Replying to LO24990 --
Dear Organlearners,
Leo Minnigh <l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl>
>And so I was rereading a contribution of At from nearly a
>year ago. It surprised me that this contribution generated
>so little reactions (only Thomas Struck and a reply of At).
>
>"Efficiency and emergence" is maybe the most important
>contribution on this list. It contains most of the clues for the
>subjects we are dealing with.
>I wonder why there were so little reactions. Was it like the
>nuclear bomb - - too much energy released to cope with?
>Was it too long to digest? Was it too complex? Was is as
>hard as diamond, not physically possible to enter, no fruitfull
>connection? Was is clear and transparent as diamond, no
>questions. Was it so reflective as diamond, making us blind?
>
>At, may I ask you your own insights in this matter: why so
>little response? And if you know, what could be a way to
>stimulate responses?
Greetings Leo,
The little response was because I sketched the relationship between
efficiency and emergence with a context in which complexity rather than
simplicity is the paradigm. I think the response in replies would have
been far more should I have done it with a background of simplicity. I am
following this strategy, despite the few replies it leads to, whenever the
topic is essential to complexity, but "veiled" by simplicity. The latest
case was the topic "singularity of complexity".
Why am I doing it? Is it not against the maxim that a teacher has to begin
at what the learner knows and then move to the unknown? Yes, I do begin
with complexity and then gradually paint the topic until it is as clear as
possible within a "bearable length" . Hence, for anyone of whom the
prevailing paradigm is simplicity, I begin at something (complexity) which
is unknown for that person. Thus I seem to act againts the maxim.
But what I actually bear in mind, are two things. The first is the "Law of
Requisite Complexity" A certain level of complexity has to be reached
before a shift (emergence) to the next level of complexity can happen.
Trying to skip with one vast emergence several levels of complexity is
fatal because of many destructive immergences as a result of the immense
"entropy production" needed to generate this vast jump. The second is the
intimidation of the Digestor in action. Truths from a much higher level
of complexity will have an immense influence on the creativity of people
still at a lower level of complexity by consuming all their free energy.
Therefore I have to begin at the paradigm of complexity involving few
fellow learners rather than the paradigm of simplicity involving the
majority of learners.
When viewed from the paradigm of simplicity, it will be as if I am
"hiding" a "complexity truth" in a "complexity context". Thus several
fellow learners have written to me in private that I am a "mystic" to
them. It makes me sad to read it, especially when their intent is good,
but it is one of the burdens of a teacher. But I do know that once the
learner has evolved to the requisite level of complexity, that "complexity
truth" will emerge of necessity so that afterwards when the learner once
again browse through what once had been a "complexity truth" which had
been "hidden" in a "complexity context", the learner suddenly recognises
with clarity that the "hidden" is obvious. I think that this is exactly
what is happening to you Leo. But let you be the judge.
Sooner or later the learner will realise that I have actually blocked the
fast rote learning of a "complexity truth" so that the learner has to
follow the slow authentic learning of it. This obviously "wastes" time,
but the gain is far more. The learner gains in all the generative adjoints
(happiness, curiosity, purposeful, etc.) of emergent learning. These
adjoints are vitally important for the learner to propel eventually self
into the highest level of complexity, namely "agape" or
"one-to-many-love".
However, let me also affirm again that I try not to lose those with the
paradigm of simplicity out of sight. Thus, in many of my writings I try to
begin at what they do know and work one little step further towards
complexity, hopefully that one day they will have evolved to the requisite
level of complexity so as to emerge into the paradigm of complexity
itself. An example is the series "To become or not too become". Even on
them, despite the small steps with which I have proceeded, the responses
were few. But for me it is far more important to set the mind of a person
in motion than the mouth or the hands at a keyboard. What I read "between
the lines" is more than enough to satisfy me.
I live in South Africa, the most southern country in Southern Africa
(south of the Sahara). In my opinion the plight of all the countries in
Southern Africa is that they have been confronted by colonialism with a
complexity several levels higher than their own. Rather than gradually
leading them up the ladder of complexity bearing in mind the "Law of
Requisite Complexity" and "Intimidation by Digestor action" as I have
argued above, they were recklessly exposed to the "clash" between
different levels of complexity. This caused many of the destructive
immergences over many years which you have been reading about in your
papers and seeing on TV reports. I am trying to avoid the same thing
happening on our dear LO-dialogue. I am trying to create an "example in
the field" by so as to give an indication how to deal anew with Southern
Africa. Perhaps my "field example" will be a gross failure, but it is
better for me to try creating it than to applaude the rigid interaction
with Southern Africa which has been with us since colonial times.
Yesterday I had to visit a fine lady, say P, who is doing a fine job. She
loves her job, but because of how her Board Of Directors (BOD) reacts,
she has decided to quite her job at the end of September. Her job is very
much involved with wholeness itself, but I will not explain why so that
she cannot be identified closer. So what the BOD requires from P, is
graphically
. F(P) -------------> wholeness
where F(P) stands for the "free energy" F of lady P. It is a
one-to-one-mapping, the one F(P) to the one thing namely "espoused
wholeness". P has to use all her "free energy" F to promote this topic
"wholeness". Should she do it, she will be considered to be highly
efficient by her BOD. But they think she is very inefficient. Why?
What P actually does, can be graphically pictured (in a highly simplified
manner using experiences of yesterday)
. --------> topic A
. /
. /
. F(P) -------------> wholeness
. \
. \
. --------> topic B
Whenever she gets through some interaction the intuitive idea that a topic
A other than the topic wholeness is somehow connected to the topic
wholeness, she will spend some of her time and "free energy" F on this
topic too. The topic A may be something like "the boy scouts seeking
connection with nature". She will then gradually direct them (by what I
call emergent learning) to an awareness of the topic of wholeness itself.
She had to suspend the dialogue yesterday between her and me two times to
interact with people according to topics A and B as depicted above. In
other words, bearing me in mind, she distributed her free energy F
according to a one-to-four mapping, the four being "wholeness", topic A,
topic B and me.
She was perhaps directing less than 25% of her "free energy" F to
articulated "wholeness" itself. In that sense she is highly inefficient.
This is exactly what her BOD observes. The conflict arises because the BOD
wants her to improve vastly on her "efficiency" by cutting out all things
which is not "espoused wholeness" itself. The fact that she does wonderful
midwifery by leading some people through topic A into emerging to
wholeness and the same through topic B and many others so that many people
emerge into becoming aware of wholeness, has for the BOD nothing to do
with "espoused wholeness". They are completely ignorant of the "innate
wholeness" which she knowingly employ to arrive at "espoused wholeness".
Shortly before having to end the dialogue, she complained to me that the
BOD was forcing her to believe that she was leading a very fragmented life
and failing utterly in appreciating what "wholeness" is about. She felt
very sad that she had decided to quit her job in order to maintain her own
spiritual health. She felt even more sad and somewhat furious that they do
not regret it because they have a highly efficient ex military man in eye
for the job who can push exactly what they will command. Only then did I
realise why she wanted the dialogue with me -- to help her to put her mind
at rest. As simple (definitely not complex) as I could, I tried to explain
this reciprocal relationship between efficiency and emergences so as to
put her mind at rest that she has made the best possible decision.
Eventually the "Mona Lisa smile" appeared on her face so that I self could
also leave in peace.
If I had to "hide" this "complexity truth" of "efficiency reciprocal to
emergence" in a "complexity context" rather than helping her emerging into
understanding this truth, I would never forgive myself. In fact, all
during our dialogue I "felt" the urge to stress that we know more than
what we can speak of and to illustrate it by examples surfing in our
dialogue. Confirmation of heeding to this "feeling" came when she
acknowledged that she actually knows what I merely had put into words for
her as "efficiency reciprocal to emergence", but which she self could not
yet articulate.
Leo, as I have indicated in "our dialogue here", I myself will have to cut
down on the "efficiency" of contributing to the LO-dialogue so as to allow
for other pressing emergences in my life too. (I write "efficient" in
quotation marks because to the majority of fellow learners I am actually
very inefficient ;-) I still have one contribution to complete which I
have promised to a fellow learner on the topic of "free energy". After
that there will be much less contributions for some time. I am now
apologising for not going to respond in future as I have done in the past.
But be assured, I am not quiting the LO-dialogue -- the "art of the ass"
has to continue.
I have two "complexity truths" which I presently still very much
want to write about:
LO-metanoia and serenity
Hard-soft interactions in complexity.
But I know myself -- should I keep quiet, the "stu" would ebb away.
Perhaps, by jotting down the topics, I might commit myself to write
on them.
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.