Replying to LO24848 --
Dear Organlearners.
Lana Choi <ecospirit@mail.com> writes:
>More emotive or feeling people may be intimidated by the abstract,
>logical, hyper-intellectual, Socratic-style discourse (Sajeela's apt
>description), and thus, feel indirectly silenced. Other imbalances
>may be introverts vs. extroverts, etc. Emotions usually take
>longer to gestate and express clearly; they are more likely to
>speak to one's wisdom and sense of humanity, as opposed to
>measurable outcomes and practical agendas. Is this any less
>valuable? Hmm, I wonder how deeply people want their learning
>organizations to transform and keep learning?
Greetings Lana,
Thank you for this deep contemplation. What you have done, is to put this
"versus" (vs.) right in in the centre of our focus on LEARNING (the verb
and not the noun).
Dear fellow learners, if you continue beyond this point, you will read
some complex stuff which you will read nowhere else. I will pull out more
stops than usual in playing the organ of complexity. So, the [complex] in
the topic says:-- please hit the ESC key should you want a simple
contribution.
Lana, here is my own answer to your last question in the quote.
As for myself, it took me a very long time to understand that ALMOST ALL,
IF NOT ALL, humans "want to learn authentically". I write "want to learn
authentically" in quotation marks because many do not want to learn
authentically because their very "want" has been diminished into almost
nothing. To explain it, think of sitting in the wild at a fire which has
burnt out almost completely. What is left is a heap of ashes which cannot
burn again. One can throw as much wood on that heap of ashes, but it will
not catch fire again. What one has to do, is to first blow all the ashes
away which is a messy job. Eventually a very small piece of still burning
ember is revealed. It glows because of the blowing, otherwise one would
not have even seen it. Only then can one add the wood, at first tiny bit
by tiny bit. As the fire grows, wood can be added faster until it becomes
a bonfire again.
Perhaps the most serious diminisher of this "want" is all the fields
(tensions) which can be expressed by using that little word "versus" of
yours. Some other words which can be used together with this "versus" are
cacaphony, competition, contest, dialecticism, dissatisfaction, emulation,
opposition, rivalry and even war. The little word "versus" points to
applying LEM (Law of Excluded Middle) where it actually should not have
been applied nor have been kept up.
I can describe this "want" by the concept "free energy" F. In order to
learn authentically, there must be sufficient "free energy" F to sustain
the learning. (Metaphor -- there must be enough wood in the spiritual fire
to keep us warm so as to sustain changes) As the learning proceeds, the
"free energy" F decreases. (Metaphor -- the wood in the fire becomes less
as it drives changes.) Thus the "free energy" F has to be replenished at
certain stages by creative collapses. (Metaphor -- new wood has to be
added timely into the fire.) Should the "free energy" F become too low, it
cannot be diminished any further so that its actual diminishing by
learning cannot continue any more. (Metaphor -- with no wood in the
spiritual fire no more changes are possible because coldness has set in.)
The little word "versus" is a serious dissipator of "free energy" F. It
does this by using unnecessary the "free energy" to keep up and perhaps
even amplify this exclusive difference in the "versus". (Metaphor -- the
"versus" makes a second fire in the spirit which causes the pile of wood
to become empty sooner.) It stems from the "belief" that without this
"versus" there can be little, if any, authentic learning possible.
(Metaphor -- this "belief" makes the "versus" the principal user of wood
even though that fire may not sustain the changes which keep us warm. Its
like making a fire high on a pinnacle rock which can house only the fire
and not also the person sitting next to it.) This "belief" can be modified
by the knowledge that the "versus" is but one of many possible entropic
forces possible AND that whenever any entropic force (even the "versus")
together with its entropic flux produces entropy, both will become
diminished. (Metaphor -- many fires can be made of which some can warm us
and a few perhaps even burn us. However, each fire uses up wood when
burning.)
The description in the previous two paragraphs made use of the seemingly
"mystic" concepts "free energy", "entropy production" and "force-flux
pairs". These concepts help me to fathom a certain complexity of authentic
learning in a fashion which I can describe as the "law of requisite
complexity". Perhaps it is also possible to fathom that complexity in
authentic learning without involving their own complexity, but I have not
yet found a way to do so, other tha referring indirectly to them by
metaphors.
By now making use of what I have learned from the complex
description in those two paragraphs, I can summarise it all
neatly without making use of these three "mystic" concepts.
The results is as follows
When any person "wants to learn authentically"
AND "wants to keep up some definite versus",
that person will eventually cease to learn authentically.
Perhaps this claim will seem to be utterly irrational to some
of you fellow learners, profoundly rational to some others and
extraordinarily confusing to the rest ;-) So allow me to reformulate
this statement once again by using concepts in the context of
the Fifth Discipline rather than using the word "authentic".
Both Personal Mastery and Team Learning entail even
the mastery of the "versus" rather than conforming to it.
In other words, in any Learning Organisation, all its members
ought to take extreme caution when dealing with any "versus".
Strangely as it may sound, I myself believe firmly that when this "versus"
actually has lead to boycotts or expulsions done by me or agreed to by me,
I have overstepped that caution.
Lana, you also quote:
>"To administer a social organization according to purely
>technical criteria of rationality is irrational, because it
>ignores the nonrational aspects of social conduct."
>- Peter M. Blau (1956)
Two things strike me in this quote.
Obviously, Blau warns against conforming to the "rational" versus
"irrational". In other words, he questions the free use of "versus" in
social conduct.
Should we become one with some of the few pristine regions in nature left
over, we may perhaps discover that nature itself maintains no definite
"versus" in it. I have discovered it in my desert wanderings. The "versus"
is not principal to matter. The "versus" is something which manifest
itself in human culture since it orginates in the mind of individuals, not
matter. The worst source of that "versus" for me is my own mind.
The second thing which strikes me is the "ignore". Ignorance is not
something which is fixed forever. It is something which can be changed. It
can be increased by rote learning and it can be decreased by authentic
learning. It means, among other things, that an explanation which may
appear presently to humankind as utterly irrational, may very well appear
to be profoundly rational to humankind a few centuries in future.
Eventhough "profoundly rational", it still has to be experienced to
surface through the irrationality. Now for some strange question. When I
imitate or align myself with the authentic learning of someone else so as
to extend my own experiences and thus break through the irrationality, is
it still rote learning?
Lana, you also write:
>However, it is an opportunity for us to learn more collaboratively,
>adapt, and find ways to create space for ALL to speak AND
>truly listen, and thus, reach greater wholeness.
This sentence for me has "deep truth" to it. By that I mean that as I dig
deeper in each level of complexity in it, I discover a new facet of truth.
Should I refomulate what you have said in terms of complexity, I will do
it as follows. For the "reach greater wholeness" I can use any of the
concepts "evolution", "autopoiesis", "complex adaptation" or "irreversible
self-organisation". Each concept gives its own flavour to something which
I prefer to articulate as "deep creativity". In other words, to "reach
greater wholeness" is for me nothing else than evolution in wholeness, one
of the seven patterns of the FORM of "deep creativity".
For the "speak AND listen" I will use the concept "commutation"
on which I have written something to our LO-dialogue several years
ago. Since merely two learners took some interest in it, I have
decided to "put it in the freezer". The concept "commutation" is
actually simple to describe.
Commutation is the interactive sharing of at least one
lesser complex entity by at least one greater complex
entity in at least one exchange.
I know that it will seem to be utterly irrational to most other fellow
learners. For example, two can share something, but how can only one share
something? Again the culprit for most of the confusion is LEM? Does a
proton (more complex) not share an electron (less complex) in a simple
hydrogen atom? Does a single parent (more complex) not share a single
child (less complex) in a family? Does a single Creator (more complex) not
share a single Creation in one reality?
The clue is to understand what the "at least" mean. The "at least one"
means that we cannot go to less than one. In other words, the lower limit
is one, the holon. The "at least one" means that "two", "many" and even
"all" are allowed too. In other words, the only exception is "nothing".
Hence we do employ LEM here, but in a very definite, even though curious,
way to exclude only the "nothing". Bear in mind that any part of a whole
which is not a whole self is virtually "nothing".
Each of us fellow learners is a "more complex entity" and each of our
contributions is a "less complex entity". Thus the LO-dialogue is a
profound example of a commutation. Please do not confuse commutation with
communication. Communication (like community and even communion) requires
commutation as the background/context so as to function.
I am now going to make a very simple statement. It will consist
of only three words:
Evolution requires commutation
Dear Lana, as for me, I can summarise your whole contribution
(LO24848) as well as the whole of this reply of mine to you
by the statement:
Evolution requires commutation
For example, see how much the next quote of your contribution points out
this three word statement. The key word in it to connect with commutation
is the word "share":
>How do we find balances that allow wise beings of all kinds
>(silent, loquacious, and otherwise) to come forth? Do people
>feel safe enough to share on here, and are there opportunities
>for people to plug in according to their personal strengths,
>wishes, or learning styles? I find this topic area to be quite
>interesting. How may we find ways of gradually and 'virtually'
>reaching that balance of collective wisdom, which grows
>stronger and is much more satisfying when there are more
>people actively involved in the process, and when there is
>extreme diversity among us?
Suspending commutation (sharing) is deadly to evolution.
Lana, is your next pleading
>After a bit of a shake-up such as we've just experienced here
>on LO (a "creation with death" perhaps, as Jon describes),
>often we rush in to re-establish order and structure again,
>re-define comfort zones and familiar territory. Some of this
>is useful--we are re-finding common ground--but I feel it's also
>important to remain open and flexible and even confused, as
>well.
not actually a pleading for the "at least one" in commutation to evolve
into "more than one" -- an evolution in wholeness? Think of the four
words "all", "some", "one" and "none". The LO-dialogue is for the "all".
There are many ways in which each "one" may commute in it. It includes a
"lurker" who writes nothing, but read at least one contribution and thus
do commute. It even includes the "critic" who describes the kinds of
contributions which the critic does not like because he/she had to commute
with at least one of the non-liked to be able to describe them.
Andrew Campbell has been particularly struck by the phrase
one-to-many-mapping. Andrew, is Lana not pleading here a
one-to-many-mapping?
Windfried Dressler has been particularly struck by the "pixel model" of
entropy which I describe to him long ago in our LO-dialogue. This model
requires "commutation" for its calculations. Winfried, is Lana not
pleading here an increase in entropy?
Lana, your contribution has shown me once again that all humans are
sincere rather than clever so long as they want to remain on the path of
constructive creativity. Thank you for your sincerity.
As for me, how can I ever conform to any "versus"? As soon as I see this
"versus" lift its head whatever its disguise, my spirit becomes troubled.
Why? It has to be within me to be able to see it and it has to be within
me so as to choose for it or against it. Only in my choices made within
myself can I conform to this versus. Will I conform to it when wholeness
is at stake in such a manner that the "versus" leads to less wholeness?
No.
Why not? The "versus" is in the content and not the form. The "versus" is
the "wood AND air" which will create the fire when ignited. Liveness is to
get up and search wood for fire. Wholeness is needed to bring wood and air
together. Sureness is knowing the difference between wood and ash.
Fruitfulness is to ignite the wood and air. Spareness is the amount of
wood limiting the fire. Otherness is using grass or even dung for for
fire. Openness is to let the heat given off by the fire warm us up.
What is a LO-dialogue without fire in its content?
What is a LO-dialogue without wholeness in its form?
Its a discourse which does not sustain our creativity
and thus our learning.
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.