Replying to LO25117 --
Hi Dennis and org learners
Dennis Rolleston wrote:
> Greeting fellow learners.
>
> In LO25005 Efficiency and Emergence At said
>
> " 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".
The law is actually the law of requisite variety (Ashby) which means that
only variety can absorb variety. Variety is a state. I am not sure what
levels of complexity are meant to mean here? It generally is attributed to
information. I also do not think there are clashes between levels of
complexity (the reason is nobody generally knows what level or state they
are in and it really does not have the propensity to threaten others) eg a
spider builds a web to catch its prey (motive to eat). It is not the
complexity of building the web that threatens rather the motive to eat.
Most human clashes are due to personal motives and values. I can't think
of one nation that went to war over complexity but I can think of hundreds
that waged war over personal and societal motives. Being it fear of being
destroyed or the desire to conquer. Plus all those other motives I
mentioned in an earlier thread. A nice book to read on this is Becker,
Escape from Evil.
> 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'. At goes on to say;
I would like to add that anyone from any society can deal with complex
issues, I do not believe these things have any racial bearing. If you look
at Elliot Jaques' work in levels of work and complexity of information,
race, culture do not apply at all, cognition is the invariant factor.
> "This caused many of the destructive immergences over many years which
> you have been reading about in your papers and seeing on TV reports".
>
> In New Zealand in this same context it culminated in land occupations by
> Maori and the constitution of a tribunal to address the wrongs or failures
> to adhere to the 1840 treaty of Waitangi.
>
> In the edcuational context the clash of different levels of complexity,
> fuelled by the inflexibility of the system, creates immergences. They hit
> the newspapers in the form of crime and social disorder, the result of the
> education systems failure to create emmegences in all of its participants.
> Following At's contribution LO25005 Efficiency and Emergence, he says;
>
> "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".
>
> In New Zealand the much maligned Waitangi Tribunal has in my view been the
> safety valve. It provides a forum where Maori can vent the pressure of
> long unheeded grievances allowing many of our leaders to understand at
> that level of complexity and get to grips with higher levels.
>
> Our education system has/is dealing with a similar situation and began
> addressing the perceived complexity misalignment of itself and our
> societal needs for this century. The 1984 Education Reform Act moved
> system barriers allowing more flexibility but individuals need time to
> flex the mind to the new boundaries -- understand a higher (different)
> level before the tacit feeling of discomfort is removed. (Hopefully each
> remembers the parable of the boiled frog).
>
> Now, in LO24994 Efficiency and Emergence Gavin said
>
> " I have responded many times to this thread and others, I have also
> shared with this group some very pertinent things about the issues of
> emergence, being and becoming, complexity, energy, logic, variables,
> feedback, complexity of information, the interdependence of these
> variables, power etc, etc".
>
> In my terms and within the context of complexity, offering assistance for
> us learners to move to a different sphere of understanding. He goes on to
> say;
>
> "However At and company have not actually registered the learning, they
> are too busy shoring up what they know (I am "being" a bit harsh here).
> There are some key issues that have never got a frame of reference, e.g.
> what are the variables and the logic we are using, where does all this fit
> in terms of LO's. I shared with some a key on the issues of emergence not
> long ago and its linkages to TIME and the continuos field. (from a
> different point of view). AND MOST OF ALL THE REALISATION THAT AS SOON AS
> WE CREATE A VARIABLE (LIKE EMERGENCE OR ESSENTIALITIES OR BEING) IT IS
> IMMEDIATELY DISCRIMINATED HENCE NO LONGER A COMPLEXITY APPROACH. That is
> why Progogine, Jaques, Bohm (holographic theory) and company are so
> focused on Time (the time of chronos and kairos) and becoming because it
> tries to take the continuous field into account.(which is no variable,
> (the fact that I say this means I am now discriminating again, because I
> am now bringing it into being or creation again) it has the all, the ends,
> ideals, the systems, the universe, the creation, the interactions, all the
> variables, all the logic, all the knowledge past present and future, we
> are it part of it in it)".
>
> In the context of my analysis can you see a common thread? When Gavin
> talks about holographic theory here (something I know little about) it
> brings to mind the conversations between me and my younger brother at
> probably 9 or 10 years old -- where do you think space ends? In our
> juvenile minds there was probably a brick wall there but even at that
> tender age there was still the question, yes but what the hell is on the
> other side? So is this what you are saying Gavin? Is the seven of this
> or the 21 of these, the brick wall me and my brother talked about so long
> ago? And you go on;
Who knows Dennis the holographic theory just states that everything is
some level a recursion of the whole.
> "The biggest error made on these threads by At and company is the use of
> the discriminated object (or variable) and the naming of them like
> (emergence), as we do this we lose the continuous field and hence the
> complexity approach. We immediately "become" reductionist. All systems
> thinkers seem to do this and be totally oblivious to it. It is like
> looking at the vase and the face profiles we see only one or the other.
> "from an old thread" Emergence is seeing it all at once (very difficult)
> the dog and the lives of all dogs through history in continuum, their
> purposes, ideals, interactions and ends".
>
> But are we all just in different intervals of understanding?
Yes, people can make abstractions of abstractions others make abstractions
of symbols. There is no end to the complex abstractions humans can make
they just go up another recursion. It is also universal it makes no
difference if one is an Inuit, Maori, Pakeha, Polynesian, European, Dutch,
Afrikaans, or Irish or whatever one's background.
> 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?
Ego is a coined term now it once had a specific meaning, all mental
representation encapsulated in a mental peripheral rind. Today it means
big headed male. The losing face issue is something that I have worked on
for many years. It has a lot to do with self identify and worth, strength
and power. I have talked about this often in the threads here. Mental
death is the issue with many of these things. In Japanese society
entitlement needs plays a very powerful role, loss of this is very painful
to some. It could mean loss of identity, rejection, feelings of
worthlessness etc. In reality we all have an ego mental space filled up
with stuff.
I also think that love is a satellite, and is not the real answer to solve
some of these issues, honest self reflection is one way, but this is the
hardest task of all. NLP is also a good way to reframe poor experience and
enrich positive ones. I once used something called re-birthing to get a
breakthrough.
As i mentioned under personal growth thread some made break throughs when
they found the gap between thought and response, others when they found
that action is the key, others that it is mandatory to be responsible, for
myself it was the tension between my fears and hopes. For At it is his
seven essentialities (I think). In reality it is not any one of these
because there is no one path up the mountain. Human motives are connected
to our values which manifest as culture. Very easy to assess actually.
In ancient society power and prestige was gained through physical deeds,
honoring ones ancestors and getting their power and waging war on one's
enemies so as to vanquish their evil (which in reality is its own societal
projection).
Here is a nice phrase to end with, we have found the enemy and it is us.
Kindest
Gavin
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
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.