Replying to LO25109 --
Dear Organlearners,
Andrew Campbell < ACampnona@aol.com > writes:
>I happen to know that At de Lange does not like being
>'attended to' as a 'mystical personality'. In my deep-set
>ignorance I once referred to him as such, just once and
>with a glimmered eye;-) some are aware of;-) Well, everyone
>cannot know everything, can they? Einstein thought and
>expressed that 'the sensation of the mystical was a
>fundamental attachment to authentic science and art.' But
>maybe the mystical stands outside the mystic. That is
>possible isn't it? That is probable. So why shoot the
>messenger?
Greetings Andrew,
You are a careful reader picking up the even the tiniest stroke of the
brush ;-)
I tried to shoot the message, not the messenger ;-)
Thank you for your fine answer and the new direction in which you helped
our LO-dialogue to emerge.
My first experiences in the desert many years ago was indeed mystical,
even magical. Why? Because they were unexpected, unusual and emergent.
Later on I realised that although they were unusual and emergent, they
were inevitable. I still have many such unusual and emergent experiences
which are still very valuable for me, for example during my last visit in
December to the deserts of Namibia. But I do not consider them mystical
any more because they will inevitably happen with no less surprise to
them.
A person is considered to be mystical when that person entered by way of
emergences new realms of reality of which very few other people are aware
of. The notion that the far majority of other people cannot ever have such
mystic experiences is false. Almost all these people have the very
potential for emerging into these sparsely populated realms of reality. In
other words, most people have the potential for becoming a mystic figure
too. But should all these people live up to manifest this potential, there
would not be anything mystic about these sparsely populated realms any
more.
How can we open up this "mystical" potential which each of us has? If we
cannot, then I have to evaluate all my midwifery in authentic learning as
tripe (b... s...). Authentic learning for both individuals and
organisations swings between digestive learning and emergent learning. The
digestive learning prepares the learning system for another wave of
emergent learning which will be triggered by a creative collapse. The
emergent learning opens up posssibilties which were not known before so
that even they can gradually mature by digestive learning.
Authentic learning is the first order emergent of constructive creativity
among humans. The creativity becomes constructive when each of the seven
essentialities has become sufficiently mature. Whenever the emergent phase
of the authentic learning of another person struck us as a mystical
manifestation, it is because we self are most probably too immature in
specifically the essentiality openness to recognise such an emergence as
inevitable. In other words, we ourselves are too closed to recognise the
openness in the mystical person. In my mother tongue Afrikaans we express
this by the saying "Ek is toe" -- I am closed.
Stafford Beer insisted that diversity is a measure of complexity. But
otherness (diversity) is one of the seven essentialities. Each of them
measure its corresponding facet of complexity. Thus all seven of them
become the full measure of complexity. When they have reached a certain
level of maturity to sustain an emergence, its merely another way of
saying that the requisite level of complexity for that emergence has been
reached. Thus the Law of Requisite Complexity (LRC) "blocks" our way of
exploring the seemingly "mystical potentialities" in each of us.
Thinking about the LRC as "blocking" the manifestation of our seemingly
"mystical potentialities" is actually negative thinking. The positive
thinking is as follows. Once each of us has evolved into the requiste
level of complexity, the emergence to the next level of complexity becomes
of neccessity. In other words, although LRC blocks the way for too little
complexity, it opens that very way for sufficient complexity. It is almost
as if LRC works as a "reverse sieve", letting through the more complex
particles and keeping back the less complex particles.
I do not like to be called a "mystic" because it points to my failure as a
midwife for emergent learning.
Andrew, it will be very sad if the delightful topic "Evident Points,
Hidden Points" which you have presented to our LO-dialogue fails to
develop into a rich picture as a result of the very action of the LRC.
What is even worse, is that my own articulations how and why it may happen
will make it happen. This is because complexity intimidates as we have
learned from the Digestor. Complexity suppress our spiritual "free
energy". We feel as if we cannot overcome this complexity so as to take in
into even greater complexity. We creep into our little corners so to avoid
the dark shadows of complexity touching us. But we are unaware that we
feel safe because the very darker shadows of our own corners.
What will make us leave the shadows of life and bathe in the dazzling
light of love?
Criticisms and judgements? No.
Expectations and invitations? Yes. This is why the Shared Vision is so
vital to a Learning Organisation. How can we become as individuals and
organisations? What milestones can we reach along this road of becoming?
The mystical and even the seemingly impossible is within the reach of each
of us. However, it will never happen like in magic with the snap of the
fingers. Why? Because time and evolution in complexity go hand in hand.
The more complex something which has to emerge, the longer time it will
take before it will eventually emerge.
The older I become, the less furious I become about simple things failing
to happen. But my fury increases almost daily when business, political and
social leaders make promises which they will soon ratify, but which
actually involves complex things and thus will take much time to become
manifested, if ever. How long will followers still be fooled by leaders
making such promises which actually involve the Law of Requisite
Complexity? I would encourage every fellow learner to think very carefully
when a leader makes any promise with respect to a definite period of time.
Does the leader's promise involve the evolution of something complex? Do
we have any similar promises from the past from which we could learn how
long it took to fulfill them? What complexity is requisite to the promise
and has the leader paid attention to them too?
>I think there may be a dozen people reading on this list who
>might care to understand this below, in it I find reason for
>involvement past, present and future.
>
>Truth is given once and for all, and it is laid down with precision.
>Fundamentally, truth merely needs to be transmitted.
>The originality of the exploring learner has two aspects.
>In his spontaneity, he develops and explains what was
>transmitted no matter whether it was known or forgotten
>and had to be rediscovered. The effort of the seeker after
>truth consists not in having new ideas but rather in
>subordinating himself to the continuity of tradition....
>and in laying open what he receives from it in the context
>of his own time and experience.
>In other words;-) not system but commentary is the
>legitimate form/(content) through which truth is approached.
>
>Gershom Scholem (Jewish Scholar of Jewish Mysticism)
Dear Andrew, some thirty years ago I would have agreed very much with what
you have quoted above. But today I have not only grave doubts, but also
know that it is not the whole story.
It all hinges on one seeminly simple question.
Is truth simple or complex?
If truth is simple, then the above quote may be fitting to it.
But should truth become more complex along the creative course of time,
truth is not given for once and all with precision. Hence even sureness
for the emergence of truth has to grow. There is indeed a link between
the less complex levels of "present truth" with the highest level of "past
truth". This is why present spontaneous discoveries can be connected to
past articulations of the truth provided they have been preserved
(transmitted) up to the present. This can be seen as a vindication in
"present truth" of "past truths" as Scholem notes.
But bearing the LRC in mind, both the "past truth", "present truth" and
even "future truth" in one and the same topic can be seen as "truth
necessarily manifesting itself whenever the requiste level of complexity
has been reached". This allows for truth in other topics to emerge along
the creative course of time, for "present truth" to be more than "past
truth" and "future truth" to be more than even "present truth". In other
words, even truth have "hidden points" to it and not merely "evident
points". Some of these "hidden points" may take a very long time to
emerge.
A well know example is the so called "silent centuries" after the last
prophets in the Torah (Old Testament). The Messiah was promised, but
failed to emerge even after several centuries. Then, eventually when
Jesus of Nazareth was born, fulfilling many of the prophecies in the OT,
few were willing to accept him as the Messiah. I do not want to get into
any argument wheter Jesus was the Messiah (the equivalent in Greek has
become Christ to us). I merely want to point to the fact that the promises
of the prophets took at least four centuries to become manifested in
Jesus, or should he not be the Messiah, have taken another twenty
centuries with still no hint of any actualisation of them. In other words,
I want to point to the fact that (unlike a apocalyse like those of Daniel
or John) a prophecy without any period of time attached to it is deeply
involved with the Law of Requisite Complexity.
I have indicated in other contributions that faith is of a more complex
order than knowledge since it emerges from knowledge. Thus I will not
argue the existential merit of religions in this contribution. I would
rather like to point out to fellow learners that "futurology" (eschatology
would be purer because of the Greek etymology) is already essential to
"present truth". Consider, for example, the importance of accurate 24
hour, 48 hour and 60 hour weather predictions for regions on which many
global activities depend. We even now have "futurists" who specialise in
short term predictions for financial markets. Because these predictions
have a period of time attached to them, they are apocalyptic rather than
prophetic of nature. Yes, even your "fixed deposit" at a financial
instituition or your payments on life insurance are apocalyptic
transactions.
The emergence of patterns, now hidden, but eventually evident after a
specified period of time, is important to our human activities. Some want
to enrich themselves and surpass their competitors while others want to
prepare their fellow humans timely to become sustainable for vast coming
changes. Whatever the motive, I personally believe that a prophecy is
better suited for learning than an apocalypse. In a prophecy one has to
keep an eye open for its requisite level of complexity to know when that
prophecy will be going into fulfilment. But in an apocalypse one has to
keep an eye open on some or other clock (regular events measuring the flow
of time). For a prophecy the authentic learner often receives the grace
"to see the truth coming". But for an apocalypse the expecting person is
often caught unaware. Its fulfilling comes like "a thief in the night" --
despite the period of time attached to it because the clock has been
calibrated incorrectly. Technology and the lack of calibrating it has
fooled many a believer in technology.
Two and more millenia ago biblical prophecies and apocalypses were made
possible by the direct intervention of the biblical godhead. God gave a
simple rule to judge these prophecies -- wait for the them to become
fulfilled and thus demonstrate them as true or false AND IN THE MEAN TIME
learn from them as much as possible. Other religions had their prophecies
too, also as a result of the direct intervention of their godheads.
But now, as we are emerging into the adulthood of human creativity after
another two and a half millenia, we will have to think like adults about
prophecies and apocalypses. Perhaps the Law of Requisite Complexity holds
that we will now be able to formulate our own prophecies and apocalypses
without the direct intervention of the God we believe in. Whether is true
or not, is not so exciting to me. What is exciting to me is the truth that
the we will have to wait for them to come into fulfilment and in the mean
time learn from them as much as possible.
Andrew, does this not make truth a becoming rather than merely a being?
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.