Replying to LO25663 --
Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@Voith.de> writes:
>Third thought:
>At de Lange wrote in LO25635: "When the factor Y can
>have potentially many possible values of which only two
>is actually operating, the dialectical conflict spill over when
>the other values also begin to operate. Assume that the
>many potential values are Y(1), Y(2), Y(3), Y(4), Y(5), Y(6)
>and Y(7) IN ORDER of increasing value." The sentence
>seems to establish an order of Y(1) 'talk', Y(2) 'think' and
>Y(3) 'see'. Freeing myself from the dialectical traps involved
>(first and second thoughts ;-) I still wonder what the factor
>Y may be.
Greetings Winfried,
When I wrote this paragraph, I thought to myself that should someone
respond to it, it would most probably be you. Why? Because I observed how
you gradually overcame dialectical thinking and the many downfalls it
leads to. Your personal mastery on this issue gave me much pleasure. I
became aware of your mastering of this extremely difficult issue when you
exclaimed surpise at how easily people, me using Herzog and Smuts as
example, delegate sureness and wholeness into dialectical opposites.
Keep on wondering what the factor Y may be.
I was also delighted by Andrew's artistic connection (and thus brushing
aside many formalisms ;-) of talk, think and see. I thought to myself
whether I should repond by writing "Believing is in the seeing". But then
I decided against it because I would have to explore the "believing" and
the "seeing" so as to establish for me some categorical identity
(sureness) in this saying. As for the "believing", it is almost shocking
to me how little "talking", less "thinking" and almost no "seeing" is done
on this important mental activity.
As for the "seeing", is there any sense in the "sighted still leading the
sighted"? The answer to this question summarise in a curious way my
midwifery. Once a person can "see" among all the "talk" and "think" that
person has emerged from a follower, not to a leader as dialectical
thinking would have it, but to an authentic artist.
We have a saying in my mother tongue that nobody can be as blind as
somebody who does not want to see. This saying seems to be perfectly true
in the far majority of cases. However, I cannot go with it any more. For
me it is now clear that nobody can be as blind as somebody who is blind to
lacking in want (free energy) and means (essentialities) to see -- double
loop blindness we might call it.
>Fourth thought:
>Now beyond any dialecticism, lets assume a LO need
>those who talk, those who think and at least one who
>sees as a team. How can such a team emerge as a
>sculpture and not as a heap of loose sand? For those
>who talk, such question will not arise. For those who
>think sceptical thoughts like the first two above will arise.
>What does the one who see have to observe in order to
>be able to think and talk wise? May be some hidden,
>or extremely hidden points?
Winfried, I will offer you my own insight as a riddle:
.. One has to see how one sees among
. all the much talk and less think.
The fact that it is a riddle provides the clue. You have shown that you
have the want. Should you need some means, bring openness into sight.
>P.S.: Could it be the dance of LEP on LEC?
Of course yes. Some of the dance has been completed and the rest still has
to happen. Think of that which humankind has created linguistically so as
to continue with the dance. It is something which is very difficult to
create by using any other form of art than language.
The oldest book in the Bible has a compelling story of much talking, less
thinking and very little seeing which happened some four thousand years
ago. It involves seven personalities: Job, his wife, his three friends
(Eliphas, Bildad and and Zophar), the young kid Elihu, the Satan and the
Lord. Some time ago I talked about dialecticism as one of the themes in
the book Job and how young Elihu overcame it by using the complementary
dual "spirit of person" and "breath of God". Let us go one step further.
What Elihu had said, caused much entropy production in the minds of Job
and his three friends. Then, out of this whirlwind the Lord answered Job
as follows: (Job 38: 2 - 3)
. "Who is that darkens counsel by words without
. knowledge. Now gird up your loins like a man,
. and I will ask you, and you teach me."
Then, up to the end of chapter 41 something most extraordinary happens.
As a result of it (another clue), Job admits in the last chapter (Job 42: 5 - 6)
. "I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear,
. but now my eye sees Thee. Therefore I retract
. and I repent in dust and ashes."
With this "one eye seeing" the healing of Job became completed so
that he could dance with LEP on LEC for another 140 years, "full of days"
as the book Job says. Was Job a cyclops?
How can we bring "doing" back in the "talk" and "think" so that we can
"see"?
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.