Replying to LO24494 --
Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
>To become or not to become is not the question anymore,
>the answer is to become. The new question is to become
>constructively or to become destructively. And how to
>distinguish in theory and practice.
Greetings Winfried,
It is a wise comment. But wisdom becomes banal knowledge if it is not
applied.
Not to become is to be. Many people think the cornerstone of life is to
conserve a particular kind of being. Hence, as soon as such a being is
subjected to some becoming so that a different being will result, they
usually make plans how to destroy the new being and set them into action
so as to conserve the traditional being.
Unfortunately, few people think also in terms of becoming and not merely
being. Thus few learners are aware that becoming can be either
constructive or destructive, but not both. (LEM does apply in my opinion
here.) Hence, should we resist a constructive becoming so as to conserve
the present being, we will have to employ destructive creativity to do so.
The "better" the destructive creativity, the "better" it will prevent the
future becoming. However, there is an indissoluble catch to it by virtue
of the very nature of the seven essentialities. The present becoming
cannot be protected from such destructive creativity. Thus the present
being will not persist, but will become destroyed too. It will first
happen gradually, but the rate will increase until even the "boiling frog"
cannot deny it.
I can give you hundreds of examples, but the one best known to me is the
former ideology and policy of apartheid here in South Africa. Within three
generations the Afrikaners arose from the ashes of the British Boer War
(1899-1902). The elderly among them had much to tell how bad the past
really was. So the majority of them began in all earnest after WWII to
conserve their then present being. Because of the three centuries (since
1652) of history of destructive clashes between European culture and
African culture, they became convinced that the greatest danger to their
newly gained being was the black peoples with whom they were living
together in one country. Since Jan Smuts, an Afrikaner himself, claimed
that wholeness caused phsyical and spiritual evolution and since they
believed him to be wrong, they concluded that the opposite to wholeness,
namely apartheid, will be the greatest force in conserving their future.
It is impossible to impair persistently one essentiality without gradually
impairing the other six essentialities too. So by impairing wholeness
persistently, Afrikaners began impairing the other six essentialities too.
Thus they began losing their newly gained being by self-imposed
destructions WITHOUT comprehending what is happening to them since this
very consciousness also requires all seven essentialities to function on
par.
After some fourty years (1948-1992) later they had to admit that not only
was their grand experiment in impairing wholeness a complete failure, but
that they also have lost much what they have gained up to 1948 and so
desperately wished to conserve. Almost a million of them are now
scattered all over the world like the Jews in their own diaspora. The
majority of the remaining Afrikaners do not have the means to emigrate
too. That what is now happening in Zimbabwe, ruining it as as in the rest
of Africa, adds only fuel to their demise and fear for the future. The
disinvestment by the rest of the world is the last straw on the camels
back. Only a very small minority among them have the knowledge AND the
motivation to work for a better future which will be of necessity
extremely complex.
It is very interesting that some of the poorest countries (as a result of
the clash of continental cultures) in Southern Africa (like Mozambique)
are seekingly specifically Afrikaners (and not other white Europeans) to
help them in rebuilding their own countries from the ashes. Somehow they
begin to realise that it is not the colour of a person's skin nor the
continental culture to which a person belongs which count, but what goes
on the in the minds and hearts of the persons needed for their
stewardship.The greatest danger to this newly emerged awareness is the
very destructive creativity which the rest of the world employs to further
their own self interests. Bearing witness to this great danger is the very
little foreign investment which such AUTOPIETIC reconstruction initiatives
get.
Is autopoiesis really the earnest of the corporate world should it slip
outside their sphere of control? Why is the corporate world so desperate
for control? Why do so many political leaders follow the economical
leaders suite? Why do even we on this list want to control fellow learners
on this list?
>I would mistrust anyone who claims to have the answers. You
>and At and so many others on this list do seriously struggle
>with this question. And this is what makes you dear to me.
Dear Winfried, it is impossible for me to differ from you.
I have to stress once again -- do not trust anything which I teach, not
even the seven essentialities. Rather make sure yourself through your own
authentic learning what to trust. After all, without trust it is
impossible to live as humans.
As for me, I have learned authentically how much wisdom there is in the
Bible's clear message to trust only God and not any lesser creator nor
even any creature or creation. If any of you fellow learners wish to make
sure of this fact, get a Bible and a concordance (that is what an index of
every word in the Bible is called). Look up every occurance of the word
trust to learn self this incredibly clear message. But take note that even
though a message may be very clear, it has very little to do with our
understanding of such a clear message.
Teaching is simply one of many possible creations not to be trusted.
However, what about authentic learning -- can authentic learning be
trusted? This is for me perhaps the most difficult question to answer. Yet
God invites us urgently: Learn from Me. Shall I refuse the invitation
because I cannot yet answer the question? So what about any teacher who
claims that learners should learn from him/her or even another greater
expert? I cannot and will not make such claims, but will rather try to
learn by God's very invitation.
So what am I doing when saying that Socrates noted this, Einstein that or
even me saying such-and-such. Do I bring in great authorities so as to
intimidate fellow learners into timid acceptance of facts by way of rote
learning? I am well aware that this perception is possible and you have
been witness to the fact that I have been accused of just doing that.
However, I am well aware of something else too which very, very few people
are aware of. The creativity of each of us has both the "dassein" and
"mitsein" dimensions. These dimensions are inherited by all the higher
emergent orders of creating, beginning with learning. That is the
fundamental reason for me why we can speak of a Learning Individual and a
Learning Organisation. Consequently, when I refer to another person and
his/her learning discoveries, it is in the sense of the LO discipline Team
Learning (a-la Senge).
I sometimes think it is very funny how we all participate on this list
magnificently maintained by Rick for promoting the concept of a LO and yet
how difficult it is for us to participate in team learning. Perhaps you
might frown at me using the description "funny", but I can assure you that
on most occasions when I become aware of this ambiguity, I actually smile.
Wow, another day gone and I have not yet finished my next (the tenth) main
contibution on this topic. Winfried, I think that you will enjoy it with
your training as a physicist because it may make you aware of a whole
collection of uncertainties rather than merely uncertainties of the
Heisenberg kind. Perhaps with sufficient dexterity and creativity you will
be able to demonstrate one or more of them too like the Heisenberg
uncertainty can be demonstrated.
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.