysergy
Although the old Greek word 'synergos' (συνεργός) literally means ‘working together, this is much less interesting than Aristotle's description: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts”. This insight clearly identifies synergy as a potential source of abundance. in order to differentiate between the two notions I have divided ‘synergy’ into two new words: i.e. ‘endo-synergy’ and ‘exo-synergy’.
Fig. 3 - Relevating hidden aspects of synergy
Normal dictionaries and the established usage show the term 'dysergy' as the opposite of 'synergy' (i.e. bad effects deriving from the combination of things). Hypothetically, therefore, 'endo-dysergy' refers to situations in which the harmful effects are contained within the place of combination. In chemistry, we might consider salt (sodium chloride) to have come from an endodsyergic process, as it is less poisonous than either of its constituent parts. (See ‘Exo-dysergy’, ‘exo-synergy’ and ‘endo-synergy’).
20). Endo-synergy
This applies to synergies that are 'discreet' - i.e. they create benefits that are local to the place of combination but little or none to other agents in the vicinity. A good example is that of Emperor penguins, which huddle together to conserve more body heat than they would as individuals. While this is advantageous to the group it may offer little benefit to the surrounding ecosystem. (See ‘exo-synergy’).
21). Exo-dysergy
Whereas 'endo-dysergy' refers to a dysergy in which the bad effects are confined to the local space of combination, 'exo-dysergies' also exert a bad influence on external agents or factors. (see 'endo-dysergy', 'exo-synergy').
22). Exo-synergy
We usually focus on the complementarity of parts that create synergy. But some potential synergies are also structurally dependent on the number of agents (e.g. participants) working together within a cluster. In 1751, Euler noticed a pattern of abundance in polygons. His Law states that:
V + F = E + 2
where:
- V represents the number of vertices
- F represents the number of faces
- E represents the number of edges
Fig. 4 - Different types of polygon
We can apply this mapping method (polygons) to team participants and the relationships between them (i.e. where the nodes represent participants and the interconnecting lines represent their relationships). In Figure 6, potential relationships are symbolised by the clinking wine glasses. Each clink represents a unique opportunity that derives from the coming together of the respective agents.
Fig. 5 - a quartet has 6 x more potential synergies than a duet
The number of relationships always exceed those of the participants. This explains why combinatorial processes deliver outputs exceeding 100% of their input. However, this relational mathematics does not conform to the arithmetical rules of aggregative logic.
For example:
- In a team of 8, each team member is responsible for 25% of all relations
- In a team of 4, each team member is responsible for 50% of all relations
- In a team of 3, each team member is responsible for 66.6% of all relations
- In a team of 2, each team member is responsible for 100% of all relations
n.b. In practice, a team’s synergistic abundance is also likely to be affected by many factors including its organisational latency and whether it has a requisite variety of members (see ‘co-optimism’ & ‘endo-synergy’).
23). Finding
Although, in reality, the concept of 'research' is often co-creative and radically innovative, the prefix 're' suggests that it is a post hoc activity. Science's eagerness to establish evidence-based data is useful in formulating predictable forecasts or 'laws' of physics. Hence, we can review records from the past and make observations in the present but it is harder to derive evidence from the future. By contrast, artists are often more interested in flukes, exceptions and anomalies than in experimental repeatability (c.f. Ljubec, 2022). As Picasso put it, "I do not seek, I find". The new affordances of online searching have given rise to more co-creative modes of finding that emerge from discussions about digital searching and the ‘meta-level’ strategies that it now affords (McKay et al, 2019). As Freud said: "It is obvious that in cases of losing, the object is already provided; in cases of finding, it first has to be looked for” (Freud, 1967). (See 'Artificial Intelligence', 'research').
24). Genius
In an era in which ‘genius’ is increasingly identified with wilfulness, we may notice that ego can easily obstruct co-creation. The myth of Archimedes and his 'eureka moment’ valorises invention as a moment of individual epiphany. In a 1784 essay Kant laments mankind’s failure to use reason, intellect and wisdom ‘without the guidance of another’. Nietzsche (1844-1900) even saw it as a demiurgic ‘will to power’ (‘Der Übermensch’, 1883). It therefore led to a form of exceptionalism in which certain unique, self-styled individuals were excused from adapting to the ‘normal’ world of the everyday (e.g. Schopenhauer (1788-1860). (see 'bisociation').
25 > 28). Head/Hand/Heart/Humour
Currently, academia straddles a fault-line separating two approaches to co-creation. Whereas mainstream education's concern with 'critical thinking' reflects the cloistered scholasticism of the ancient monasteries, art schools emerged from the more 'hands-on' methods of the mediaeval Crafts Guilds. It would be good to unify these, and other, approaches within a more co-creative and transdisciplinary education system.
Fig. 6 - 4 sites of human learning and knowledge
Fig. 6 offers a basic four-fold template to remind educators that learning is not confined to ‘Head’ (mainstream universities) or to ‘Hand’ (art schools). Clustering the four ’H’s also invites the inclusion of other fields, such as the performative or healing-oriented arts. (see 'body-mind dualism', 'exo-synergy', 'search' and 'research').
29). Practice-Theory Polarisation
The following quadrant is offered as a preliminary attempt to dissolve the often value-laden and unhelpful polarisation of 'practice' and ‘theory’. However, by separating ‘reading’ and ‘doing’ the model may remind us that we need to go much further in mapping knowledge. (See ‘elevation’, ’Wisdom’, 'Head/Hand/Heart/Humour).
Fig. 7 - A quadrant linking theory to practice
(see 'autopoiesis', 'body-mind dualism', 'choral singing', 'second-order systems theory', 'sympoiesis').
30). Relevation
Bohm (1980) revived the old term 'relevation’ to demonstrate that 'relevance' is a co-creative act in which entities 'relevate' one another’s presence. In this non-Newtonian model, cause and effect are distended and information is 'enfolded' into what he called the 'implicate order'. This idea identifies thoughts as events that implicate us in a larger context, rather than the other way around. When something is 'relevant’ it becomes visible within that frame of thought. "To lift a certain content into attention again, for a particular context, as indicated by thought and language" (Bohm, 1995, p. 35). This derives from the old Latin word 'levate' which means to 'rise, or to lift up'...although the Sanskrit root of the word also describes 'lightness' in the 'illuminatory' sense of the word, as well as the 'weighty' sense. In Bohm's terms, it then becomes 'explicate' (i.e. visible, available, or meaningful) for us at a particular time and place (See ‘practice-theory polarisation’).
31). Researching
Academic research includes the gathering of data, citing trustworthy publications and setting up experiments that will provide evidence to validate or falsify a given hypothesis or assertion. In this limited context it may be helpful to use AI systems as a preliminary adjunct to 'research' as defined here (Wood, 2026), whilst keeping in mind their dangers and current shortcomings. (See ‘Artificial Intelligence’, ’finding').
32). Second order systems theory
Effective co-creative processes call for sensitivity to a co-participant’s mood or state of mind. In basic systemic terms we might see parallels with the process of reversing an articulated lorry. In reversing, unlike driving forwards, the rules of steering will change throughout the process. This is because cab and trailer both contribute to the steering process but do not coordinate themselves. Basic cybernetic theory explains how simple regulators use negative feedback loops to 'steer', or self-regulate stability (e.g. thermostat and heater). However, second order systems theory point to the need for additional (i.e. 'meta-level') feedback loops to coordinate the regulators. In effect, each co-creator must regulate themselves whilst also anticipating and empathising with their co-creator (See ‘sympoiesis’).
33). Sympoiesis
Sympoiesis' is an extension of the term 'autopoiesis' with the prefix 'sym', meaning 'with'. It emerged as part of a practical framework for monitoring and calibrating co-creative collaboration (van Nieuwenhuijze & Wood, 2006). Our rudimentary system monitors factors including self-respect, team-consciousness and altruism. Figure 8 gives instances of the four questions we used to evaluate the presence of sympoiesis within a co-creative act:
Fig. 8 - Four Factors that Denote Sympoiesis
34). Ubuntu
Figure 9 maps four different modes of human agency in a way that contrasts levels of complexity. Level 1 (i.e. 'me') is the simplest. It alludes to Descartes’ concept of ‘cogito ergo sum’ that he deduced by hallucinating himself as an ego in radical isolation. This reductionist idea informed the self-regulatory paradigm of cybernetics. Subsequent levels (2, 3 and 4) are increasingly complex. Level 2 ('us') draws upon Jean Luc-Nancy's caricature of consumers whose sense of ‘Ubuntu’ has been reduced to what he calls 'being together at the spectacle’ (Nancy, 2000). In this mode we are more 'aggregrative' than coherent. Level 3 straddles the transition from a plurality of self-regulators to a state of collective (self)coordination in Level 4. Heidegger’s more complex notions of 'beingness' (e.g. 'Dasein') also takes us towards Level 4 with the social and pragmatic concept of 'present-to-handness' (Heidegger, 2010). This enables humans to acquire 'lived experience' and to co-create at a level that cannot be quantified. At Level 4 ('we') the African word 'Ubuntu' (c.f. Lutz, 2009) embraces the co-creative, but also implies compassion and empathy. It is sometimes translated to mean 'I am what I am because of who we all are’. It resonates with Chinese terms 'guanxi' (關係) and 'wu wei' (無爲), Korean words, such as 'jeong' (정), all of which can describe interpersonal ties that are informal and tightly-bound. (see 'autopoiesis', 'body-mind dualism', 'choral singing', 'second-order systems theory', 'sympoiesis').
Fig. 9 - Aspects of individual and collective agency
Endnote
At present the unfettered pursuit of extractive business models such as playing the derivatives markets, drilling for oil or building vast data centres is forcing the world towards an existential metacrisis. Over the last 10K years humans scaled up organisations to surpass the Dunbar number (Hill & Dunbar, 2003) beyond which our human cognitive capacities fail to cope with the steep rise in the number of potential face-to-face relationships. We therefore invented summative reasoning and exchanged more qualitative forms of reasoning with quantitative reasoning. Wholesale benefits encouraged us to trust vertical modes of accountability rather than personal responsibility. These changes made us forget that synergies always have more value than aggregated assets. Of course, within the prevailing monetary paradigm anything unquantifiable remains invisible. In other words, my claim simply does not ‘add up’. Ironically, it is likely to be discounted.
References
Bateson, G. (2002). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Hampton, p. 134
BBC TV broadcast, 2021 7th October, David MacMillan: ''Being Scottish helped me win Nobel Prize"
Bohm, D. 1995, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London, Boston and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul (first published in 1980).
Cantillon, R., 2017. Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General. Routledge.
Damsgaard, J.B. and Brinkmann, S., 2022. Me and us: Cultivating presence and mental health through choir singing. Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 36(4), pp.1134-1142.
Duchamp, Marcel. "Salt Seller: The Writings of Marcel Duchamp." (2022).
Hill, R.A. and Dunbar, R.I., 2003. Social network size in humans. Human nature, 14(1), pp.53-72.
Findlay, J.N., 1955. Philosophical Investigations. By Ludwig Wittgenstein. German text with English translation by GEM Anscombe. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Freud, A., 1967. About losing and being lost. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 22(1), pp.9-19.
Heidegger, M., 2010. Being and time. SUNY press.
Ibri, I.A., 2022. The heuristic exclusivity of abduction in Peirce’s philosophy. In Semiotics and Pragmatism: Theoretical Interfaces (pp. 79-96). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Illich, I., (1975), "Tools for Conviviality", New York, Harper & Row
Koestler, A., 1967, The Ghost in the Machine, Penguin: London (reprint 1990)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M., 1980, Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago: Chicago and London
Ljubec, Ž., 2022. Becoming Polyphibious: Metadesigning metamorphosis and other solutions for a world defined by exceptions. In Metadesigning Designing in the Anthropocene (pp. 219-230). Routledge
Lutz, D.W., 2009. African Ubuntu philosophy and global management. Journal of business ethics, 84(Suppl 3), pp.313-328.
McKay, D., Chang, S., Smith, W. and Buchanan, G., 2019. The things we talk about when we talk about browsing: An empirical typology of library browsing behavior. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(12), pp.1383-1394.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F., 1980, ‘Autopoiesis and Cognition; the realisation of the Living’, in Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, Reidel: Boston
Minsky, M, 1994, interview Horgan, J., Can science explain consciousness? Scientific American, July, pp. 88-94
Nancy, J.L., 2000. Being singular plural. Stanford university press.
Nieuwenhuijze, O. and Wood, J., 2006. Synergy and Sympoiesis in the Writing of Joint Papers; anticipation with/in imagination. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 10, pp.87-102.
Ruskin, J. (1885). The stones of Venice (Vol. 3). John B. Alden.
Sawyer, R.K. and DeZutter, S., 2009. Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 3(2), p.81.
Taleb, N. N. 2007, ’The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable' 2007. New York: Random House
Wiseman, R. 2003. 'The Luck Factor', London, UK: Random House John Wood - Feb 202
Wood, J. 2022 (Ed.), Metadesigning Designing in the Anthropocene. Routledge
Wood, J., 1990, "COMMENT: The Socially Responsible Designer", Design Magazine, July 1990
Zeki, S., 2017. Art and the brain. In The Brain (pp. 71-103). Routledge.