Replying to LO24759 --
[Host's Note: Thank you, At, for this and for all your contributions.
..Rick]
Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to you all,
This is again a complex contribution. Please hit the ESC key should you
have come so far in reading it and should you get distressed by
complexity.
If you got this far, beware of the complexity in the contribution and what
it may do to you. It will touch your feelings and will bewilder your
thinking. Just feed on the parts in it which makes your understanding
stronger. For the rest, consider it as nonsense for the time being. Much
later on, you may try reading it again so as to find new food for your own
new emerging thoughts.
The more complex anything, the more minor things have to go in it. There
is no hope to understand complex things without wholeness. Thus I will not
fragment this contribution into separate contributions under different
topics. But perhaps Rick will have to cut it somewhere in two separate
postings. This cutting signifies nothing (except in the backgound the
essentiality spareness ;-)
Why do I keep up with composing complex contributions when so many members
clearly express that they want simple, practical contributions? I am
CATEGORICALLY SURE that humankind is now experiencing one of the most
profound paradigm shift since the dawn of its history. It is the shift
from simplicity to complexity.
It is going to change the living of every human dramatically. Since I
have the deepest love for every fellow learner, whatever their diversity
of feelings for me, I want to help those willing to get prepared for this
new way of living. Complexity, now a theory for most of the few who know
about it, will eventually become the practice from which nobody shall
escape. Some do actually resist what I am doing while other examine me
sceptically -- even for them I have the deepest gratitude because to
understand the coming drama, we need players to fulfill all the diverse
roles in the minute foreshadowing of the coming grand drama on this very
LO list.
The shift from simplicity to complexity will happen whether we know OR NOT
about the content (edge of chaos, equilibrium, ordinate cyber loops) and
form (seven essentialities) of "entropy production". Knowledge of
content-form will merely help some authentic learners to manage the shift
and to live with the new paradigm. But, for many, many people this
knowledge may actually become a burden. For some others it will afford the
insight how to release new kinds of slavery suitable for the dispensation
of complexity.
Why do I contribute to this very list while there are other lists also for
complexity or learning? As sure as I am about the paradigm shift from
simplicity to complexity, just as sure I am that the Learning Organisation
will play the leading role in keeping us humane when the full blast of
complexity becomes felt. For example, the South African nation is now
experiencing a "little bit" of the coming drama. Even though a "little
bit", it is already sufficient to let the humaneness of many perish. Many
of the remainder who, despite our "little bit" of drama, manage to keep up
and even grow in their humaneness, are embraced in one or more LOs. Such
is the caring spirit in a LO that although very few of them know formally
the term LO and even less the five disciplines to understand it, they
practice tacitly the LO magnificantly.
Please allow me to clear up my way of address above to all of you.
One way of picturing a LO is by thinking of an organism. Think of the
members of a LO as the organs of that organism.
Think of the the body and spirit of each of us as an organism. The body
usually has one organ of each kind (stomach, skin, brain), but never three
of each -- perhaps except for ten thumbs ;-) Likewise the spirit of each
of us has one creativity, one knowledge, one faith and one love -- perhaps
except for more than one discipline ;-) All these organs, physical and
spiritual, are continuously active in changing things beneficial to the
organism of which they are the parts as well as beneficial to the organon
(community) to which that organism belongs. Likewise every member of a LO
is continuously active in changing things for the benefit of the LO and
the society to which the LO belongs. This is why, for me. the members of
the LO are the organs of the LO as organism. That is why I adress you as
"organlearners" since the beginning of my participation on this list. Its
a way of saying "I see you". But how do "I see you"?
As for myself, I do not think of the the body and spirit of any one of us
as merely an organism, i.e. as one of many, but "I see you" as the unique
person. For example, there is only one Rick Karash or only one John
Zavacki on this list. Each of us is a unique person who become more
unique. I try to embody this uniqueness in all of my practice. Why? It all
has to do with the topic "Singularity of Complexity".
I wanted to introduce this topic on its own, but in a certain way it is a
response to our host Rick's message
Our LO Dialogue Here LO24759
He begins by writing:
>I am now receiving a few msgs a week saying, "The LO dialogue
>is too distant, too theoretical, and long winded; a few people are
>monopolizing the air-time! I want to read more practical pieces,
>about creating learning in organizations like mine, and it's harder
>to find them."
>
>I, too, am concerned about the current state of our dialogue. I
>also have great worries about trying to change it! As creator and
>host of learning-org, I know that I cannot determine the flow of
>discourse here.
Dear Rick, Oh, these words "trying to change it". It is not in your
"pants" (as we say in my mothertongue), neither in mine, nor in the
"pants" of any other idividual or even groups of them that the power for
"changing it" will come. That power will come only through the unique
whole of us with our full diversity, observeable limitations, strange
identities, effective connections and open transformations.
It reminds me of my own body when my pancreas stopped producing insulin as
a result of influenzia. The pancreas did not tell my brain "I have stopped
acting". My mind merely became aware after some days that some abnormal
things were happening to me in body and mind. Like many people watching on
TV the wierd things happening in the world, my mind did not try to
establish the cause of it all, but merely followed the "news" of my
complex actions. Only when I became sufficiently blind and fell down for
seemingly no reason, I realised with a shock that there must be a reason
for the complexity of the failures of body and mind. This shock came to my
tacit level of knowledge. As for my dear family, they thought I wanted to
die.
Perhaps we may think of an organisation not functioning as a LO in the
same manner. In its collective consciousness it follows daily the "news"
on its own abnormal behaviour -- that it cannot manage effectively the
complexity in it and outside it. To become a LO, it needs to become aware
that it cannot do things which it ought to do. This awareness needs not to
be spelled out, although each member has to become aware intuitively
(tacitly) that the future calls for a reappraisal of the past. Some may
even think that the organisation wants to die.
I needed another person (a medical doctor) knowing what my symptoms
indicated to tell me what was wrong. A simple test for the glucose
concentration in the blood did it all. It took five minutes. But then came
the struggle which I never would have expected in this incident too. The
doctor wanted to use medical sience and technology so as to heal me --
nothing wrong with that. But the more he tried, the more I became aware
how much these efforts, simple and linear, did not only bring some relief,
but also aggrevated my diabetes condition into many other conditions. For
every subsequent negative reaction, he tried another simple and linear
option. So one day I decided "I have had enough of this Onsager cross
inductions by entropy production caused outside me by the doctor and his
tested stuff. It is now time to regain control of my own predicament in
terms of all what I know abaout the Onsager stuff. I better start studying
the books much closer, expecially of chemistry and physiology."
Perhaps it is the same with an organisation not functioning as a LO. It
needs a organisational doctor with a simple test or two to determine the
condition. For example "You have too much paranoia -- or too little
metanoia". It does not need the doctor taking control over its destiny
with simple and linear theories and practices. It rather needs the will to
take responsibility for its own organisational life. Thus it requires the
awareness that it will have to learn a lot from various sources. Sureness
will be essential in order to find the best sources which have to be
studied closer.
The solution for me, although very complex, is simple to summarise. I had
to make a radical change in my eating habits and insist gently to my
family that although they can continue eating as usual, they have to
accept that from now on I will do it differently. I had to cut out all
carbohydrate foods (sources of glucose), except those rich in essential
vitamins and minerals. I had to rely on a diversity of food rich in
protein and excercise my body how to switch over from carbohydrate
metabolism (like in mammals) to protein metabolism (like in fish). To do
that I had to honour wholeness because metabolism is the whole of all the
chemical and physiological processes in the body. The anabolism (building
up of molecules, cells, etc.) way of metabolism is protein based while
its catabolism (breaking down of molecules) is carbohydrate based for
normal persons. For abnormal me the catabolism clearly had to become
protein based too.
[My greatest frustation was caused by my family because they love me. They
kept on searching "sweet" delicacies devoid of sugar (a source of glucose)
and glucose. They reckoned that my newly ascetic way of eating was a
tragedy. Eventually they managed to understand that such "sweet" luxuries
extend the memories of my past eating habits rather than helping me "to
make peace" with my radically new way of eating. They had extreme
difficulty to understand that I "actually had found peace" in making such
a radical change for the better.]
Perhaps it is the same with an organisation wanting to emerge into a LO.
It must make a radical change in its metabolism -- the whole of all its
functions. It needs not changing its constructive creativity (anabolism),
but it needs to change its destructive creativity (catabolism). The same
positive state of mind and good in the heart which it uses to create
constructively, will have to be used when it has to decomplexify (create
destructively) things so as to release free energy and detoxify harmful
things. The LO will have to tell other organisations that they are free to
do business as usual, but that it self will do in future its own business
differently. It will have to them that the "sweets" of the past only
serves the memory, but that real peace comes form doing the knowing of the
better.
Rick is definitely the good doctor. (Rick, I do not imply that you think
simple and linear like the MD did in my case ;-) Thus I will refer to him
as "the LO-doctor". He deliberately says that he does not want to take
over control of the list, although he is very concerned about its future
because many members are now also thinking with care about the recent past
on this list. Be assured that I myself do not want to take over control
of the list, neither will Rick allow it as he seemingly may have hinted. I
know enough of "entropy production" not trying to take control over any
system other than me.
This list is intended for a dialogue on the LO. The dialogue can be from
the viewpoint of an ordinary organisation. In such a case the dialogue
WILL FOREVER focus on the theoretical viewpoint. We are organised in this
list. But only when we BECOME FURTHER organised as a LO, our focus in the
LO-dialogue WILL FOCUS on the practice. The beauty of knowledge, faith and
love is not in the saying, but in the doing. The beauty of a LO is not in
the saying, not even the saying on the doing, but in the doing.
No human child can ever claim: "I have suggested that my parents conceive
me." Nor can the child claim: "I have proposed to my mother that she
should give birth to me." The language involved in these claims come from
the parents and is learned gradually by the child only after birth. Adults
can speak about conception and birth, but the child only gets conceived
and born by doings. Thus what I am going to say in the next paragraph is
not as a baby in a LO about to emerge, but as a midwife who is close by
while it emerges.
I think it is now time for our list to make history by emerging first ever
from an ordinarily organised e-mail list into an extra-ordinarily
organised e-mail list -- the first ever LO of cyberspace. Let we all
practice elsewhere what we practice and not only preach here. Let us
practice the LO on this list for LOs. But let us also never forget the
difference between practice and the LO-dialogue. The LO-dialogue is not
theory, even when theories are discussed like practices too. The
LO-dialogue is practice, was practice and will be practice.
I must be completely open with you. Should this list become the LO-list,
you all will help me immensely, too much ever to describe in words, to
further the cause of authentic learning. My mission is to act as a
midwife for authentic learners. My country depends heavily on authentic
learners and they are fast becoming less. Our world is depending
completely on authentic learners and it seems to me that also globally
they are gradually becoming less. I know that the LO accommodate each of
its members WITH each having a mission, despite the diversity among these
missions. It is like the body accommodating the heart which has to pump
blood and the liver which has to clean the blood -- or like the nails
which seem to be lifeless except for scratching and the brain which seems
to be no good except for thinking ;-)
To accomodate this complexity of missions, Senge has identified the
discipline Shared Vision. The "vision", lingually analysed, refer to a
statement -- declarative sentence. But languages allow for other kinds of
sentences too, namely commands (imperative) and questions
(interrogative). In other words, does the Shared Vision (statement)
include a Shared Mission (command) and Shared Inquiry too? As for me, I
hope it does because what is for me here at stake is the "strange
attractor" of complexity -- a definite situation somewhere in the future.
To articulate this "stange attractor", we need the whole use of language
-- not only a statement, but also question and a command. We even need
more than the whole of languages like utterings not to be found in any
dictionary, mathematical symbols, body language and lastly, but not least,
artistic expressions. Why? Because the "strange attractor" involves far
more than what we can speak off. The shambled state of the subject
teleology bears witness to this.
What is that definite situation somewhere in the future which is so
important to all of us belonging to the list? I am sure that none of us
can judge the future since it still has to become. I am also sure of the
futility judging the present for various reasons. For example, when
pointing the finger to another, the thumb points upwards and perhaps there
is a God who does not like that while three fingers point to the self.
Another reason is that judging is great wasting of "free energy" and thus
motivation which we need for creating the future. As for judging the past,
it will need all seven essentialties, thus making it so complex that no
time will be left for anything else. Consequently, should I rather suspend
my own judgement, I will not have any negative reason to leave the list.
Hence I will have no greviance to articulate so as to use it cleverly to
force others to conform to my personal "strange attractor".
There is nothing so deadly to Shared Vision as someone exclaiming "I do
not share that vision". I can offer no better examples for me (but not as
good for you) than hundreds of examples from the 350 years of history of
my own people -- the Afrikaners. (Perhaps I must do it, although many may
not see them as relevent to the LO and Shared Vision ;-) If there ever was
people who loved to ride the mule of exclusivity, it is Afrikaners. (Why
such stupidity? Because even in the greatest lie there is a grain of truth
which we will find should we look intensely enough for it. In this case it
is nothing else than "singularity of complexity".) However, as a result of
the tragic Brittish Boer War which extinguished much light, for once most
of the Afrikaners began to share the vision that they will become a light
for Southern Africa. Within two generations the light began to shine so
strongly that they allowed it to blind themselves by not letting it shine
more and more only on themselves. So they hid that light under the bucket
of apartheid. Hence some committed deeds in the dark which makes us crying
many a day.
Dear fellow learners, when we create our Shared Vision for this LO-list,
let us avoid LEM (Law of Excluded Middle) when doing it because LEM is
deadly to the Shared Vision. Please, if you want practical examples, say
"I want practical examples". I beg you not to say "I intend to unsubcribe
because I do not get practical examples." My granddaughter Jessica and her
friends are now entering that very age where they abuse each other by
saying: "I am not going to be your playmate any more because you do not
want to play what I love to play." I have to use all my wits to guide her
through this ordeal causing so much tears so that she can keep on growing
in love. I do not know if I have sufficient wits to guide you fellow
learners through the ordeal of "I am not going to be your LO-mate any more
because you do not want to play simplicity."
The LO-doctor also writes:
> 1. It's a problem when a few individuals take too much of the
>"air time." Therefore, I ask that At de Lange and every author
>send no more than a couple of msgs a day to the list, especially
>if any are long. I will also ask the most prolific writers to pause
>in order to leave room for others to respond first to new inquiries.
>(In parallel, I ask all who have been wanting to write, please seize
>this opportunity!)
Thank your Rick as the wise Damara of relieving me of my task as the lone
ass trotting in front. To prepare a dropping every few hundred yards left
much of the rest of my life in loose ends. Fellow learners may suspect
that there is a hidden agenda between you and me. Should we reveal our
private email (Cockpit Flight Recording), they will be completely
surprised at how little there is. I have had many private emails with
fellow learners on LO issues, but tried to discuss as little as possible
on this list itself. They can reveal these CFRs as they wish. There are no
hidden agendas there too. Then why so little privately on the LO list? So
as to let us all grow in experiences and tacit knowledge -- so as to act
in conception and birth rather than to speak.
Influenzia is caused by a virus. All kinds of virusses propagate in a most
remarkable manner. They cannot themselves make copies of themselves. Yet
they are tiny strands of DNA like all other forms of life. Because they
lack enzymes, they have to connect to one of billions of possible places
on the DNA helix of each chromosome of a cell to begin their own live.
When that cell begins to divide by mitosis under guidance of enzymes
(complex catalysts) into two daughter cells, it makes a replica of the
virus too. In other words, although a virus have the DNA, it also needs
the enzymes of the cell to become replicated too.
Each of you fellow learners is a leader and thus an enzyme just
as I am. (I have initiated this topic -- Leadership and Catalysis --
in a non-viral manner.) I have deliberately tried to imitate the
mitosis of living cells on this list in many of my contributions,
making you aware of viral actions while avoiding it myself. I have
avoided it by supplying self some of the complex enzymes needed.
Each of you have guided by your contributions the evolution of this
list and like a catalyst you have not become consumed by it. I
have tried to connect to as many different places on the DNA
of this list so as to
* make you aware of the complexity of our organisational affairs
* get your natural immunological system active once again.
So what is this "natural immunological system"? I firmly believe
that it is the authenticity of each of you.
It is a stunning experience when a person drops the mask and let the
authenticity of his/her personality manifest itself. These experiences,
although stunning at first, are vital to every member of the LO. To
explain what I mean, think of the LO as a zoo. First think of yourself as
the zookeeper and all the other members as the animals. Some seem to be as
sincere as doves while others seem to be as clever as snakes. This is your
Mental Model of them. Perhaps it is still mine too. As zookeeper you will
have to interact with each other member according to your Mental Model.
But secondly, and this is vital, also think of yourself as an animal in
this zoo and some other member as the zookeeper. How will you interact
with the other members as animals too? Put them and even the zookeeper in
cage like the cage in which you are so that none can flee away, eat
another, or feed some? By doing this you will only force personalities to
put up the masks again and become persons.
I think that once we reveal our authentic personalities, it will be
impossible to imagine the LO as some zoo. We rather have to imagine the LO
as an open game park with a splendid ecology. When the lions have feeded,
even a hare will have the audacity to take a close sniff at that very
lions. But when the lions are hungry, even elephants will move cautiously
their great ears. Some birds, self most agile, are quick to warn every
other kind of animal while some reptiles like the lazy crocodiles warn
none. Whatever animal our own authentic personality have to be, we will
have to live with all other animals. Please, once again, I beg you all to
become authentic herbivores rather than carnivores. Let our personalities
eat grass and leaves (feelings and thinkings), but not other animals
(personalities). Let us stop killing the personalties of fellow members,
but rather focus on the feeling and thinking which each of us has. Let us
make special effort not to turn the open game park back into a closed zoo
again. How? By avoiding putting a uinique personality into a cage with a
label.
[I am speaking metaphorical here. By begging you to become herbivores, I
am not advocating vegetarianism per se ;-) When thinking complex, it is
important to distinguish between interpretation and manifestation.]
I am extremely aware that speaking of an "authentic leader" is very safe
because most of us have the Mental Model that there are few leaders and
many followers. Thus when I write about authenticity connected to a
particular functionality like leadership or artisanship, it is safe except
on rare occasions when some fellow learner intuitively realises that it
will effect his/her life too and thus that it will require a drastic
change of the "metabolism of personality". But when dear Winfried Dressler
asked his question on authentic mentality, I knew that what I had been
carefully constructing and cooking in the backgound, was beginning to push
forward like a pot of soup close to boiling. Hence the safety of mental
fragmentarism has reached its end. Some animals in the zoo have become
strong enough to break down their cages.
To speak of authentic learning is safe because it is theory. But to speak
of authenticity in each of us whatever we do is like a pot of soup which
can get burnt when we stir it too little so as to distribute the heat
evenly, or raise the temperature too much where heat has to enter the pot
of soup. So when we all begin to act authentically in all becoming, please
take care to stir with the mind and not to raise the temperature of
emotions too high. This warning concerns our inner safety. But what about
the outer safety?
When someone else sees, smells and tastes a delicious soup boiling in a
pot, can that person resist it? My granddaughter Jessica several times
asked me to read the story about the two twins Esau and Jacob in the book
Genesis. Last Saturday evening I had to read it to her again. I closely
observed her face in deep contemplation -- she was searching for its
meaning once again. Esau wanted that pot of soup so much that he even
sold his "first born right" for it. For me that "first born right" was
nothing else than the symbolic personification of authenticity in the
family of the next generation.
Jacob got that authenticity and even today we are witnesses to it.
But Jacob had to get his father Isaac's blessing on it by stealth.
Because of this wrong, he fled to another country where his uncle Laban
lived. After almost two decades he wanted to return to his own beloved
country. But he was very afraid that his brother Esau would seak
retribution for what he bought from Esau and received blessing for by
stealth. The outcomes of his authenticity distressed him extremely, so
much so that after having sent his messengers with gifts to Esau, he
struggled at Jabbok all through the night with "the man". The next day he
called that place Peniel (="I have seen God, yet have not perished.") But
his surprise was even greater by the way in which Esau received him. Esau
not only lived self authentically, but received Jacob with open arms.
Athough they had different Mental Models, their Systems Thinking on
authenticity came out the same! The one sold the "first born right" and
the other one bought it, but both learned that authentic personality
cannot be capitalised.
Esau did not lose his authenticity and even today we are witnesses to it.
As I understand it, on our course of Personal Mastery, we each will have
to seek what is good and true so as to advance in authenticity. But as
soon as we begin to search for authenticity, we encounter the dialecticism
between true and false as well as between good and evil. I do not know how
it is with you fellow learners, but for me this dialectism is deep within
me. Further, it should better stay there because I often fall into the
trap of confusing complementary duals (twins of the same kind and yet
different) with dialecticals. Thus I acquire the Mental Model of
perceiving false and evil outside me in what are actually only
complementary duals. Time and again I have to command myself -- do not
judge dialectically on the spur of the moment because only the course of
the arrow of time will reveal what have become true and good. Leave the
outside wheat and weed together until the time of harvest.
The most difficult thing for me to do personally, is to make peace with
rote mental behaviour. Let me explain it with the story of Jacob and Esau.
The Authentic Mental Behaviour (AMB) in me struggled (like a Jacob) for
many years to supercede the Rote Mental Behaviour (RMB) in me (like an
Esau). When the Jacob in me wanted to do something, it usually found the
Esau in me standing in its path. Although I knew by careful enquiring that
most other learners also had the Esau-Jacob twins in them, when they came
onto my path I kept on perceiving the Esau in them rather than the Jacob
too. And far to many times I had to resuscitate the Jacob in many of these
learners because of too much distressed caused by the Esau within them.
Far too many times I had to cry with them so as to get peace myself.
This Mental Model is caused by the inner dialecticism within me. But
another cause is the lack of Team Learning between me and all those
learners. This is because of a gradual destructive immergence of LOs in
the total of human culture. It is something which happens very, very
slowly so that the "parable of the boiled frog" applies to it. It was
evident in recent times for example between capitalism and communism.
Communism could not sustain itself indefinitely. Few saw its collapse
coming. Eventually the same will happen to capitalism, especially now that
its dialectical opposite has been laid to rest.
As I think of it, the last thing which anyone of us can afford, is an
dialectical confrontation between RMB and AMB. They have so many
dialectical differences as I have indicated to Winfried that such a
confrontation will be the easiest thing to incite once other learners are
able to spot these dialectical differences too. This will set up a vast
entropic force which none of us as individuals nor together as humankind
will be able to control. The resulting entropy production will be fatal.
As I understand it, in order to put this dialecticism at rest, we need the
essentiality openness ("paradigm-open") to curtail by form the "entropy
production" between AMB and RMB. It means that each of us has to shift
from the paradigm of simplicity to the paradigm of complexity, from RMB to
AMB, from the one (exclusivity) to the many (inclusivity), from atoms to
molecules -- yes from lonesome learning individuals to learning
organisations composed of learning individuals. Our days of acting as lone
atoms rather than atoms bonded together in a molecule are fast becoming to
an end. Our days of acting as caged animals in a zoo rather than free
animals in a game park bonded by its ecology are fast becoming to an end.
The zoo has become too complex and thus expensive to be operated like a
zoo any more. I myself learn daily more about this "deep ecology" binding
us by using the seven essentialities.
Easu and Jacob have to join one another with open arms as has happened
once some four millenia ago. But then,
did our LO-doctor not also write:
>5. Tolerance and diversity are especially important here! We will
>learn about creating learning organizations by creating one here!
Its the adult speaking here. Oh, when shall we become kids again?
Our LO-doctor also writes:
>2. The balance of our conversation has shifted too far away from
>the practical. I ask everyone, PLEASE SAY WHAT YOU WANT.
(snip) and
> 3. There is room for artistic pieces along with conventional
>discourse, but here on learning-org the connection to
>organizational learning should be made in clear text.
(nip) and
> 4. There will be differences amongst us! I ask all readers to
>notice which authors and subjects are a "fit" for you and delete
>msgs from those which are not. There is absolutely no
>expectation that you read every msg!
Please allow me now to say what I wanted to say for a very long time,
apart from what I have said above. When we want to proceed with our
evolution in authenticity, we may find it extremely valuable to become
aware that "evolution is unique", that there is such a thing as
"singularity of complexity" or "extraordinary in the ordinary". It is
something which artists are very aware of and often try to express in
their very art. The more an artist does it, the more that artist manifest
this very "singularity of complexity". For example, there is only one
William Shakespeare and only one Ray Harrel. But as Rick has asked, let me
now say "singularity of complexity" in clear text too.
I will begin it as follows. There are thousands of universities all over
the world as there are tens of thousands of high shools. They have
different names and they do things slightly different, but in most
respects universities are much the same as high schools are also the same
among themselves. Then suddenly one such organisation may begin to become
rather unique, so much so that it is fondly thought of as "the university"
or "the school" -- the "exclusive one", our "alma mater". It emerges into
a new level of complexity which few can express formally, but which all
tacitly know is making that organisation unique, so unlike all others of
its kind. Here in my country some say that it has become an organisation
with its own ethos (character) -- an organisation with its own genius.
Alas, an organisation with a unique ethos (genius) does not last
indefinitely. Nor does it simply emerge on demand, even though many are
working their guts empty for such an ethos. Its like the personality of
individual persons. Many tests have been designed to give regular features
to personalities by a code like KLMN upon evaluation. But from time to
time a unique personality appear on the scene which cannot be fitted to
any regular box. These personalities are usually called geniusses because
it is impossible to fix such a personality in any box into which other
people could be fitted. Should we carefully explore the life of such a
genius, we will find that it is the result of Personal Mastery in the
superlative degree. Should we get enough historical information to take
our study further, we will find that this Personal Mastery is nothing else
than authentic learning relying on authentic creativity which leads to
authentic believing and authentic caring.
A person with a unique personality and an organisation with a unique ethos
are manifestations of one and the same thing which can be called the
"singularity of complexity" (SOC). Since this is a long phrase which I
will use often below, allow me to create the shorter term "singuplexity"
rather than using the acronym SOC. Why are there so few persons, each
with a unique personality, and so few organisations, each with a unique
ethos? Why are there so few organisations which manage to emerge into an
LO? Why the lack of geniality in individuals and organisations? It is a
hot question which the serious students of creativity continually struggle
with. For me it all has to do with "authentic creativity" and
"singularity of complexity" (singuplexity). These two go hand in hand.
What we have to do now, is to make this rare singuplexity "more
common". It almost sounds like a sheer contradiction, but it is not.
The genius is in each of us, but we each have to let her become.
The artist is in each of us, but we each have to let her become.
The scientist is in each of us, but we each have to let her become.
The entrepeneur is in each of us, but we each have to let her become.
The sage is in each of us, but we each have to let her become.
The faithful is in each of us, but we each have to let her become.
Each of these faculties begin by forming a seed which then has to
grow into maturity. Trees and cats do that too. There are many
specimens for a species of trees and the same for a species of
cats. But never will two specimens of a complex species be
identical clones because of "singularity of complexity". "Dolly the
twin sheep" is a human invention of lately. Yet there cannot ever
be "Dolly the twin sheep" in something so complex as the
personality or the LO. Not one of us can be "singularity of
complexity", yet each of us can become "singularity of
complexity". Winners or losers refer to beings, but make no
sense to becomings.
Or as the LO-doctor said:
>I wish to add one more thought: There are no winners or losers
>in this change, and this is not a slap on the hand for anyone... I
>just think the balance has drifted a bit from where we want it to be.
>I have named At and Andrew specifically here, but my policies
>apply to all. To At and Andrew, I have enjoyed your contributions
>and have learned much from you... and I am one of those who
>finds your writing difficult.
Rick, have you ever consider the possibility of how difficult my writing
is to me also? Apart from the language barrier, I also have to operate in
terms of a paradigm barrier. It is by grace that I have found two bridges,
the one in content and the other one in from, to cross the barrier into
complexity and explore a little bit there. I have found these two bridges
outside the domain of language and metaphor and thus began my ordeal to
tell you all by language and metaphor about it. The ordeal is like telling
in words the painting, the music or any non-linguistic from of art. Tell
me the Mona Lisa in words and see how far you will get ;-) Tell me the
Appasionata in words and see how far you will get ;-)
Rick, it often happened in a desert to me that when the going gets tough I
asked myself questions such as "Have I not drifted too far away where I
want to go" and "What the hell am I doing in this hell?" Then I usually
have to say to myself "You are here to drift" or "You are here to
experience the unknown". As soon as I say it, I see something which I will
still reach, even though I feel as if I have reached the end of my
endurance. It may be like the opening in a mountain range. How often, as
soon as I went through that opening, a heavenly panorama opened itself
before me, making all the effort worth it. I carefully guided my dear wife
through such a desert experience. It took her days in a truck to get there
and not an hour or so of reading. Upon the unfolding of the panorama she
could only respond with "At, stop" and after much silence "This is
heaven". Here is her email address, should you want to ask her more about
it < dlangeam@techpta.ac.za > Her name is Alicia, the Scottish form of the
Greek word "alethio" for truth.
I think Andrew became aware of this heaven and began to resonance in his
own unique way as a fine artist. He will be able to tell if it is
different. I always wondered from which fellow learner such a response
will come forth. I was blind not to see that it will come from an artist.
What blinded me was my Mental Model of many "fine" artists. In my own
weakness I failed to see how strong Andrew's authenticity has made him. I
wrote to him privately and asked him to forgive me -- he does not need my
protection. Did Einstein and Magritte not had much in common?
Because of Andrew being involved here, I will try to make use of
metaphors coming from the world of a painter. If Andrew would
have been a musician or poet, I would have selected the metaphors
correspondingly.
Allow me to paint a picture on how this "singuplexity" ("singularity
of complexity") happens. I will not make it as rich as I wanted to
because this contribution has become very complex self. Thus
I will describe to you how to paint the picture richer yourself.
Please observe carefully how, as I move from the one level of
entities to the next level of entities, three things happen:
* the inner complexity of the entities in a level increases
* the number of complex entities in a level decreases
* the weaker forces play more decisive roles.
Obviously, complexity itself is to understand how the overall
complexity increases involving all three things from the beginning
to the end.
Dear fellow learners, I cannot resist to warn each of you to avoid LEM
when painting this picture in your imagination. Why? The whole of the
entities in a level IS CONSTANT AND DOES CHANGE. This phrase in capital
letters seems to be an utter contradiction. But it is only so when LEM is
one of our Mental Models when we look at it. What we actually have here,
is such a profound complementary duality that it is worthy of the most
careful Systems Thinking possible. But perhaps I should rather use a
metaphor based on the art of painting to make it acceptable.
Take ten painters. Give each exactly one canvas, all canvases being
identical. Give each exactly seven tubes of different colours of paint,
all sets of paints identical. Do the same with the brushes. Tell them to
paint whatever they want to, but on one condition -- each much use up all
the paint in the painting itself. This condition means that the paint
(CONTENT) with which each begin IS CONSTANT for each of them. Yet, the
final painting (FORM) with which each end is completely different from any
other. Why? Because of the very DOES CHANGE during the act of painting
(the movie) rather than the final outcome (the picture). That DOES CHANGE
depends on the authenticity of the painter just as the authenticity of the
painter depends on it. Should Andrew be one of the ten painters and should
you have examined one of his previous paintings, you will spot his
painting among that ten authentic paintings. This is another example of
the profound "ordinate cyber loop".
Ok, here is my strokes in the painting on "singuplexity".
Mother earth has an atmosphere and a geosphere as if symbolising her body
and spirit. The mass and composition of her body allows us to calculate
the number of "single" electrons in her. A rough mental calculation (I may
be wrong with a few zeros) gives me 10^42 "single" electrons. This number
is a million (10^6) multiplied by itself seven times -- a one with 42=6x7
zeros behind it. Do you know how large this number is? Well, a tiny pea
has more "single" electrons in it than all the humans which ever have
lived since the dawn of humankind. Compare a pea to mother earth to get a
notion of how large this number is.
I use the adjective "single" to mean that the electron is the tiniest
fundamental particle (not subatomic particle) which can persist as one on
its own. There are other fundamental particles too.
All these "single" electrons are identical. Despite this identity, they
are fermions. It means that not even two in this great number of them will
ever become one. It is impossible to fix them in the same box. There is no
difference between them and yet they already manifest this "singularity of
complexity" as fermions. They are the result of the one-to-many-mapping
during the Big Bang. When a "single" electron (pro-matter) does become one
with its exact mirror image called a positron (anti-matter), they both get
nihilated as beings so as to become light (gamma ray). The force which
nihilate both of them is the stongest known. How strong? A pea consisting
of "purely antimatter" can do the same as a nuclear bomb.
These "single" electrons are so tiny that we cannot ever hope to see one
of them alone. Yet together as LOs we continuously see them. They are
responsible through their quantum jumps for all the colour we see around
us. The largest possible LO of them is when we look at the shiny surface
of a metal. And when we look at such a large LO, they tell us "You cannot
see us directly since you are looking at yourself.". Thus they teach us
that our mirrors in which we can see ourselves spiritually, are not the
phsyical mirrors which we can buy at a shop, but our priceless LOs which
has to emerge.
Apart from "single" electrons, we can also get what perhaps may be called
"complexified" electrons. When a neutron decomposes, it forms a proton, a
"single" electron, a neutrino and a gamma ray. Thus we may think of a
"complexified" electron as one which exists within a neutron. When a
nuclear bomb explodes with its immense force, it happens because of
unstable neutrons "exploding" into these four particles. It means that the
force keeping a "single" electron outside a nucleus as a "complexified"
electron within a neutron is very strong.
Whereas the electron is a fundamental particle, the neutron consists of
fundamental particles. The electron, proton and neutron have roughly the
same size. They are also the three "subatomic" particles from which all
atoms are composed. The heavy protons and neutrons are found in the
nucleus while the lightweight "single" electrons move far away from the
nucleus around it. The nucleus is responsible for the mass of the atom
while the "single" electrons are respoinsible for its volume. The volume
of nucleus to the volume of its atom is like comparing a the sizes of a
pea with a super oil-tanker. The force keeping a "single" electron within
the atom is far less than the force keeping a "complexified" electron in
the neutron. But it is still a quite strong force because as ordinary
chemical explosives such as dynamite can illustrate.
A "single" electron within an atom, revolving far away from the nucleus
around that very nucleus, is now again "complexified", but different to
that of in the tiny neutron itself. To distinguish between the two, we
might speak of then as a "neutron complexified" electron or an "atom
complexified" electron. Nuclear scientists work mainly with "neutron
complexified" electrons while chemists work mainly with "atom
complexified" electrons.
In a neutral atom there are as many electrons as there are protons. The
number of protons in the nucleus determine the kind of atom it is, i.e.
what element the atom forms collectively. But the number of neutrons in a
nucleus have a different function. They have to increase faster than the
number of protons to keep the nucleus stable. Thus there are roughly 50%
more "neutron complexified" electrons than "atom complexified" electrons
in Mother Earth. Now think of the atom which is also more complex than any
of its three subatomic particles. Whereas we find only three kinds of
subatomic paticles, we find slightly over a hundred different kinds of
atoms (elements). There are roughly thirty times less atoms in Mother
Earth than "atom complexified" electrons.
The numbers of atoms of each element in Mother Earth is not the same. As
the atom becomes more complex along the sequence of elements, the number
of atoms (i.e the abundance) of the element become less. The element
hydrogen (one proton in the nucleus) has the simplest atom whereas lead
(82 protons) has the most complex atom of the stable elements. Hydrogen is
far more abundant than lead. An even more complex atom like that of
uranium is not stable anymore while it is even less abundant than lead.
Nuclear forces play no role any more when elements combine to from
chemical compounds. It is now the weaker chemical forces which play the
leading role. Whereas there are slightly over a hundred of different kinds
of atoms, there are a couple of hundred thousand of compounds (excluding
those which contain the element carbon). The two most abundant compounds
in the outer layer of the geopshere are water (H2O) and quarts (SiO2) as
the sea (for H2O) and sand (for SiO2) tell us. A water molecule (H2O) is
complexer than an atom because it consists of two hydrogen (H2) and one
oxygen (O) atoms. Should we compare the number of water molecules to the
number of all atoms of all kinds in Mother Earth, we again compare a pea
to a super oil-tanker.
Carbon is a fantastic element for the harmony it affords in many of its
properties. Thus, when we have to bring in the number of different
compounds which contain carbon, we now get a couple of million among them.
As these carbon compounds become complex, a lesser number of molecules of
such a compound occur. The most abundant of all carbon containing
compounds are the inorganic carbobates like limestone (CaCO3). The most
common organic compound containing carbon is cellulose, a polymere
(sequence) of glucose (C6H11O5) molecules. Should we compare the abundance
of cellulose to the abundance of inorganic carbonates in Mother Earth, we
again compare a pea to a super oil-tanker. The most complex carbon
containing compound is DNA. Yet when we compare the number of DNA
molecules in Mother Earth to the number of glucose units in her, the same
pea to super oil-tanker comparison is fitting here.
The force which keeps two atoms bonded together is obtained by sharing two
electrons in a bond. There are two such bonds in a water molecule,
indicated by H--O--H (or H2O) for short. That evil smelling compound
H--S--H when eggs rot is a gas. Water should also be a gas, were it not
for hydrogens bonded to the oxygen O rather than to sulphur S. When a
hydrogen atom becomes bonded to any of only the three elements N
(nitrogen), O (oxygen) or fluorine (F), the NOF kind of atom pulls the
bonding electron pair so strongly to itself that the hydrogen experiences
too little a visit of the binding electrons on its side opposite to the
NOF atom. So it will tend to seek consolation by brushing with electrons
of a NOF atom in another molecule with a NOF atom. Hence a force ten times
weaker than chemical forces emerge, called "hydrogen bonding".
It is these weak forces which pull H2O molecules together into a liquid
called water. It is these forces which we break when we boil water. It is
these forces which keeps the sea a liquid. It is these forces which gives
snow crystals (H2O) their innumerous fractal patterns. Such diversity in
form is impossible in the case of H2S when it crystalises at a much lower
temperature.
But it is also these weak forces which also keep the two strands in the
DNA molecule together, even though each strand itself is made up by
chemical forces ten times as strong! The DNA molecule should actually be
a long, linear molecule with a toothed shape like that of a saw. However,
it is curled up into a helix and the helix itself is further curled up in
coils, etcetera so that the DNA molecule reduces its length, but not its
information -- non-linearity par excellence giving us that chunky little
thing called a chromosome. How? By chemical force? No -- they keep a
strand intact! By the weaker H-NOF force? No -- they keep the two strands
together! It is a force even tens of times weaker than the H-NOF force. It
is called the London force to honour the person who discovered its
existence theoretically by means of quantum mechanics.
Telling someone who is not interested in theory how London forces work, is
a dreadful experience. But were it not for these London forces, the DNA
would not have curled up into a chuncky chromosome. We can now even see
these chromosomes under a powerful microsope. They have to be small to fit
into the nucleus of a cell. The nucleus itself has to be small to fit into
the tiny cell ! Thus there is good sense in these very weak London forces.
Imagine stretching the chunky DNA into a straight, saw toothed, ladder. It
will pierce through thousands of cells.
In some cells the DNA molecules are not fitted into a nucleus as
chromosomes. These DNA molecules simply drift around in the cell. Such
cells are called prokaryotic cells. Even in them the DNA molecules
themselves are already very complex, but by far not as complex as DNA
molecules of cells with a nucleus. How many different kinds (species) of
prokaryotic cells are there? Some tens of millions. Let us get a notion of
the population (abundance or number of specimens) of a prokaryotic species
in Mother Earth. On the lower hand, comparing their number to that of the
number of much simpler water molecules in a table spoon filled with water
is like comparing a pea to a super oil-tanker. In other words, the more
complex, the less the number. Below the upper hand, they are still so tiny
and plentiful that there are more prokaryotic cells living in the
intestines of one human than all the humans which have lived since the
dawn of humankind!
Prokaryotic cells cannot form multicellular organisms like the more
complex eukaryotic cells with a well defined nucleus. The eukaryotic cells
have roughly ten times less of species. Most of them are unicellular
species. Roughly a tenth of them are multicellur species, capable of
growing to sizes of which some we can see with the naked eye! When all
eukaryotic cells have to divide (mitosis) into two daughter cells, the
nucleus with its chromosomes have to be duplicated too. When the nucleus
eventaully split, its is done by mircroscopic strands which exert a netto
force even weaker than the netto force which curls up the DNA into a
chromosome. Water molecules at 65C (not too hot to put the hand in for a
minute or so) have sufficient energy to overcome these nucleus division
forces. That is why sterilisation begins to happen at 65C.
Even locusts have billions of prokaryots in their guts. How much
intelligence is there in a locust? It just eats, crawl, fly and multiply.
But when we get to more complex species like a fish or a rat, we can
definitely observe "animal intelligence" by using our one intelligence as
Mental Model. How many locusts are there in a swarm covering a square
mile? Far more than all the rats in desert or the fish in a large lake. In
other words, again as we move further up in the ladder of complexity of
the species, the less their numbers become and the greater role their
intelligence as the weakest of all forces begin to play. By the time we
get to whales and elephants, we reach the red data species list of CITES.
They are sighly socialised animals as a result of their intelligence. When
we get to the three primates (gorilla, shimpanzee, oerang-oetang), we fear
to count them since the last time it was possible to so because of some
deadly affairs of humans in the mean time.
The weakest kind of force is the human intelligence. It is so weak that
when all of it works, it merely causes a flicker in the eye. It is so weak
that with a few words we can destroy much of it. St James once wrote that
the few words which may destroy it is like igniting a world if inequity.
Despite this weakness, just like the stronger London forces which let the
DNA curl up into a chunky chromosome, humans use these very weak forces of
human intelligence to buch humans up into a dazzling diversity of
organisations. Look around you and me. What has not been accomplished by
humans in organisations rather than single handed? Whether we want to know
it not, we are by way of our intelligence not anymore "single" electrons,
but rather like the "neutron complexified" electrons in the nucleus of the
atom and the "atom complexified" electrons in the outskirts of the atom.
We are "complexified" by all our organisations. As these organisations
grow in complexity, they can create unstable conditions. It is the same as
when atomic nuclei grow beyond the number 82. It is the same when atoms
belong to the highly reactive chemical groups like the alkali metals (like
sodium Na) or the halogens (like chlorine Cl). The predominant salt NaCl
in the sea bears witness to this high reactivity as our tears witness it
too. Our crying do not bring pure sodium Na and pure chlorine Cl forth,
but NaCl -- ordinary salt which is the "strange attractor" for Na and Cl.
The patterns in "singularity of complexity", namely
* the inner complexity of the entities in a level increases
* the number of complex entities in a level decreases
* the weaker forces play more decisive roles
holds until we get to the species Homo sapiens. Suddenly, all
the fitting is gone! Whereas the primates are most rare, humans
are most abundant, so much so that over population, famine
and war are at the order of the day! Of the almost a billion of
different "deep species" ("deep" means incorporating even
lifeless species like chemical compounds and the elements)
which follow this pattern, only one species do not conform it.
This one out of a billion of "deep species" actually contradicts
this pattern in almost every possible manner. Why? Why???
Please forgive the negativity which now follows and try self to overcome
it. I firmly believe that it is because far too many humans use the
weakest force known -- intelligence, the flicker in the eye -- for
destructive rather than constructive creativity. What they do accomplish,
is nothing else than reversing the path of "uniqueness of evolution". That
path should have culminated in the priceless "uniqueness of personality"
-- only one of such complexity -- the "singularity of complexity". But it
seems as if many humans just cannot live together with others which have
evolved into this "singularity of complexity". Many unique personalities
have been murdered so as to destroy this very "singularity of complexity".
The oldest record seems to be that of Abel, the son of Adam and Eve. But
the most profound record ever to me personlly is that of Jesus of
Nazareth. Humankind has now reached the age in which it is recording one
by one the murdering of other "peep species" too.
As I understand it self, what actually happens is that the evolution of
the personality of person gets retarded by the very "personality
environment" of that person. This "personality environment" is nothing
else than all the "human organisations" with which that person interacts
all through life. This can also be described as the interaction between
the "dassein" (it is) and the "mitsein" (we are) of every human. This
interaction has become distorted into the dialectical clash between
individualism and socialsim or between individualism and communism. To
reverse the retardation so that the personality of every person can indeed
manifest this "singularity of complexity", a modification has to be made
primarily in the "personality environment" and NOT in the retarded
personality itself. We will not understand this NOT unless we understand
irreversibility -- the arrow of time.
What kind of modification? The "personality environment" must exhibit
more this "singularity of complexity". It means that more in number and in
kind of the human organisations must evolve from the common into this
"singularity of complexity". It means that more organisations in number
and kind must become Learning Organisations. I use the word "must" here in
the sense that we have to carefully consider all other possibilities and
then indeed make a decision -- a primary directive -- in other words, a
mission.
As we nurture this "singularity of complexity" in personalties and
organisations, the birth rate of humankind will begin to decline. People
will spontaneously begin to create spiritually rather than physically,
beginning with the genitals. It will not happen over night, but will take
several generations. It has already begun in some so-called "first world"
countries. But like the trail of ever decreasing forces from the very
strong nuclear forces to the very weak human intelligence forces, we must
begin with those humans in greatest need of this "singularity of
complexity". Rather than making them slaves by our own "singularity of
complexity", we make them free by their own "singularity of complexity" --
not by trying to control them, but by controlling ourselves.
I believe that we will have contemplate seriously on this list what
"personality environment" we have in mind for this list. Is this list
primarily for consultants who have to sell their expertise to the
corporate market? As for myself, I see this list for any person who wants
to assist "any kind of person" to become a unique personality (Learning
Individual) and any kind of organisation to become a unique Learning
Organsation. I am not going to use one one label to describe "any kind of
person". What I mean by that label is that each person is welcome to this
list because that person is a human. But I also want to qualify that label
-- kids are humans too. Thus even they are welcome on this list.
As for the kinds of organisations, I think from families to nations, from
maternity clinics to funeral undertakes, from from asyllums to research
institues, from kindergartens to universities, from farmer cooperations to
shopper associations, from tool manufacturers to religious societies, from
hospitals to sports clubs, from the few to the many and from the weak to
the strong. This is the complexity which need to be served and which I
have in mind in whatever I have written up to now. I know that this
complexity is stunning, but the sooner we face up to it, the sooner we
will know what to do.
Once again and for the last time in this contribution, what role will the
seven essentialities play? I often wrote that it is possible to divide
each into smaller essentials and also to group them in greater essentials.
When we group six of them with the remaining one, say wholeness, we get
what I may call "deep wholeness". When we group the remaining six with
liveness, we will get "deep liveness". This "deep liveness" is nothing
else than "singulairty of complexity" to me.
I have indulged into many words and hammered the talking drum. I beg your
forgiveness. It might seem as if I acted "first say, then do". But
actually we have been doing quite a lot in this list (in the very
LO-dialogue) and then following it up at certain times with saying on that
LO-dialogue (like in LO24759). Perhaps we should bear in mind that the
dialogue is just one of five elementary sustainers of creativity. Perhaps
we should become wise to the fact that not all talking is theory, but that
some talking is practice too. Perhaps we should learn how to discern the
other four sustainers too, without pulling them into the LO-dialogue by
their hair -- oops, names -- like problem-solving, exenplar-studying,
game-playing and art-expressing ;-)
Let us keep up the doing so that one day we might speak as if we were
there as parents at the conception, birth and growth of the first ever LO
in cyberspace.
By the way, I will not be running away, but I do have a lot of other
things to do other than hammering the talking drum ;-)
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.