Replying to LO24371 --
Dear Organlearners,
Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz> writes: (and I will capitalise certain
phrases in it)
>One can go AROUND IN CIRCLES but I do not think this
>dialogue has too much further interest for me because if one
>is so certain of ones POINT OF VIEW then yours At must me
>the ONE MAP that describes all the territory from EARTH TO
>HEAVEN you seem to be unopen to any other experiences.
>Wisdom after all is the ability to see things from ones own point
>from anothers and from the whole worlds'.
>
>Your responses are at most LONG WINDED covered in metaphors...
Greetings Gavin,
I have counted five easily identifyable metaphors which you yourself have
made use of.
>...... and you seemed to want to do a lot of telling how it is. This
>ceases to become a learning experience for myself.
Let us now see how you tell me "how it is" with me.
>Most of your concepts are fine but as soon as you say it is
>essential then you have already decided what is right and wrong
>what is the truth and what is false. Most of your writing contains
>the motivations I was talking about. Nothing suggests that there
>is anything essential at all but from your own point of view and
>that of Prigogine. If I stand back and ignore the content of your
>messages it contains some of that arrogance and aggression, a
>pity rather. The teacher telling the pupil, its my way or the
>highway.
You accuse me of something which you repeatedly make use of yourself.
>I will point you to some of the basics of psychoanalytical thought.
>HS Sullivan
>R Fairnbairn
>M Klein
>DW Winnicott
>Kohut and Kernberg there are too many to mention actually, have
>a look at object relations theory, ego psychology etc. you will see
>very different points of view these people who have worked closely
>with mankind's mental dilemmas.
One way to intimidate people, unaware to the psychology of intimidation,
is to confront them with a list of authorities. I have two textbooks of
psychology close to me which do the same by giving a vast list of
"authors" as an appendix.
>Now if you want a real different point of view try this: A H. Almaas,
>The point of existence, The Pearl Beyond price. This one will
>shock you if the hold the essentialities so dear. Try this one if
>you dare The VOID.
Since you say nothing more, I searched the library at our university. It
does not have this book or any other by this author. I searched the
libraries of ten other major Universities and Technicons in the RSA. They
also do not have any book by this author.
I wonder what in the book will cause me to become shocked.
[Host's Note: There are a number of books by A.H. Almaas listed in Amazon;
the two books that Gavin suggests, The Pearl Beyond Price and The Point of
Existence are listed as "back ordered." ..Rick]
>I am aware many of your thoughts are intermingled with
>Prigogine and his concepts but if you can look at another
>horison you will see a different perspective at a different angle
>with a different colour.
The "IF YOU CAN look at another horison" gives the impression that I am
infatuated with Prigogine's ideas. Trying to label any person does no
learner any good, unless the learner is aware of labeling techniques.
In my Primer on Entropy I carefully try to tell how Prigogine is merely
one milestone along a very long road of humans trying to understand what
"motivates" the physical world to act in all the ways observable to us.
Fellow learners may study that Primer again if they want to. The URLs are:
Primer on Entropy
Part I LO19979
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0265.html
Part II A LO19986
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0272.html
Part II B LO19987
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0273.html
Part III A LO20018
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0304.html
Part III B LO20048
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0334.html
Part III C LO20049
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0335.html
>For even another radical perspective if you can read German,
>Wolfgang Mewes Energy theory. This will change even the
>most diehards view of the business world.
Many learners are not yet aware of "opinion forcing" by words such as
"radical" (in this case) and its opposite "reactionary".
You (formerly a citizin of South Africa) know how the previous government
used such semantical tricks to keep most of its citizins in bondage so as
to stay in power. A particularly powerful one was "verlig"/"verkramp",
created by the brother Wimpie of former state president F J de Klerk. It
is impossible for me to translate it into English without loosing much of
its semantical power.
When such bondage does not work for people with a particular way of
thinking, the next step is to begin discrediting these people by rumours
until nobody else is wise enough to understand what is happening when this
particular way of thinking actually becomes banned by law.
Leaders who have the freedom of their people at heart avoid forcing
notions into their people's minds, but rather sketch many possibilities as
examples so that the people self can create the possibility which suite
them best. Furthermore, such leaders set self an example through their own
deeds.
>I still have not observed one human action that cannot be
>explained in very simple motivational terms and its aggregated
>form POWER and dependence.
When humans act deliberately, it is as a result of their motivation.
But when humans act involuntary because of "forced mind engineering" by
some sections of society, their motivations become suppressed.
Unscrupulous and opportunistic leaders (academical, political, economical,
religious, etc.) know this. Hence they make use of "forced mind
engineering" so as to gain power over their subjects while making them
also completely dependant on them as leaders. These leaders often add
insult to injury by telling their subjects that this "forced mind
engineering" is the actual motivation of their subjects to act.
It is one of my goals to help any person to learn that true and good
motivation comes from within without any external forcing and that such
motivation becomes justified when it dignifies other humans with caring
love.
Perhaps I will have to explain once again in terms of "entropy production"
how internal motivation can become subdued by externally "forced mind
engineering".
>I would further like to point out that I am a practitioner not a
>theorist I apply many concepts on a daily basis with people
>assessing with feedback and dialogue with hundreds of individuals
>over the years. I need stuff that helps people to live healthier
>fuller
>lives hence I will go on reading and trying and practicing and I will
>use whatever works.
I am reminded once again of the fruitful LO-dialogue we had on pragmatism.
Not everything which works is good for humankind, for example nuclear
bombs and "forced mind engineering".
>Whether it is NLP, Ego psychology, object relations theory,
>motivational models, semantics, systems theory, being or
>becoming, cybernetics, any religion, Chaos theory, CAS,
>Energy theory, EKS, TOC, philosophy, rational behaviour
>theory, gestalt theory, GST, Living Systems theory etc etc,
>etc, etc.
This an impressive list.
I wonder how any person will manage to motivate his/her motivation on
explicating motivation in terms of such a wide reading without avoiding
the terms of referance in such a wide reading -- without going, as you
say, "around in circles". One way to do it, is to avoid the art, i.e. to
avoid harmonising theory and practice into one. Another way to do it, is
to create an island and call it a firm world. It can also be pointed out
that motivations are wholes which can exist on their own. The
possibilities are legio.
I do not try to avoid going "around in circles" because I know that
reality is complex. This is why I "paint rich pictures". I accept
motivation as critically important to the development of the personality
(see how I avoided the "essential" ;-). Then I relate it to as many other
things as possible (which requires continual reading) so that my own
understanding of it will continuously evolve.
It seems that you have covered a vast reading yourself. But I wonder what
your advice will be to fellow learners?
Do they also need such a vast reading "to live healthier fuller lives", or
should they keep it simple by paying for the help of others who have done
it and now offer it as "very simple a.b.c.d.... terms and its aggregated
form X.Y.Z." or are there other possibilities also which may be given to
them and from which they have to select one.
I have explained many moons ago (Winfried Dressler might remember it
because it made him think of Goethe's drama Faust) that even a Mutiple
Choice Question is a subtle form of abusing the mind. My own advice to
fellow learners is to make up their own minds as to what will suite their
learning best while avoiding judgements in doing so. There is no better
way to terminate creativity as by making judgements.
>Good luck with your search for the truth. Maybe it is out there.
Yes, I pray not to stop searching until the last day of my life.
It is another teaching goal of mine to help any person to search
independently for truth and righteousness. In this help I often learn far
more than on my own. I will also not withhold what I have found myself,
although I will stress (as I often have done) that nobody should trust my
findings as truth and righteousness.
Before the days of Global TV and Internet, it was easy to stir the minds
of my students with the question "What is the price of truth?" They often
came up with creative answers involving a research project which captured
the imagination or the part of the budget of an organisation spent on
research. At some stage they became aware that I had not yet given my own
answer. When asking for my answer, I would reply with "One hundred and
fifty cents." Like one they would ask "One hundred and fifty cents?". Then
I would confirm: "Yes, the price of a newspaper!"
Today the calculation of the expenses in having TV Satelite and Internet
connections and browsing the Web is far more complicated. Furthermore,
"forced mind engineering" has become the job of experts such that it it is
now even difficult to become aware of it, or to object against it when
becoming aware of it. Thus experts have succeeded in making many people
believe that truth (advancing it as well as corrupting it) has a price
tag -- that without money the search for truth is doomed to failure.
The hot question is "Does a person engineer the mind of others by force
when asking any question?" Poor old Socrates, he was found guilty of such
a practice. Should we not ban the interrogative mode from all languages
because of this verdict against him? Why wait another 2500 years?
The truth which I self search for cannot be bought by money. I search for
it as an individual and as a member of some Learning Organisations. I know
of no other way to find it as through learning. I share freely these
learning experiences with others, hoping that it may serve as an example
to some. Although these learning experiences are all true, they cannot
ever be truth itself. They are merely a drop in the ocean of truth.
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 <Richard@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.