Replying to LO25117 --
Dear Organlearners,
Dennis Rolleston <dennisr@ps.gen.nz> writes in answer to my comment:
>>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.
>
>I feel that this is also true for we indigenous New Zealanders
>and I see similar happenings in our education system. The
>students are at a different level of understanding of the
>complexities of maths, biology, physics etc. I feel that
>educations systems have only developed to the stage where
>the tolerance level for want of a better description is such that
>just a certain "breed", MBTI, IQ is able to negotiate it's
>obstacle course - 'emmerge'.
Greetings Dennis,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response.
I wish I had written more because what I wrote was was only part of the
truth. Yes, the thinking of european colonists were more complex than that
of the indigenous peoples. I use "european" (without the usual capital E)
so as to include all the colonizing nations and not merely the English
people.
Why was the "european thinking" more complex? Because it is better? No.
Because they had a Renaissance backing them up. By this very Renaissance
they became aware of far more than their own medieval culture. They have
enriched themselves with the cultures of ancient civilizations by way of
learning. Crucial to this complexification were the technological
invention (printing) of Guthenberg and the centres for learning excellence
(medieval universities).
Since "european thinking" was more complex, was the thinking of the
indigenous peoples simple? No. The deeper and wider my own research goes,
the more I become convinced that "indigenous thinking" was not simple, but
only less complex. Even though less complex, "indigenous thinking" is
still very complex itself.
I have put "european thinking" and "indigenous thinking" in quotation
marks because I believe that they have a vital bearing on what the
LO-discipline Systems Thinking ought to involve. It is imperative that we
have to become aware of the incredible diversity (essentiality otherness)
in Systems Thinking. By this I mean that there is more than one kind of
Systems Thinking possible.
Allow me to give an example. In "european thinking" a theory
plays a key role in helping people associating with each other.
This association can be symbolised by
person-A * theory * person-B
They communicate with each other through the paradigm of
the theory. The associative pattern symbolised above shows
us how deeply we are now involved with the essentiality
wholeness.
In the hundreds of Banthu cultures of Southern Africa the
communication made also use of the associative pattern
of wholeness, but in the form
person-A * mouthpiece * person-B
Here the commutator is not a theory, but a specific person
whose formal job it was to interpret metaphorically what A
had to say to B and vice versa. This mouthpiece is called,
for example, in Zulu the "umlomo".
Please observe that the patterns
person-A * theory * person-B
person-A * mouthpiece * person-B
have both the same level of complexity. If there is a difference in
complexity between them, it is primarily between the "theory"
and the "mouthpiece". History has it that "european thinking"
convinced "indigenous thinking" that the "theory" is superior to
the "mouthpiece" because it deals in dedicated terminology
rather than metaphors. Nevertheless, these metaphors allow
interpretation among a much wider diversity in community.
However "european thinking" failed to also convince "indigenous
thinking" that AUTHENTIC learning is prerequisite to "theory" as
the commutator. This means actually that the patterns
person-A * learning+theory * person-B
person-A * mouthpiece * person-B
should have been compared. Consequently, accepting the pattern
person-A * theory * person-B
rather than
person-A * learning+theory * person-B
as superior to
person-A * mouthpiece * person-B
an incredible destructive immergence has been allowed in
"indigenous thinking". A "mouthpiece" (interpreter) is implictly able
to learn whereas it is impossible for a "theory" to learn -- only the
theorizers can learn and reflect that learning by changing their
theories. Consequently authentic learning was demoted among
the indigenous people and became replaced by rote learning.
What is even worse, is that we now have reach that level of
complexity in "european thinking" that we cannot maintain the
pattern
person-A * theory * person-B
any more. Our theories have become too complex to relegate
learning to the background. Thus we need to complexity it into
person-A * learning+theory * person-B
Witness to this fact is beared by the need which has emerged
for tens of thousands of advisors, councilors, consultants and
facilitators since WWII -- to make up for the lack of learning.
What "european thinking" has taken apart, especially since the
days of Descarte, it now has to put back together.
I say it is "even worse" because whereas "european thinking" now has to
mend itself, "indigenous thinking" fails to become aware of this much
needed mending since it is still struggling to understand what it assumes
as superior "european thinking".
Whenever Systems Thinking is concerned with complexity as such, for
example when comparing "european thinking" with "indigenous thinking", one
of the gravest dangers is to take too much for granted. Let us consider,
as an example, the role of the mother tongue in Systems Thinking. English
is not only the foremost lingua franca of international and even global
activities, but it is still also the mother tongue of people in the UK,
USA, AUS, NZ, SA, etc.
These people do in English certain Systems Thinking activities
which neither they nor the peoples with "indigenous thinking"
are explicitly aware of. However, they are tacitly aware of it and
by recognising what I will now articulate, it will demonstrate this
tacit knowledge. In a math class I would say, for example, the
following:
Draw "A" circle. Consider "THE" radius of "THE" circle.
I capitalised "a" and "the" to stress them as well as put them in
quotation marks to indicate that they have additional unique
creative functions here apart from their grammatical function.
In English grammer the "a" is called the indefinite article (adjective,
preposition) while the "the" is called the definite article. The "a"
refers to "one among many" while the "the" refers to "one, perhaps of
many". But in the math class in which authentic learning ("to learn is to
create") is of paramount importance "a" and "the" get special creative
functions also indictaed by the capitalised forms "A" and "THE". Here "A"
functions as the "existential operator", almost as if saying "bring into
existence" (by drawing). It copies the emergence of "experential
knowledge" from the sensory inputs. Furthermore, "THE" functions as the
"abstraction operator", almost as if saying "make unique abstraction". It
copies the emergence of "tacit knowledge" from "experential knowledge".
It is tragic that so few teachers of mathematics are able to explain the
use of "a" as "A" and "the" as "THE" to their learners. They take it
unawarely for granted that "A" and "THE" have implicitly these creative
functions as I have indicated above. Those learners who recognise these
creative functions and respond with their imagination will complexify
further in mathematics. But those learners who do not recognise these
functions, have to give up mathematics. Not because they are inferior
themselves, or put less harshly, because they have less mathematical
talent, but because of inferior midwivery.
Learners who do not become tacitly aware of "a" as "A" and "the" as "THE",
are a minority when they have an europian mother tongue which facilitates
"european thinking" like English does. Up to now these unfortunate
learners had to accept that they have little talent for mathematics. But
among those peoples with "indigenous thinking" these learners are a very
large majority. Here they assume falsely that they are inferior to people
with "european thinking" when in fact they might be doing the same
creative functions in a different manner to, for example, English.
Let me take as example any one of the hundreds of Banthu languages of
Southern Africa. There is no way to represent in these languages the
implictly creative functions by way of the articles (prepositions) "a" as
"A" and "the" as "THE". The simple reason is that none of these languages
has a preposition, whether definite or indefinite.
Does it mean that it is impossible in these languages to facilitate the
creative functions "bring into existence" and "make unique abstraction" as
have been done in English with "a" as "A" and "the" as "THE"? In other
words, does it mean that these people with "indigenous thinking" are
creatively inferior to people with "european thinking"?
NO and YES.
First the YES. When they want to learn, for example, maths in
English since
* English is the foremost lingua franca
* a wealth of informationis available in English, even on
mathematics,
* business and other important activities are conducted in
English
they will not understand the creativity involved with
Draw "A" circle. Consider "THE" radius of "THE" circle.
Specifically, they will not
* recognise their own tacit knowledge since it is imbedded
in their own mother tongue
* understand explanations given in Englsih since even these
explanations need to have "a" as "A" and "the" as "THE".
Now the NO. They will have to initiate their learning in their own mother
tongue until they have acquired the requisite level of complexity so as to
switch over to English as the language of learning. Allow me to use Banthu
languages as an example. And please forgive me my most inferior
understanding, if not blunt ignorance of these languages. My friend Ben
Goslin who is a guru on these languages, is my patient midwife, but it is
I who fail to complexify in them.
The absence of "a" and "the" in the Banthu languages does
not mean that Banthus cannot qualify their sentences as definite
or indefinite. They qualify their sentences in a manner completely
different to european languages. Every "whole" sentence which
consists of a "predicate" (a verb and possibly an object) and
then a "subject" (an object) is principally (by definition) qualified
as definite. Consider as example the following sentence in Zulu:
khona umuntu
[there is] [human]
In order to change it into an indefinite sentence, the verb in the
predicate have to be qualified by a prefix like the "ku" in Zulu.
Thus our example will become
ku-khona umuntu
[there is] [a human]
Note that the "ku" (prefix of class 17) is fixed to the verb
(predicate) whereas in English we would place the "a" before
the noun (subject).
Should we want to say in English to a Zulu speaking person (who can
understand a little English) "draw a circle", it would be better to say it
with a little bit of Zulu in it, namely "ku-draw circle" to stress the
indefinite character. However, does this modification into an indefinite
sentence by prefixing the "ku" class to the verb also allow the extra
creative function "bring into existence" like the "a" as "A" too? In other
words, is it functioning like "KU-draw circle" too? The answer is that we
do not know since Zulus seem to learn mathematics rotely while we learn
Zulu rotely.
Although every whole sentence in Zulu is definite, it is possible
to stress this definiteness as follows
umuntu uya-hamba
[the human] [walks]
Note again that the prefix "uya-" which here does the "the"
marking when added to the verb rather than put before the noun.
Should we want to say in English to a Zulu speaking person (who can
understand a little English) "consider the radius", it would be better to
say it with a little bit of Zulu in it, namely "radius uya-consider". But
will it be functioning here (like "the" as "THE") in the sense of making
a creative abstraction as "radius UYA-consider" too? The answer is again
that we do not know. We know too little authentically of Zulu and they
know too little authentically of mathematics.
The hot questions now are:
* Are there any syntactical ways in Zulu to signify the "existential
operator -- bring into existence" (like in English with the "a" as
"A") and the "abstraction operator -- make unique abstraction"
(like in English with the "the" as "THE")?
* If there are no syntactical indicators possible, how will the
"existential operator" and "abstraction operators" be explained
semantically in Zulu?
Dear Dennis, I wish I had been a Zulu to answer these hot questions. But
then, I would perhaps know too little of mathematical creativity to
understand these questions. What I do see here is a magnificent
opportunity for a Learning Organisation to answer these hot questions by
way of the LO-dialogue. I know nothing of the Maori language(s), but I
would not be surprised if similar dilemmas would occur here.
I would certainly appreciate any preliminary thoughts of you in this
regard.
>But are we all just in different intervals of understanding?
Dennis, I tried to argue that it is not only different levels of
understanding, but also it is also a case of similar levels of
understanding which cannot harmonise because of too little "mitsein"
(together) learning.
>Something has troubled me for some time now, how
>much does ego affect ones ability to assist people into
>different spheres of understanding? Is ego the central
>motivator of the reptillian mind? I suspect that losing
>face is traumatic in Maori psyche as it is in Japanese
>as it is in European etc etc. Is ego the anchor for people
>in whatever sphere of complexity of thinking they are in.
>And, is this thing "love" a knife with which to cut the
>anchor rope?
I wonder how much it is a case of sureness ("identity- categoricity")
rather than merely "ego"? None of us can expect to give up his/her
"identity" so as to cross into its complementary field of "categoricity"
and thus explore other identities. Why? Whenever our explorations into the
unknown would require "emergences" to make sense out of them, such
emergences will certainly fail because of the lack of "identity" in
sureness.
I do not see "love" as a knife which cut off ropes which keep us rigid. I
rather see "love" as the most powerful force in Creation. Love makes its
power known by its gracefull action along the seven essentialities to all
the lower orders of complexity. We may think of them as seven roots going
down through faith into knowledge to even reach our primodial creativity.
Thus I tend to think of the "ego" as a cut in specific one of these roots,
namely sureness.
The knife which cut sureness to leave us with the scar of "ego" is
"arrogant ignorance". In my own mother we have a powerful word to describe
this "arrogant ignorance". It is "dom-astrant". In German it is
"tolldreist". The English words "impudent" and "insolent" here are by far
not as strong as "domastrant". To give an idea of the strength of
"domastrand" -- it does as much to sureness as what "apartheid" does to
wholeness. They each (domastrant and apartheid) cut us loose from grace --
the back-action of love.
Once again, thank you very much for your thoughts. The title which you
have selected for it "Spheres of Complexity" says a lot for me when
thinking of chemistry. Atoms are already complex. Singular atoms can be
thought of as spheres. The whole of the atomic orbitals of each atom is a
"sphere of complexity". When atoms of different kinds make elastic
collisions with each other, they each stay indefinitely the same. Only
when their "spheres of complexity" are able to penetrate each to some
extend, will they react so as to exhibit what was potentially already
possible. Writing the English sentences
Draw a circle. Consider the radius.
as
Ku-draw circle. Radius UYA-consider.
indicate some of this penetration of "spheres of complexity".
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.