Replying to LO24277 --
Dear Organlearners,
Judy Tal <judyt@netvision.net.il> writes:
(in reply to my)
>>Dear fellow learners, do you think that saying to people
>>that they should manifest "deep compassion" ("deernis")
>>will be sufficient to cause them to have "deep compassion"?
>>Is there not a kind of "preparation" necessary before
>>"deep compassion" can emerge? Will a study of languages
>>be worthy for such a preparation?
>I'm afraid the answer to your questions (I counted at least three
>just in this short paragraph) will be NO.
>
>In practice, I found out that "SAYING TO PEOPLE" is not very
>efficient if I want to cause things to happen - rather DO -
>MANIFEST!
Greetings Judy,
Thank you for taking such a firm stand point because then we can have
differences by which we may become.
I agree that a mere articulating (saying or writing) what people ought to
or even must do cannot be the cause of such doings. Why? Because such
articulation works with only a minority of people.
Should I motivate the articulation by including a promise (constructive)
or a warning (destructive) I will influence the doing of another minority
of people. But this motivation will also stop some of the former minority
from doing and specifically those who have a distaste for external
motivation. Should I motivate the articulation by a logical argument, I
will influence yet another minority of people. But I will negatively
influence those who have a distaste for rational foundations. A similar
response applies for imbedding the articulation in a rich picture. In
other words, by changing the meaning of the articulation by changing its
context, different people come into doing.
I think your "doing" also resides in this phenomenon. I personally believe
that "doing" is the "strongest" giver of meaning. Yet I am well aware that
even "doing" cannot influence all people in becoming doers.
My argument above is based on the assumption that internalised meaning is
the strongest motivator of doing. Such an assumption can be quite
erronous. It reminds me of a complex statistical study once undertaken on
what causes people to live more progressively. Dozens of fields were
included in the survey. The "level of education" was one field and it was
hoped that this field will be foremost in the correlations. Eventually a
vast regression analysis was undertaken. The surprising outcome was that
the fields which correlated best were twofold: (1) the use of electrical
gadgets like toasters and (2) the use of contraceptives like condoms. In
this case it was clear that this complex study failed to include a field
which could correlate best with both electrical gadgets and
contraceptives. Should this absent field have been included, it might have
given great insights into education than thinking education has to have
levels.
To recapitulate:- My assumption above is that internalised meaning if the
strongets motivator of doing. But it may that a hithertho unknown factor,
say C, is the cause of both "finding meaning" and "doing the doing".
Even here at this advanced stage, we still make an assumption, namely that
all doings have to have a cause. Some post-modern thinkers claim that
doing has no cause and thus any attempt at fixing a cause to doing may
prevent such doing from happening. I like their kind of reasoning, even
though they are not aware that they make indirectly use of the causility
priciple. In my opinion they succeed in articulating that fixing the wrong
cause to a doing may easily prevent that doing.
Judy, you may wonder why I am painting this rich picture once again. You
write:
>In my experience, I found out that STUDY (you offered languages,
>which by itself is worth studying) has little to do with LEARNING.
>And LEARNING is what you're seeking, aren't you? What I'm
>suggesting here is that "studying IMPLIES learning" is many
>times a FALSE proposition.
I will agree with you if such a study is devoid of creativity. In other
words, all learning is studying, but not all studying is learning. I have
seen many impressive studies which are as little creative as a piece of
rock and thus lack the luster of learning. But if such a study is done
with creativity, is it not another case of manifesting the tenet "To learn
is to create"? (The problem with "To learn is to create" is that all
learning is creating, but not that all creating is learning. What makes
the difference? Form!!!)
However, why did I pose the question with respect to a study of languages?
Let us think of evolution and specifically the evolution of languages.
When we study the etymology of words, we actually study the evolution of
the meaning of words. We may also study the evolution of grammer.
Jan Smuts (1926, Holism and Evolution) made a radical change to all
previous theories of evolution. He identified wholeness as the primary
force of evolution. Let us assume for a moment that he is right, or at
least thinking in the right direction. Then why should wholeness not be
the force of creativity too? And if we assume that to be the case too, why
is wholeness not the force of learning given "To learn is to create"?
Our problem is people who cannot evolve in "deep compassion". Perhaps we
see a problem where there is not one, i.e. people need not any evolution
in "deep compassion". In other words, perhaps people who advance in deep
compassion are the problem because they want to see this evolution also in
other people. If that is the case, then I am also part of this problem
because I believe that the lack of "deep compassion" is responsible for
much of human suffering. Given this belief is true, why then should
wholeness not be the force driving the evolution of "deep compasion"?
Should you carefully "study" ( ;-) my "study" on the etymology of the word
"deernis", you will find that I have used wholeness and furthermore
liveness, sureness, fruitfulness, spareness, otherness and openness. ie.,
the other six essentialities, as the 7-fold force guiding my "study". You
may even let the other six be combined with "wholeness" so as to arrive at
"deep wholeness". In my case it was my sensitivity to "deep wholeness"
which was the driving force for this study.
[In my contributions to the topic "To become or not to become" I am
experimenting with "deep liveness" by letting the other six essentialities
liveness, wholeness, sureness, fruitfulness, spareness, otherness and
openness be combined into liveness ("becoming-being").]
Now why I am I sensitive to "deep wholeness"? Because it has so much
meaning for me! So what do I mean by this "meaning for me"? It gives FORM
to my experiences as the CONTENT. I know that what I say is difficult to
comprehend for others. But it is honestly the way in which I think
meaningful. It is honestly the way in which I evolve also in compassion.
I am open to completely different ways in which other people may think and
specifically for this topic how they evolve in compassion. Thinking along
the theme of spiritual evolution is not the only way to do it. For
example, some people genuinely need to be preached with brimstone and fire
into compassionate action. But what worries me is that they need regular
brimstone and fire sermons to keep them compassionately. Other people need
to be reminded frequently of particular compassionate persons (exceptional
examples like Jesus the Christ or Mohammed the Prophet) to keep them
compassionately. Some people need to be excessively reminded of tragic and
catastrophic events so that their compassion can become alive.
But what worries me is that all these different ways of thinking needs
continual triggers from the OUTSIDE to maintain a level of compassion.
Once these external triggers disappear, the compassion decreases and
eventually disappears for a very long time, if not indefinitely. This is
not how I think of "deep compassion" ("deernis", see LO24262 ). Once it
emerges, it keeps on going from strength to strength. It is like a
fountain in which the water never stops flowing, even during a drought of
many years.
This is what the word "deernis" tells me. If "deep compassion" were but a
temporary state of mind depending on the cultural environement, then the
word "deernis" would have become obsolete many centuries ago. (Every
language has many obsolete words which quickly reveal itself in
entymological studies when the root of a complex word does not exist any
more in that language.)
I may be wrong. Perhaps "deernis" ("deep compassion") is a temporary
state, perhaps existing just long enough in the life of a person so as for
that person to, just like in a relay race, hand the word "deernis" over to
the next person for which it makes sense. Perhaps I have not lived long
enough yet to observe how my own "deernis" decreases and eventually
disappear for good. I hope that this will never be the case.
Judy, to wrap it all up, I cannot get out of my mind how
passionately you write:
"What I'm suggesting here is that 'studying IMPLIES
learning' is many times a FALSE proposition.
You wisely temper that passion with "I'm suggesting", but we
cannot get around that passion. I have painted a rich picture
after quoting you. If I have to draw merely one stroke rather
than painting a rich picure, what would I have said? Learning
is irreversible whereas "studying" is often reversible.
But having said this get me into deep waters because letting learning
retrogress into "rote learning" makes irreversible learning reversible
too. How is this possible? By the "meaning corruption" of words! Perhaps
we can have some day a LO-dialogue on it.
I am perhaps too cynical in my private thinking. Perhaps I also should
have kept my mouth shut since the following involves destructive
creativity. But in especially the past ten years I have observed a
"meaning corruption" in the word "compassionate". Its original meaning
was that of "deernis", but its meaning is becoming more superficial by the
year. Some people now use it even to be in fashion or even to make money.
Last week I even saw on TV a report on someone with a "misson for
compassion". A week before that It was a major banking firm advertsing
themselves as the compassionate bank. Is it anything else than vile
opportunism? Eventually the word "compassion" will become banal like all
other words of which the meaning have been corrupted.
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.