Replying to LO24751 --
Dear Organlearners,
I have to reply to myself
"AM de Lange" <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za>
not because I am speaking to myself (which often happens ;-),
but because a new development has taken place with important
ramifications for our knowledge on LOs.
Please click in the archives on past messages on this topic to see how it
began and evolved. [ http://www.learning-org.com ..host]
I wrote:
>The only way the autheticity of a life story -- a "CRF" could be
>established, is by someone else saying -- "Yes, I remember,
>I was with him/her when it happened". This tells me one of the
>deepest roles a LO has to play -- establishing the authenticity
>of a member's learning.
Authenticity is indeed becoming a central issue in the Helderberg drama. A
certain person NW got a "copy of the original" CFR (Cockpit Flight
Recording) and took it personally to the USA to be re-examined by an
expert there with newer technology. (I am not yet sure how NW got this
"copy of the original" CFR.) Much more dialogue has been "uncovered" than
with the official investigation into the Helderberg disaster. It now seems
that the Helderberg, a PASSENGER air liner, was also transporting a "Boy
George" -- perhaps a BOMB?
The CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) is now demanding this very "copy of the
orginal" CFR rather than merely a certified copy of the "copy of the
orginal" CFR. They say they need it to make sure that the "copy of the
orginal" CFR and the "original" CFR are identical. But this will leave NW
without his original "copy of the original" CFR on which the much more
uncovered dialogue is based. Will a copy, even certified, of the "copy of
the orginal" CFR do as being sufficiently authentic? Bear in mind that NW
now suspects anything, even a gigantic cover-up on the Helderberg
disaster.
So NW has responded with an offer to the CAA. Send us another, but now
certified, "copy of the original" CFR. NW and his USA expert will compare
this "certified copy of the original" with their own "copy of the
original". If they happen to be identical, NW will hand over in exchange
for this "certified copy of the original" their original "copy of the
original". But the CAA does not want to make this deal and they do not
want to substantiate it with reasons. Perhaps they might get back only a
copy of the "certified copy of the original". Perhaps they do not have the
"original" CFR any more -- it may have got lost or it may have been
tampered with too.
Rick commented as follows on the Reply LO24726 of Phillip Capper
<phillip.capper@webresearch.co.nz>
>[Host's Note: And... What can we draw from this for organizations
>and team other that airline flight crews? In the US, the NASA
>Safety Reporting System is a feedback of incident data to support
>learning. ..Rick]
Rick, it tells me that when two parties A and B want to establish the
facts (and not the truth which is more than merely facts), they will not
be able to do so when the two parties suspect each other of foul play. In
other words, facts play no role in establishing the truth when the mind is
negatively tuned. Third parties C may suggest solutions to overcome this
dilemma, but if parties A and B persist with a negative mental tuning,
such offers will lead lead to nothing. In a LO itself the Systems Thinking
have to be such that it allows for parties A and B as well as third
parties C to come together and establish the truth.
I will be deliberately silent on what this Systems Thinking has to involve
so as to give fellow "organ"learners the opportunity to participate in
this topic of the LO-dialogue.
Rick, it also tells me much "deeper" things. For example, one of the
functions of the "LO-archive" is to establish the authenticity of the
evolution of this list. In other words, your LO-archive is the CFR of our
learning as indivduals and as organisation on this list. This authenticity
of this LO-archive is in my mind just as valuable as the Mona Lisa of Da
Vinci -- it is priceless!!!
What will happen to the LO-archive when you are not there anymore to take
care of it? Dear "organ"learners, does this question bother you too?
In "hard core science" theories are created from facts and
then pruned continually by additional facts. Thus "hard core
science" has a very important "primary directive" to ensure the
authenticity of these facts. These facts had to be uncovered
by experiment which
* had to be repeated by the experimenter self, and
* which could be repeated by any other experimenter.
(Do not smile, but this primary directive is not always followed
in practice ;-)
This "primary directive" has a logical undertone. Dear
"organ"learners, skip this paragraph should symbols intimidate
you. The notation in symbolic logic for this "primary directive" is
F /\ F => F
where the composite symbol "/ \" means "and" and the composite
symbol "= >" means "imply". Thus this symbolic expression says
proposition F and proposition F implies proposition F
Should the proposition F be a F(act), the expression
F /\ F => F
is true. Strangely enough, should the proposition F be a F(arce),
the expression
F /\ F => F
is also true!!! This symbolic expression can be derived as a
theorem in terms of LEM (Law of Excluded Middle) by viewing
"imply" (=>) as a complex expression based on LEM, namely
P => Q == n(P /\ (nQ))
where the symbol "n" means "not" and the composite symbol
== means "corresponds". I will not let you suffer by supplying
such a proof.
The previous paragraph tells us that "hard core science" relies on the LEM
of logic through its "primary directive" for "authenctic facts". I wonder
how many "organ"learners realise that it excludes all facts which are
manifested only once. I wonder how many "organ"learners realise that it
excludes all "experiments" of which each the outcome is a "singularity of
complexity". I wonder how many "organ"learners realise that it excludes
all "personal experiences" as "hard core experiments". I wonder how many
"organ"learners have become how I have weaved the facts of "personal
experiences" and the facts of "hard core experiments" into one whole in
the series on the topic "To become or not to become".
I wonder how many "organ"learners realise that should experiences be
essential to the formation of learning personalities (LP) and learning
organisations (LO), that it excludes also LPs and LOs!!! Conversely,
seeking for practical recipes (procedures which can be repeated as many
times as needed) for getting a LP or a LO are excluded from practicing a
LP or LO. (This reminds me very much of premarital sex and the ethical
dilemma it causes for some teenagers when their peers claim the recipe
that teenagers have to practice sex before marriage to make sure that sex
in marriage will be authentic.)
I wonder how many "organ"learners realise that it excludes all works of
"authentic art". (The artists among you, please forgive me for the the
oxymoron in "authentic art" ;-) As I understand it, there are basically
two ways in which we can view the interaction between "hard core science"
and "authentic art". The one way is to see them as dialectical opposites
competing with each other until the winner takes it all. The other way is
to see them as complementary duals which both have a role to play whenever
wholeness and healing is at stake.
Now think of the LO-archive -- the CFR of our LO-dialogue. Does it provide
facts for "hard core science" or is it "authentic art" -- a whole of facts
which will never repeat itself anywhere else again? Some "organ"learners
wrote that they want to leave the LO-dialogue because it is losing its
authenticity while others wrote that they want to contribute more because
it is gaining in authenticity.
Dear "organ"learners, should we apply LEM to the previous paragraph to
find out who is right and who is wrong, we are in for deep trouble. Why?
Because at a certain level of complexification, LEM has to disappear! In
other words, should we invoke LEM, then we bring a pre-mature, impermeable
barrier to the evolution of an organisation into a LO.
Here is a question which we may contemplate as a LO.
Does a permeable boundary also require LEM to operate like an impermeable
barrier?
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.