Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to you all. In my mother tongue we have the saying "Ek wil 'n
klip in die bos gooi" which mean literaly "I want to throw a rock in the
bush." I think the closest saying in English would be "I want to set a
ball rolling."
This saying in my mother tongue is actually a metaphor. Southern Africa
has an immense diversity of wild life. Should one throw a rock into the
bush in some wild region, many kind of animals can come out of that bush:
a shy antelope or a furious buffalo, a wise owl or a cunning leopard, a
swarm of butterflies or a poisonous snake. I wish to bring the topic of
"mystic" to our LO-dialogue, urging each fellow learner to keep the
buffalo, leopard and snake as far as possible under control.
A mystery is an inexplicable phenomenon, something which, although it
cannot be comprehended or seems to be concealed deliberately, excites awe
and curiosity. For example, the LO-dialogue we had on the topic "tacit
knowledge" had a mysterious facet to it. It is this awe and curiosity of a
mystery which keep us questioning it until we succeed in understanding the
mystery. Thus, should we as humankind look back over several millenia,
many things in the past which had been mysteries, are now common
knowledge.
It is as if "uncovering mysteries" is one of the defining characterestics
of humankind. However, humankind is a strange species. While some humans
will endeavour to uncover mysteries, some others would try to keep them
concealed while perhaps the majority are indifferent to mysteries. Some
will want to make the uncovering of a mystery commonly available
information, some others would rather go for a ritual involving secrecy,
initiation and vows while perhaps the majority are again indifferent. The
growing indifference of humankind to mysteries is a grave concern to me
because so many will get hurt through their ignorance. But it is also a
sign of the "writing on the wall" as I will explain later on.
The word "mystery" comes etymologically form two possible Greek words:
"mysterion"=secret or "myo"=closing-lips. It is almost as if the word
"mystery" says "that which cannot be spoken about". In this sense it
reminds me of "tacit knowledge" and "metanoia". Some define "tacit
knowledge" as "that knowledge which we know, but cannot speak". I prefer
to think of "tacit knowledge" as knowledge which still have to emerge to
the level of explicate knowledge. Some define "metanoia" as the "unspoken
thoughts which makes an Ordinary Organisation (OO) a Learning Organisation
(LO)". I prefer to think of "metanoia" as the distant thoughts which
become dear thoughts once an OO has emerged into a LO. Consequently it
seems to me that the less we know about emergences in general, the more
anything (including "tacit knowledge" and "metanoia") depending on
emergences is a mystery to us.
Perhaps the greatest mystery of all mysteries had been the ordinate
bifurcation which forks into either a constructive emergence or a
destructive immergence. Such an ordinate bifurcation happens at the edge
of chaos (extreme diversity of becoming) where the "entropy production" is
at its highest and fastest. Should the system in this chaotic conditions
fail the Law of Requisite Complexity LRC), it will immerge destructively
to a lower order of complexity. The LRC may be articulated in terms of
the seven essentialities (liveness, sureness, wholeness, fruitfulness,
spareness, otherness and openness). At each level of complexity they all
have to reach a certain maturity before they will guide the system
emergently to a higher level of complexity. However, these seven
essentialities seem to be mysterious themselves too.
The terms "mystic", "mysticism" and "mystify" are related to "mystery"
even by the same etymological origin, yet they are not quite the same
thing.
The adjective "mystic" means remote from or obscured to human observation.
Many things which we often take for granted, are "mystic" in this sense.
For example, knowledge becomes in the mind of a person. Try as I can, I
cannot observe with any of my senses or their extension into sensitive
instrumentation the mind of any other person. I can only observe all the
creations of such knowledgeable person, including artifacts better known
as information. These creations then have to serve as the interpreters
(mouthpieces) between that person's mind and my own mind. For example,
when I am immature in wholeness, the lack of its associative pattern X*Y*Z
(you*mouthpiece*me) will prevent the emergence of knowledge common to us
(the "you and me").
The adjective "mystic" may also mean observing what is emblematical. It is
most curious for me that in the twentieth centrury humankind focussed most
of its attention on problem-solving while neglecting emblem-unfolding.
The words "problematic" and "emblematic" differ in their prefixes. The
Greek prefixes "pro"=before and "en(m)"=in while the "ballo"=throw. An
incomplete set of information "thrown before us" defines a problem of
which its solution through knowledge makes the set of information more
complete.
However, when a problem gets solved, it may still be emblematic to us. In
this case, although the set of information has been sufficiently completed
with the necessary understanding, this understanding lacks a universal
meaning. The complete set of understood information "throw us within" the
definition of an emblem of which its unfolding through spiritual evolution
gives meaning to our knowledge. The emblem is an innate, natural or
fitting pattern in the solved-problem going beyond its chosen or aggreed
repesentation by symbols, signs or tokens. To say it in other words,
problem-solving is to paint a picture, but emblem-unfolding is to paint a
rich picture.
The adjective "mystic" or the noun "mystic" may also refer to a person who
has the quality of "mystical" or who embraces the philosophy of
"mysticism". When we study many persons reckoned to be "mystics" by
temporary fellow humans, it is interesting to note that these mystics are
usually considered to be religious persons too. In fact, "mysticism" has
been given far too much the religious connotation of representing the
doctrine that knowledge on divine issues like reality (Creator+Creation)
and spirituality is attained by direct relevation rather than through
sense and reason. However, whereas "mystics" are often religious, the
converse holds much less -- religious persons are seldom "mystics" too.
The difference between "mystic" and "religious" is almost like the
difference between authentic and rote mentality. Despite this difference,
"mysticism" is often thought of as the theory and religion as its
practice. This is so because theories which advance extreme meditation and
intuitive contemplation of all life are often lumped together as
"mysticism".
I think that the term "mysticism" is far too heterogenous to be of any
definitive value in the study of mystic personalities in all cultures of
all times. It is like looking at a tree drifting almost submerged in a
swift current. As the tree rolls over while drifting along, we see new
branches and roots emerging above the water surface while the older ones
submerge again. But should we look at the tree long enough, we will be
able not only observe the emerged part rolling over, but also imagine the
submerged part rolling underneath. This helps us to understand that the
experiences and reason do play a role in mystic thoughts, but in the sense
of the past rather than the present. The mystic observes in the present
things and reasons about them in a manner what others are oblivious to.
In my own studies of mystic personalities I came deeply under the
impression how the mystic personality was deeply aware of usually one (and
sometimes two) of the seven essentialities. Perhaps it will beneficial to
think of this tree rolling submerged in the river of chaos as having seven
definite branches. For example, think of person who has become mystic to
others because of his/her advanced sensitivity to otherness
("quality-variety"). Whatever emergent metanoia this person has gained,
it is often labeled by others as a panteistic religion. Or think of
spareness ("quantity-limit") in which the arrogant mental jumps between
the finite and infinite is curtailed by imbedding the object or individual
in its field or social order. Here the outcome is usually judged by others
as a communistic suppression of the individual's personal gains. As a last
example, think of wholeness ("monadicity-associativity"). Seeking
wholeness as creature with the Creator is frequently seen as either a
self-deification or an ethically weak personality.
Eventhough mysticism may be the outgrowth of many different modes of
though and feeling, there are some positive (for me ;-) characterestics
often found among mystics. Firstly, mystics often appeared during the
oppressive years of a definite system of belief as the reaction of the
spirit against the letter. Secondly, mystics often questioned a basic
assumption in a definite system of belief which the religious conformists
rather considered as an evil heresy. Thirdly, mystics often prepare a
civilisation for a major paradigm shift once the knowledge of such a
civilisation on that paradigm has become exhausted.
But we will also have to bear in mind what may be considered as negative
characterestics. Firstly, mystics themselves often threw the baby out
together with the bath water. They become so excited about their newly
emerged insight that they neglect past insights which sustain this new
insight. For example, they migh substitute materialism with spiritualism
rather seeking the complementary duality between matter and spirit.
Secondly, the mystics of one generation often become the traditional idols
of following generations who blidly trust their understanding of the
mystics.
The effect of the general culture in which a person has grown up before
becoming mystic, also has a major influence on the mystical direction to
be taken. For example, Chinese (Bhuddism), Indian (Hinduism), African
(Ancestorism), Arabian (Moslem) and Persian (Sufisism) mystics differ
considerably from each other. The Hebrew faith had originally also
mystical facets, but under Judaism this mysticism was replaced by a rigid
prescriptions of monotheism. Thus Christianity brought back some of the
essential mystical facets. However, after some 600 years the Catholic
Church (CC) itself became very rigid in its doctrines. Maximus the
Confessor tried to revive the CC to its mystic dimension. But this attempt
was soon afterwards corrupted by Erigena employing the Dionysian writings.
It took another 400 years before Bernard of Clarevoix voiced his concern
once again that the CC has forsaken its primary calling to love in favor
for rational doctrines.
But two hundred years later, near the end of the thirteen centurty, the
writing appeared on the wall for the conformism and formalism in the CC.
Johannes Tauler in Strasbourg and Johannes Roesbroeck in the Netherlands
began to stress through writings that although the Love of God which goes
beyond understanding, it makes people aware of the Spirit of God who will
then teach them about the mysteries of Jesus Christ. Both had a direct
influence on Geert Groote who began a most interesting movement in
Deventer, called the Brethern of the Common Life (BCL). Soon these BCLs
spread through the entire Lowlands region, leading to one of the most
remarkable spiritual revivals with magnificent economical and social
spinoffs in the entire history of Europe (the Hansa era). These BCLs were
nothing else than medieval LOs. Furthermore, these BCLs prepared for the
fertile ground needed for the Reformation some century later. Many of the
reformers, especially Luther, acknowledge the key role which these mystics
of the fourteenth century played.
Is a new wave of mystics beginning to form? I think so. This wave began
with the writings of Carlyle and Mill. But as usual, we have to think in
terms of a century or two to see how this wave gradually picks up in crest
and speed. The writings of Bergson since the beginning of the twentieth
century, Planck (propensity), Smuts (holism), Whitehead (creative
evolution), Boehm (implicate order), Thom (catastrophies), and Maturana
(autopoiesis) show once again that the writing is appearing on the wall
of an dispensation closing down.
Is it impossible to understand the mystics? Should they be blindly
followed or be excommunicated? I do not think so. The thoughts of the
mystics differ from their contemporary fellow learners by at least an
order of complexity. Their complex thinking usually causes perplexed and
confused thinking among those trying to understand them, but who do not
question their own mental models. What they do not understand, is that
between the thinking of the mystic and their own thinking is a stretch of
chaos ending in a bifurcation, something which they will have to overcome
self. Whereas the mystical person shifted to a higher level of complexity
by an irreversible self-organisation, the perplexed person usually tries
to compensate for this lack of inner creativity by trying to import mental
treasures reversibly rather than creating them self.
Sometimes I wonder if the concept of a LO with its distinguishing metanoia
is not too mystic for fellow learners. I think that it will be the case
should we confuse emergent learning with digestive learning and try to
understand the LO with purely digestive learning.
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.