Replying to LO25179 --
Dear Organlearners,
Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz> writes in reply to:
>>Thus we are invited to consider expressing complexity
>>with essences. Obviously, we have now to bear in mind
>>Husserl's phenomenology. One of the main tasks in
>>phenomenology is to give a sound representation of any
>>phenomenon in terms of its essences/essentials (not the
>>seven essential-ITIES).
>
>At this is your opinion but you need to understand my
>frame of reference which you haven't grasped at all. It is
>like trying to find common ground but you are looking in
>Africa and I am in New Zealand.
(snip)
>At, as I have said before your writings are full of motives,
>which I do not think you understand, your thread that you
>mention on "evident points" is just the motives I was talking
>about before. Your emotions cloud the very issues that
>need objectivity.
Greetings Gavin,
I have decided upon what you have written above to avoid any further
direct exchange of thoughts with you. I have made this decision for the
benefit of our dear LO-dialogue. I will change my decision when I have
learned that the constraint which I will discuss below, has been removed.
I owe you other fellow learners an explantion for this decision.
I want to avoid contributing to what may be called a "feedback loop in
prejudice".
Would I have said to Gavin "You have made profound accusations above",
then I would have made an accusation self. This challenging of Gavin's
accusations (Gavin's ouput on my input) with counter accusations (my
subsequent output) would have been the result of me connecting my input
to his output on my former input. This constitutes the feedback loop.
Avoiding a "feedback loop in prejudice" does not mean I avoid all
"feedback loops". The "feedback loop" (or connecting some of the output of
a system to its input) is the founding stone of Cybernetics. It is one of
the ways to effect control in the system's behaviour. This control can be
beneficial or detrimental to the system's behaviour depending on how the
output is connected to the input, given the connection. If it is not
possible to change the "how" (from, say positive to negative and vice
versa), then the feedback will be a "milling stone round the neck" when
the system is stucked in detrimental control. In that case it is possible
(but not always better, see below) to break the given connection rather
than trying to change what cannot be changed, namely the "how" of the
feedback loop.
When a person repeatedly claims that I do not understand "this", "that"
and "those" while also repeatedly claiming that I am confused about a lot
of things, what do these claims mean? Understanding is for me the outcome
of learning while learning also clears up confusion. Thus these claims
mean for me statements on my persistent lack of learning. Bring such
persisting statements about my persistent lack of learning as the "how"
into the feedback loop and the cybernetic system will get stuck in a
detrimental behaviour.
My mission (overall motive) is to help other people (as individuals and as
organisations) to learn authentically. To fulfill this mission I have to
learn self what authentic learning means. I have learned a lot from other
people and the rest self. I intend to learn a lot more till death stops
me. Persisting statements about my persistent lack of learning are thus
directly connected to my mission. A mission, as with any other imperative
like goals and objectives, needs "free energy" (fuel) to get accomplished.
The defamation of any imperative is a clever or ignorant way to dissipate
"free energy" in defending the authenticity of that imperative rather than
accomplishing that imperative authentically. For example, students arguing
about the authenticity of a learning objective seldom succeeds in
mastering that objective authetically.
I have learned even to care for my mission and want to help others to
learn how to take care of their mission too. Perhaps this contribution
will become a case for some fellow learners to study.
The topic is "Spheres of Complexity", introduced by Dennis Rolleston on
issues of culture which are very serious to him and which involves his own
mission. When two "spheres of complexity" begin to move into each other,
one of the many things which the person with understanding has to look for
is how the "feedback loops" on each sphere are extended to the whole or
how the "feedback loops" of one sphere become overruled by the "feedback
loops" of the other sphere.
Fellow learners may perhaps consider Gavin and me as two such "spheres of
complexity". But I have to warn that it is by far not as complex as when
two cultures are considered as "spheres of complexity". In the case of
Gavin and me, AND ONLY IN THIS CASE because I want to help preventing
other such cases developing with all my power, I have used avoidance as a
temporal solution. I want to stress that avoidance is no solution at all,
not even a temporal one, when two cultures begin to move into each other
as "spheres of complexity".
I can offer you fellow learners no greater, tragic example than apartheid.
Although its policy was complex, one of its methods was to avoid contact
between European and African cultures whenever it was suspected that a
detrimental change in the European culture would happen. Little care was
given to prevent detrimental changes in African culture.
Again, please do not get the idea that I have hinted that apartheid was
designed in terms of cybernetics. The design by the "secret masters" were
in the days when Wiener was still a kid. The formal design was, as I have
traced it and now understand it, a dialectical copy of Smuts' holism.
Smut's was their political opponent. They optimised this dialectical copy
by using their experiences of what I may call "tacit apartheid". In this
"tacit apartheid" they were the victims (castes) of class avoidances
between some powerful Europeans coming from Europe and most "local for
several generations" Europeans as well as almost all African people.
It is fascinating for me how, in general, any dialectical copy of any
constructively creative output can become diabolical in its own
destruction.
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.