Replying to LO24950 --
Dear Organlearners,
Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com> writes:
>I tend to treat Personal Mastery as a goal, sometimes as
>an objective. In the belief that I have attained a goal, I assume
>and conclude that I have something to say, at least to people
>whom I perceive have not reached the same goal.
Greetings Bill,
I can view Personal Mastery (PM) from complex concepts such as evolution,
complexification, autopoiesis and irrverersible self- rganisation. I would
take all of them together as the "person's art of deep creativity".
There is something which makes all these viewpoints applicable to PM. It
is the PROPELLING CHANGE of the person's "internal organisation" as time
goes by from the past through the present to the future. (Latin:
"pro"=forward, "pello"=drive.)
In my mother tongue Afrikaans we will use the word "voortstuwend" which
has a far more poweful meaning for me than the word "propel". Here the
"voort"=forward and "stuwend"=flaunting-pushing-surging. The root word in
"stuwend" is "stu". This root occurs already in ancient Indo-Germanic
languages with a similar meaning. For example, in Sanskrit it is the word
"stupe"=piling-heaping. Later in Latin we have "stupeo"=astonishing as
well as "studeo"=studying. Even the very old German word "Stunde"=hour
seems to indicate this "unit which pushes time". In Old English (Saxon)
the verb "stunt" had two meanings -- to excell in performance and (thus
perhaps) to dwarf. I find it fantastic that the youngest fully fledge
language (Afrikaans) in the world so clearly retains and exhibits this
ancient root "stu". It is, for example, difficult to translate into
English the powerful feeling of a sentence like "Onrus in my stu". The
English equivalent "Unrest in me surge" feels too flat.
In other words, I can say that for me the "stu" is essential to PM. This
"stu" may be viewed in terms of content and form. In terms of its content
the "stu" may described in terms of "free energy" F. The higher the "free
energy" F and thus the more the "free energy" used up for "entropy
production" during the change, the greater the "stu"!! If people seems to
have too little "stu", it MIGHT be that they have too little "free energy
F". Thus they need to recharge their "free energy" F.
I capitalise the MIGHT because there is also another profound possibility.
They may have a high level of "free energy" F to "stu" the change, but
they are prevented by an even higher "barrier or wall" of "free energy"
between them and the actual change. This barrier can be overcome in two
ways. The one way is by storming, i.e. to step up the the chaos in the
environment by "entropy production" so that the person self also
experience a greater diversity of becoming through interaction with the
environment. This way is dangerous because it can lead to destructive
immergences rather than constructive emergences. The other way is by
catalysing, i.e to lower the "barrier" of "free energy" so that the
person need less chaos (diversity of becoming) to cross over the
"barrier:. This way requires intelligent midwifery since catalysts are
usually complex in organisation. Hence they require a complex preparation
(synthesis).
Here is a metaphor. Picture yourself having to move through a narrow gorge
in a mountain range. The path In the gorge is barred by an impenetrable
thicket. There are two ways to cross that thicket. The first way -- chaos
-- is to jump high enough so as to jump freely over it.The second way --
catalysis -- is to lay something heavy enough over the thicket so to press
it down somewhat and thus walk over it, afterwards removing the bridge.
No, there are three ways ;-) The third way is trying to push your way
through that thicket despite all the hurt and damage it causes to you or
the thicket!!!
When we want view the "stu" in terms of form rather than content, we need
suitable vehicles for expressing the form. The oldest know vehicle is the
command (imperative sentence) rather than the statement or question. In
this sense "objectives", "goals" and the "mission" are all commands. The
"objective" is minor complex, the "goal" is medium complex and the
"mission" is major complex. Bearing in mind that the more complex a
system, the longer its creation time, the objective requires the shortest
time to master while the mission takes the longest time to master, often
longer than that person's lifetime. Ideally the "objective" should contain
only one "node of complexity" -- more than one concept converging into one
complex node (knot) before they diverge into more than one other concepts.
The goal itself is then more than one objective converging into a
double-deeper complex node before they diverge into more than one other
objectives. The mission is then more than one goal convering into a
triple-deepest complex node before they diverge into more than one other
goals. This triple-deepest complex node involves the whole of the person's
personality.
Perhaps the severest problem encountered when formulating objectives,
goals and the mission as commands, is that individuals may perceive these
commands as "forcing them externally to act" rather than describing
"spontaneous, autopoietic propellings" of themselves.
One solution is to employ modal logic. Compare, for example "brush your
teeth" with "you have to brush your teeth", then with "you ought to brush
your teeth" and finally with "In my honest opinion, based on scientific
findings, some people will benefit by inviting them to brush their teeth
to prevent the decay of dental enamel and the development of unacceptable
odours". The drawback is that the more the modalities which are built into
a command, the more it loses its "stu" character. However, see how clever
advertisements skip all this modal extensions by employing LEM -- "either
brush your teeth with XYZ or get tooth decay and bad breath". (LEM = Law
of Excluded Middle -- either X or Y, but neither both X and Y nor none of
X or Y.) The drawback is that adverisements fix LEM into one of the
worsest Mental Models possible.
Another solution is to give the learner sufficient excercises so as to
gain experience that imperative sentences have not only a prescriptive
power, but also a descriptive power just like declarative sentences
(statements). The idea here is to break the hold of LEM that declarative
logic and imperative logic are disjunct. Once the learner begin to
understand that a command both prescribes and describes, the learner will
begin to behave more positively towards sentences formulated as commands.
Another severe problem has to do with the nature of the "node of
complexity" which cannot be solved by using sentences as
commands or statements. Let me illustrate graphially the "node
of complexity" to pinpoint the problem.
. A X
. \ /
. \ /
. B _ _ NODE _ _ Y
. / \
. / \
. C Z
Here A, B and C (they may be two or more than three) entities which
converge into one complex node before diverging into three (two or more
than three) entities X, Y, Z of the same kind. When A, B, C, ... , X, Y, Z
are concepts, the node is an objective. When A, B, C, ... , X, Y, Z are
objectives, the node is a goal. When A, B, C, ... , X, Y, Z are goals,
the node is the mission.
The problem is now that people perceive the many-to-one-mapping from A, B,
C to the node far easier than the one-to-many-mapping from the node to X,
Y and Z. I personally think that it is one of the untold prices to be paid
for adhering to the paradigm of simplicity. The perceived
many-to-one-mapping looks like the fundamentalistic pattern of
reductionism when the one-to-many-mapping is excluded by invoking LEM.
The problem is even compounded by what we can call linear,
multivariate regression analysis. What happens in effect is the
following. All but one (say Z) of the entities on the right hand side
of the node are grouped as X, Y to the left with A, B, C while the
complex node itself is then simplified into Z. This lead to the
so-called multivariable functionalistion of A, B, C, ..., X, Y into Z,
an awesome many-to-one-mapping symbolised as
Z = f(A, B, C, ..., X, Y)
The first person to have pointed this deepening of the problem was
the geneticist Sewall Wright soon after WWI.
The problem is thus trying to reduce one-to-many-mappings into
an awesome or grand many-to-one-mappings rather than seeking
a harmonius balance between convergence and divergence. This
problem tends to cultivate an individualistic learning (individualsim)
which excludes Team Learning by way of fundamentalism. What
happens is that only those team members who accept the form
Z = f(A, B, C, ..., X, Y)
are included, but others who, for example, assume the different form
Y = f(A, B, C, ..., X, Z)
to hold because of a different Mental Model are excluded. Even
worse, those who have a Mental Model according to which they
assume an inverted form like for example,
A = f(B, C, ..., X, Y, Z)
are considered as the "enemy" with whom Team Learning is
impossible. Since they sit on the other side of the knot or node,
they are considered as dialectical opposites.
This problem can be solved by thinking of each "node of complexity" as a
piece of jig-saw puzzle and then trying to fit all the pieces together.
But unlike the wood based jig-saw puzzle in which the form of the pieces
are fixed, the form of each of the "stu" pieces can be rearrranged, but
not deminished nor increased. It means the superficial form assumed or
given has to become content so as to discover the deeper form in the
superficial.form. To discover this deeper form, the original form of each
piece has to be twisted, bended, rotated and even inverted so as to fit
each loose end of each piece together in one complex web. It is then when
the value of the seven essentialities begin to show themselves with
remarkable clarity.
I wish all of you fellow learners were chemists so that I could have shown
you exactly with "chemistry mastering" what this seemingly highly abstract
description in the prvious paragraph amounts to. What will happen is that
I will formulate a couple of hundred of learning objectives for the
mastering of chemistry. Each will be formulated in such a manner that it
can be weaved into at least one learning goal. The loose ends in some of
the objectives are then used to weave all the learning goals into one
mission without any loose ends in any objectives.
It took myself some four years of hard work to do it self with a fully
representative course in general chemistry. Today it will be called
constructing an outcome based or competency based course in chemistry. I
began with a number of preconceived goals and a preconceived mission. As I
managed to identify more and more objectives as well as fitting them
together, I became surprised how often some of the preconceived goals were
blending into one goal rather than remaining distinct as I preconceived
them. Furthermore, I became very surprised how some goals which I had not
previously conceived, emerged during this "weaving into one web". Their
emergence compelled me to go back to the literature once again and explore
whether they indeed were goals according to the insight and wisdom of some
great masters of chemistry. I always tried to find at least two such
masters stressing them to be goals of chemistry. Most curious to me was
how my own preconceived mission of the course gradually took shape, almost
like a sculpture created from a formless slab of marble.
In those four years of creating this "imperative web of chemistry" I had
to master more chemistry (and closely related subjects like physics,
mathematics, geology and biochenistry) than my previous twenty years of
chemistry. I discoved so many holes in my own understanding (taking twenty
years ;-) of chemistry that I often felt humiliated by "spinning the web".
I can thoroughly recommend this "creating the imperative web of a subject"
to any fellow learner for whatever subject. The experience which I have
gained by doing it with chemistry, has helped me immensely to explore new
subjects and master reasonable amounts of them in reasonable amounts of
time.
So Bill, thinking again about Macolm's contribution and your reply:
>As Malcolm asks his questions as part of his Hypothesis #1
>("here is something about our exchange/conversation here
>which keeps us from utilizing the methods we are only too
>ready to apply elsewhere, as consultants and practitioners.
>Question: what is it?"), I asked myself if treating Personal
>Mastery as an ideal may prompt us to be learners and
>seekers and askers of questions rather than teachers and
>purveyors and suppliers of answers.
I have to think once again about my teaching and purveying and supplying
of answers as I have done above. Why did I do it?
It is one of many ways with which I try to convince fellow learners that
we have to shift shift from the paradigm of simplicity to complexity. We
have reached the "point of no return" according to the "law of requisite
complexity".
For me myself the days are over of trying to align Personal Mastery
with the
dogmatised (constraining liveness)
biased (constraining sureness)
fragmentised (constraining wholeness)
obtunded (constraining fruitfulness)
unbrideld (constraining spareness)
neglected (constraining otherness)
linearised (constraining openness)
dealings in information. Every fellow learner's contibution in our
LO-dialogue becomes for me something which has to be fitted into our
Systems Thinking, something which I have to master sooner or later if I
have not yet mastered.it. Weaving WHAT each fellow learner has to say into
the "world-inside-me", is part of my PM as well as weaving HOW each fellow
learner say it. I have no control over WHAT and HOW they say and nor do I
want to have any control over it all.
I hope this answer you last question:
>Does this connect with your (speaking to the list at large)
>thoughts about dialogue?
For me the LO-dialogue is complex rather than simple. As soon as anyone
tries to simplify this complexity of the LO-dialogue for whatever reason,
we run into troubled waters. Strangely enough The trouble comes through
LEM once again since understanding complexity involves understanding
simplicity too, but understanding only simplicity exclude understanding
complexity. The first person who seems to have grasped this pattern, was
the quantum phsyicist Niels Bohr who called it the "correspondence
principle".
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.