Replying to LO24553 --
Dear Organlearners,
Judy Tal <judyt@netvision.net.il> writes:
>You're bringing up a CORE issue :
>"Thinking, Feeling, and all that falls in between"
Greetings Judy,
What a nice expression for the associative pattern of wholeness:
thinking * all falling in between * feeling
But will it be nice of me to ask what is this "all that falls in
between"?
I have always wanted to learn more from women because of being a man.
Woman are God's mysterious gift to men who self have been born from women.
They are a mystery because man was asleep when woman was created. I wonder
whether woman was asleep too when she was created? ;-)
I have spent far more time with men than with women because of the way in
which my life has been organised beyond my control. The five women whom I
know best (and which is by far not enough ;-) are my mother, my wife, my
three daughters and my granddaughter. What you have said rings true for
them. Most of my mistakes with them were me connecting too much with their
brains and too little with their hearts. Most of their mistakes with men
were them connecting too much with their hearts and too little with their
brains.
l also know many other woman, even thousands as pupils and students. This
do not make woman less of a mystery to me ;-) It merely brings out some
things which are more common to woman than men.
And I love them for it because they have given me much food for thought.
Most of the "seed crystals" (emergent properties) of the personality is
formed during childhood. They have to be formed by way of bifurcations at
the edge of chaos. Those (women and men) who have to care for these
personality bifurcations and their resolutions into constructive
emergences rather than destructive immergences, have to be sensitive to
all which produces the massive entropy needed to reach the edge of chaos.
Emotions from the heart are powerful entropy producers.
The majority of women can produce entropy far better than men. In other
words, women are usually good at the practice of "entropy production". On
the other hand the majority of men can describe entropy production far
better than women. In other words, men are usually good at the theory of
"entropy production".
Please, do not see the above as an equivalence "=" distribution like 50:50
or 99:01, but rather as an ordered ">" distribution with obvious
exceptions. In some things women are numerically more ordered than men and
in other things it is the opposite. It also transgresses culture, race and
religion because in our country with its extreme diversity I have observed
it in many races, cultures and religions. The source of these differences
thus has to be sought in that little XX or XY critters. However, be
forwarned -- the genetics of these XX and XY chromosomes are far more
complex than that which meets the eye!
When theory and practice come together, they form art. The art of living
as a human is to blend thinking and feeling into one whole personality.
Thus it does not matter whether there are exceptions with some women
thinking more than feelling and some men feeling more than thinking. The
norm and the exceptions alike ought to evolve more into humane
personalities. Thus how can I differ when you write:
>For me, finding the right tune, colour, the proper combination
>(linear, when put so - between T and F - both being REAL as
>well as TRUE), is the most expensive (dear and time consuming)
>activity - when consulting others and while consulting myself.
Here is some brain stuff rather than heart stuff. The more complex a
thing, the longer the time it takes to become mature because the more the
rhythm of "entropy production" has to go into it. This rhythm swings
between digestions and bifurcations.
Now for some heart stuff. Which sex will much less give up on something
seemingly unattainable? Which sex cannot resist becoming furious when
teased with brain stuff on heart stuff?
>I believe that's what happens to everybody, everywhere, all the
>time - and i'm the least surprised to see the recent energance of
>interest and concern on the subject.
Jan Smuts (Holism and Evolution, 1926) whom we can call the "father of
holism", believed wholeness to be the power of evolution. Obviously, he
was extremely sensitive to wholeness and evolution in the widest and
deepest sense. Do it surprise you that many men of his time accused him of
being a womaniser even though he was never unfaithful to his wife Issy?
The aged Piet Beukes has written the following series of books
on Jan Smuts which may explain the answer to this last question:
The Holistic Smuts
The Romantic Smuts
Smuts the Botanist
The Religious Smuts
Smuts the Scientist.
>I'll have to stop now ... for having no answers, and too litle
>room for all my questions.
How can we ever stop trying to answer all the questions ever arising? Only
by switching off the spirit of learning!
How can the spirit of learning be switched off? By falling from Homo
sapiens to Homo ignoro.
How can Homo sapiense fall victim to destructive immergences?
Jan Smuts would have pointed without hesistation that destroying
wholeness will cause it.
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.