Replying to LO24088 --
Dear Organlearners,
Andrew Campbell < ACampnona@aol.com > writes:
>I have just been reading about a 'succulent' that -- lives via
>'windows', underground. -- I tripped over it returning home
>after our morning walk.
Greetings Andrew,
People want more and more excercises to help them with creative thinking.
I am of opinion that succulent plants (roughly eight thousand species all
over the world) are "exponents in creativity". Making use of "windows" is
one of the many striking examples of "deep creativity".
Students learn that plants photosynthesise carbohydrates from sunlight,
carbon dioxide and water by the so-called Calvin or C-5 cycle. It is a
pity that they do not learn that transpiration is essential to the C-5
cycle and thus deadly to succulent plants which have to adapt to arid
conditions. Succulent plants cannot afford the luxury of losing water
through transpiration. Consequently succulent plants from more than twenty
different families have found an ingenious way to photosynthesise
carbohydrates. Its called the CAM (Crassulacean Acid Metabolism) or C-4
cycle. The word "Crassula" itself is the name of a genus of succulents in
which C-4 metabolism was first observed.
This change from the basic C-5 to C-4 metabolism ramificates into
innumerous changes of other properties too. For example, whereas ordinary
plants need plenty of water for their root tips to grow, the root tips of
succulent plants grow at wilting conditions for ordinary plants. Thus,
trying to force a succulent plant to make roots by giving it water will
surely cause it to rot.
When some members of an organisation succumbs after a new policy has been
introduced by the management team, I often think of the C-5=>C-4 change,
its ramifications and how few people are aware of it. People can buy
succulents in many supermarkets. They then kill them by love, giving them
too much water than what is needed for their C-4 physiology. So they buy
some more a couple of times. Eventually they give up cultivating
succulents. This "ignorant care" suites the nurseries because it increases
their sales. There will always be newcomers to the buying because of
"ignorant care".
Often the management team introduce a new policy not as a result of
adapting (like the C-5=>C-4 transformation) to a new business environment,
but as a way of taking care of the workers under them. They genuinely love
their subordinates. However, it is then when the toll of "ignorant care"
is at its highest. And as in the case of selling succulent plants, there
are some unscrupulous consultants who would sell "solutions" which will
eventually lead to destruction rather than healing and successful
adaptation.
>Now we fly to the South of Africa to the home of At de Lange.
>Let us knock on the doors of the deserts of Namaqualand,
>Nam - aqua - land. What? WHACK! Ouch! small 'twiddle' to read,
>Man - aqua - land.
Orginally there were dozens of tribes of Khoi people. Each tribe is
refered to as a tribe by the suffix "-kwa". The stem before the "-kwa"
identifies the tribe. For example, some way from Cape Town one gets the
beautiful "Outenikwa" mountains. These mountains were the dwelling place
of "Outeni" tribe of Khoi people.
The only remaining tribe of Xhoi people today are the Nama-kwa. They used
to live in a region which is called "Greater Namaqualand" because it
involves several deserts spanning over South Africa and Namibia. It is
this "Greater Namaqualand" which your refer to above.
>Knock, knock. No one there. Wait, I hear a tiny, tiny voice saying,
>"Look, I see you. I care about how you live and how you die --"
>I cast my eyes and ears to the dirt and what do I find, a
"Fenestraria".
>I introduced myself and said, "Hello little plant, I could have
>stepped upon you, you are almost invisible."
You are speaking of "Fenestraria aurantiaca". The genus name (in this case
"Fenestraria") comes first and is written with a capital letter. The
species name (in this case "aurantiaca") comes second and is written with
a small letter. Cultivated specimens of it is often sold in supermarkets
in Europe. One plant can produce on average ten seed capsules and each
capsule can produce on average one hundred seedlings. So ten plants can
become the source of ten thousand of plants per year. It takes two years
to grow a nice specimen.
I am sure that some of you have already seen "Fenestraria aurantiaca" for
sale in a supermarket. Perhaps you have looked a few seconds at it and
found its windows curious. But my point is that you will not remember any
more this curiosity -- you will have to look up in a book how it looks
like. On the other hand, should you find "Fenestraria aurantiaca" in the
desert itself, you will never, never again forget this experience. You
might not know that its name is "Fenestraria aurantiaca", but you will
recognise it anywhere in the world and think tenderly of your experiences
while finding it.
"Fenestraria aurantiaca" grows in the Richtersveld. Look at a map of South
Africa and look at its north-west corner. There the Orange River makes a
"big bend". This is the Rictersveld. When you will be visiting Cape Town
again, try to find the species in the veld yourself. It will take three
days.
* First day. Take air flight to Springbok in the north, capital town
of "Smaller Namaqualand". Hire car for next day and find
accomodation.
* Second day. Drive north to Steinkopf, then west to Port
Nolloth, then north again to Alexanderbay. It will take
four hours on tar raod. Then drive inland along the
Orange River on dirt road for some 30 km. At first you
will cross a flat coastal belt. Then you will climb some
hills, each of different geological origin. After you have
passed and electricity supply station, you will find some
black andulisite rocks partially covered with white sand.
It is called "Beesbank" (cattle hill) by the locals. Stop
and walk among the rocks. Soon you will spot your first
"Fenestraria aurantiaca". You will go down on your
knees to appreciate this small little wonder. Then drive
back to reach Springbok before dusk.
* Third day. Fly back to Cape Town.
* Fourth and following days. Keep your schedule open
because you will probably not fly back to Cape Town
on the third day. You will rather want to explore more
of a wonderful desert with wonderful people, plants,
animals and climate.
>I asked the little chap to stick more to the point. He obliged.
>" Andrew, I am condemned by the Creator to live 'out of doors'.
>And, like you all I have to protect myself. So I became self
>buried into the ground and so this became for me 'naturally
>indoors', this I did through endless successions, almost eternal
>revolving that I heard him call 'small adaptations'. By being buried
>for the most part I may secure life giving properties, protection
>from excesses of heat and cold; from harsh light, that by the by
>I have felt changing in hue recently, but I cannot figure why --"
>I started to feel guilty, but kept a straight face. "And from
>dehydration."
>I said to the plant,
Andrew, some days a cold wind blows eastwards from the Atlantic ocean in
the west with its cold Benguela current. On such days you will need
clothes protecting you from cold weather to hunt at Beesbank for
"Fenestraria aurantiaca". If you arrive unprepared, you will become a
stiff before even finding the first specimen. On other days a hot wind may
blow westwards from the hot baked Bushmanland further inwards. On such
days you will need to drink a glass of water every ten minutes.
It is because of the heat capacity of the sand which covers most of
"Fenestraria aurantiaca" that it is capable of suriving these extremes in
temperatures. Some days they are completely covered by sand. It is then
when you need somebody with an experienced eye to point them out to you.
Do not try to brush the sand away because you will hurt their soft
windows. Blow the sand away, whatever it takes. Look for a flat mound of
sand, 10cm in diameter, with a ditch on the wind-off side. It somewhat
resembles the imprint made by a horse's hoof.
Higher up the ridge where the sand will not cover it completely, you will
find another curious plant called "Trichocaulon cactiforme". Its
vernacular name is "Hondeballe" (dog's texticles). Its a perfect
description for this succulent wonder.
>He replied " Yes, my form of growth does not seem in harmony
>with my espousals does it, --" (Has this plant been reading Harvard
>Professors now?) "--but I am still walking my talk through aeons
>of time. You see Andrew, my tips, or windows I call them have no
>chlorophyll, they are absolutely transparent like your glass houses.
>So the light does not burn them, but rather passes through,
>practically undiminished to even more tissue like glass. Through
>almost water like substance the suns ray's finally reach the
>buried portions of the leaf walls that do contain the green
>colouring substances and it is here, inside me, deep, that I
>transform light into energy to live and express my essences.
"Ah", would the professors exclaim, "This solution was but by change. The
reason is that the genus "Fenestraria" is monotypical since it has only
one species called "aurantiaca". Nature cannot repeat its ingenuity." Not
so, Andrew. Near Pretoria, 100km to the west and 100km to the east another
monotypical genus grows, namely "Frithia Pulchra". It looks like a much
smaller version of "Fenestraria aurantiaca". It is easy to think that it
is a new species of the same genus. But when one begin to study the shape
of the flowers, the seed capsule and the seeds, it is phylogenetically not
even close to "Fenestraria aurantiaca". The two main things which they
have in common, are their "windows" and that they belong to the family of
Mesembryanthemaceae (what a tongue knotting name!).
"Fenestraria aurantiaca" and "Frithia Pulchra" grow 1500km apart from each
other in totally different climates. But they have found the same way to
overcome their harsh environment. "Frithia Pulchra" grows in pockets of
sand on flat sand stone rocks which are baked in the hot sun of summer. In
the winter they are scorched by winds coming from frost covered fields.
Thus it had to make the same type of adaptation because of the same kind
of conditions as "Fenestraria aurantiaca". This similar adaptation is
called "convergent evolution".
The topic of "convergent evolution" is very important to LOs. If I only
can find some time to write on it too.
When I think of "Fenestraria aurantiaca" and "Frithia Pulchra", the many
"lurkers" on any email-list comes to my mind. They live in cyberspace very
much like these two species. Baking hot and icy cold winds of discussion
and percussion often blow over these lists, making participation dangerous
for them. Thus they adapt into the "window" mode to ensure that they
sustain their lifes in nondescript sand.
>He began weeping and he was inconsolable. I was terrified he
>would expire from loss of life giving water. He suddenly became
>calmed as a bird flew overhead. "Andrew, you have not seen the
>fundamental difference between your glass and mine. I have adapt
>my necessities to the environment, you have adapted the
>environment for your necessities, (that are K~~~~~~~~~not) "
Dear Andrew, you have just shown how sensitive you are to the fact that
evolution in nature happens spontaneously. The system changes itself
spontaneously so as to adapt to the environment. To change the environment
into something which it will not do on its own is a non-spontaneous
change. It requires work to do so. That work requires fuel. Higher in the
ladder of evolution where we get to animals, we find that some of them
indeed make such non-spontaneous changes -- dug a hole or weave a nest.
But these higher order species take care that whenever they make a
non-spontaneous change to their environment, they do not terminate other
species from the ladder, eventhough they might kill off some specimens of
a species.
Unfortunately, humankind on top of the ladder thinks differently. It has
terminated more species from the ladder as all other species together. It
calls all its schemes to induce these non-spontaneous changes in the
environment by the lofty name "technology". It has that crazy nightmare
that one day it will succeed in changing the environment so much that it
will not depend on spontaneous life any more. It will even produce by
genetical engineering all the non-spontaneous life it will ever need.
This crazy nightmare requires an indulgence into simplistic and linear
thinking -- a dulling of the spiritual essenses needed to adapt
spontaneously to whatever changes may occur in the environment. Its only
when humans cannot adapt spontaneously any more that they will spend all
of their time on their crazy nightmare of forcing everything else to
change non-spontaneously to suite themselves.
>When Alexander the Great was walking through some Greek
>landscape he wandered off track to visit old Diogenes in his
>dustbin home :-) and he asked of the sagely man, 'What may I
>do for you?' The sagely man asked that the Great Alexander to
>simply remove himself from the sunlight that he was blocking.
Many humans think that their kind is Alexander the Great. Let me be
Diogenes. In the name of all species not yet terminated on the ladder of
evolution, I ask of those thinking of their kind as Alexander the Great to
wake up from their crazy nightmare so that the sunlight of creative
harmony can once again shine on Creation. I need not to ask Alexander the
Great to remove himself because he will be doing so himself if he keeps up
with this crazy nightmare. He will take many other species, with him, but
why will he worry about it.
>When they collected all the worldly belongings of Mother Theresa
>prior to her funeral I believe they placed her two saris and one
>washing bowl together.
She helped suffering people to change spontaneously. No technology is
essential for spontaneous changes.
>" It is the paradoxical combination of undermining and
>conserving - as though, when it comes to worms, the conservation
>is in the undermining, although neither thing is the worm's intention
> - that fires Darwin's speculative imagination; and that is, indeed,
>a description of his work, in it's effect if not its intention.
>Darwin is
>interested in how destruction conserves life; and in the kind of life
>destruction makes possible.' (Adam Phillips, Darwin's Worms
>ISBN 0-571-20003-6)
Andrew, it has now become time that we need to delve deeper into Creation
and its evolution. Darwin tried to explain the one-to-many mapping at the
edge of chaos with the many-to-one mapping close to equilbrium. Innovative
and grandiose as it is, his theory of natural selection is no explanation,
but rather confuses the two assumptotes (bifurcations and digestions)
between which the rhythm of life swings. The first person to break
through this confusion was Jan Smuts with his theory of holism. He
envisioned that reaching greater wholes is the driving force of evolution.
At the top of the ladder of evolution is the personality of those humans
who emerged into the highest order of love.
The second person to "improve" on Darwin was Prigogine who argued that
"entropy production" is the immediate cause of evolution. However, you
will search in vain in his books "Order out of Chaos" and "From Being to
becoming" for any reference to Smuts, wholeness and holism. Closely behind
him is Maturana who argued that autopoiesis is the immediate cause.
However, although you will find many references to wholeness (but not
Smuts and holism) in his works, he says nothing on "entropy production".
Somewhat later to the scene is Kauffman who argues that complex adaptation
is the key to evolution. But he has little to say on wholeness and almost
nothing on "entropy production".
Quite a confusing picture on evolution in the physical world, is it not?
No, not when you allow for evolution in the spiritual world also. Once you
do this, you see how each of these great personalities are contributing to
evolution in the spiritual world -- the claim of each being a species on
the ladder of spiritual evolution. The next step is to take both physical
and spiritual evolution in view and try to find a cause common to both
since they are two sides of the same thing -- Creation. Once you have
done that, you are ready to explore the deserts of both sides.
But please take care -- it is not possible to make a paradigm shift
(evolutionary jump in the spiritual world) without any creative collapse.
Perhaps this "creative collapse" was something which Darwin was very much
aware of, but could not articulate in the times during which he lived.
This will explain why he allowed a confusion of one-to-many with
many-to-one because the latter may result into the former by a creative
collapse.
Some of this creative collpase can be recognised when two males fight for
the priviledge to court a female. If you look at the winner, you will
never recognise the creative collapse.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.