Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to all of you.
I want to introduce the topic above to our LO-dialogue.
I do it with great hesistation because of the innumerous mindmines we will
encounter. A mindmine is the complementary dual of a landmine. A landmine
can maime the body and sometimes even cause death. A mindmine can maime
the mind and sometimes even kills a person's spirituality. So I beg each
of us to tread with care in this field of "endless becoming".
With "endless becoming" I mean a movie which began long ago. I strongly
urge you to begin with this movie as far back in time as is possible for
you. If your religion tells you to go not further back that the Garden of
Eden where humankind became conscious of qualities such as good, right,
true and lovely, then please begin there and not at some later point in
time. If your biology tells you to go back a couple of billion years, then
please do so. If your geology tells you to go back even some more billions
of years, then do please do so. If your cosmology tells you to go as far
back as the Big Bang, then please do so.
Let us not argue where to begin because that will be one of the mindmines
which I had warned about earlier. To avoid this mindmine, let us try to
seek a beginning to which we all will agree, yet as far as back as
possible for each of us. One exciting way to go futher back than this
beginning to which all of us will agree, is for each of us to use our
imagination. For example, I may firmly believe that Creation began a week
before the Garden of Eden was inhabited by Adam. Yet I can imagine
traveling back in time long before Creation began.
Sadly, even such imagination is prone to another mindmine because somebody
else may say that this particular imagination is NOT RIGHT. I will
endlessly honour the RIGHT of this person to say it is NOT RIGHT because
it happens within this "endless becoming of right". Yet my imagination
which is happening now also happens within this "endless becoming of
right". Thus should my RIGHT to imagine not be honoured too? How will we
avoid also this mindmine? I think that we all have to promise not to
willfully set up mindmines which could harm many, if not all, of us.
I have capitalised the RIGHT and NOT RIGHT above to stress that this movie
of "endless becoming" concerns "right" as one of a specific set of
qualities. The development of "right" into RIGHT and NOT RIGHT is for me
part of this curious movie so that I would prefer not to exclude this
development from the movie. Another person may now say that this is NOT
TRUE because I avoid LEM (Law of Excluded Middle) which is TRUE for this
person. Need I say more to make you aware of another mindmine we will have
to try and avoid?
I am very tempted to give a name to this set of qualities like good,
right, true and lovely. But I will not do so at this stage. I do not have
an hidden agenda, although I think it will be wise to keep the name tacit
for some time so as to be able to fathom the tacit dimension of the
personal knowledge of each of us. Perhaps it is also wise because I will
now try to articulate a name for something else. This may trigger many
mindmines as history clearly depicts.
The thing which I want to name is this very movie which I have described
by "endless becoming", using quotes to stress that it is not the name of
that thing. As for my own understanding, this description "endless
becoming" is for me the "seminal name" of that thing. By this I mean that
the description suggests to me some "how" of the thing and not its "what".
So when I think of the "nominal name" of that thing, I will rather focus
on its "what". So let me attempt a "nominal name" for this curious thing
with "endless becoming" as one many possible "seminal names". Another
possible "seminal name" is "development". Search in the text above and you
will see how I used it once tacitly, i.e. not telling what I knowingly had
done. You yourself can generate several other possible "seminal names" and
I want to urge you strongly to do so. By doing this, you will become aware
of the immense scope of the "nominal name" as well as the many mindmines
ahead of us.
Well, here is the "nominal name" or "what name" of that movie. It is
EVOLUTION. Yes, our topic is on the evolution of qualities like good,
right, true and lovely. The mere mentioning of evolution brings in a horde
of mindmines. A geologist who knows his subject like fellow learner Leo
Minnigh can tell us of the many mindminds which blew up the reputation of
geologist trying to understand geological evolution. (Leo, perhaps one day
you should tell us about these mindmines which exploded in the study of
geological evolution.) Any biologist among us can do the same for
biological evolution. Those fellow learners who have studied the vast
history of organisational management since ancient times (Egypt,
Babilonia, Greece, Rome, ....) have actually studied organisational
evolution. They can also tell about the many mindmines which blew up along
the study of organisational evolution.
I must now warn you about a most devastating kind of mindmine of which
millions of units are just lying around, more than even all the landmines
in countries like Angola and Mosambique.They have been layed by humankind
through all the ages. The far majority of humankind were unaware that they
were actually laying this devastating kind of mindmine just as many felt
intensely this mindmind blowing up while not aware of what they are
laying.
Allow me to explain. These qualities good, right, true and lovely have to
do with topics such as ethics, morality, logic and esthetics. Humankind as
a whole (the "mitsein") is involved with these qualities. They make
humankind different from all other biological species, whether animal or
plant. These qualities are also indissolubly connected to the whole (the
"dassein") character of each person in humankind. Whether we use them in
the individual or collective sense, they pose an immense hazard. Here is
now the mindmine which I am thinking of. These qualities have been used
since times immemorial by humans to judge humans so as to promote the
positive evolution of these qualities in humankind. Thus the Mental Model
that these qualities always involve judgement has become firmly implanted
in our minds.
I now intend to tell about the evolution ("endless becoming") of these
qualities. While telling my observations and experiences, quite innocently
paying attention to the very evolution of these qualities and trying as
much as possible not to be judgemental, some other fellow learner will
interpret all my tellings as highly judgemental because of having this
Mental Model. Thus this devastating mindmine is about ready to explode. In
the very next step I or that person can step on that mindmine by making a
deliberate judgement -- kaboom and at least all learning stops. Frightened
at least I will jump aside right onto the next unit of the same kind of
mindmine by getting into the other person's character -- kaboom and even
more spiritual evolution stops. Fright turns into anger as the next line
of defence -- kaboom and at least I will resort to destructive creativity.
After anger comes the cunning killer as the last line of defence. At least
I will now deliberately plant these judgemental mindmines at every level
of the other person's spirituality so as to protect my creativity at the
very bottom of my spirituality. I will make war, trying to get peace on
the little which will remain. This is how at least I will use my tacit
knowing of the "creative collapse" (something blissfully constructive) in
the most destructive manner possible.
Have I been judgemental above? I have avoid judgements in it as far as my
mental power allows me while telling as clearly as possible a tiny
sequence from this evolution ("endless becoming") of qualities like good,
right, true and lovely. Yet even I myself can clearly derive a highly
judgemental meaning from in the above. Jan Smuts, the "father of holism"
(Holism and Evolution, 1926) struggled all his life to solve this immense
problem of both the divine and demonial operating within the human
personality. He was an Afrikaner just like me. He was a pious Christian
and believed firmly in the ever lasting solution which Jesus Christ gave
to this problem. Every other level of his spirituality was also fully
operative. So as a scientist with superior transdisciplinary thinking he
tried to seek answers beyond the mere religious. He was immensely aware
that these extended answers had to do with evolution itself.
Sadly, because of seaching for the answer in evolution itself and telling
about his findings as he explored deeper into this problem of the divine
versus the demonial in the personality, the far majority of his fellow
Afrikaners judged his very endeavour to be as antichristian as one can
get. Tens of thousands of these judgemental mindmines exploded as he
bravely ventured deeper into this problem. In some of his private letters
one can read his lamentations on the incredible pain these exloding
mindmines caused him and his fellow Afrikaners. He and Jeremiah were two
of a kind.
The most devastating outcome of these exploding judgemental mindmines was
that they forced the Afrikaner people deeper into the mess. Eventually
they formalised the fragmentaristic doings ("divide and thus rule") of the
colonial powers (Holland and Britain) which they (Afrikaners) themslves
were subjected to as their own ideology and policy called apartheid. Not
in his wildest dreams during the nineteen twenties would Smuts ever have
imagined the formalisation of apartheid. (Smuts died four years after
apartheid came into power.) Never would he have imagined that at the end
of apartheid some forty years later, it would result in some of its slaves
becoming cunning killers. During the very hearings of the Truth and
Reconcilation Commission afterwards some of these cunning killers admitted
that they are deeply sorry for what they deliberately became. But they
also cried out that how it happened was a mystery to them! They pleaded
for forgiveness.
But as you fellow learners can imagine, the majority of South Africans
then judged them not only as cunning killers, but cunning liars and
cunning moralists too. Let us not judge, but try to learn how is it
possible that the demonial in the personality can take so much control of
the divine that the intentions of the divine reverse into the
deliberations of the demonial. Jan Smuts observed early in the twenties
that this shift in control makes humans and humankind crazy. (Others said
that he was most judgemental in merely telling this observation.) Long
before the leaders of the other nations, he predicted the coming of WWII
as the final outcome of this crazyness. Except for possibly Churchill, all
the leaders of the other nations judged Smuts to be judgemental. They
concluded that he was completely wrong in predicting WWII. His warnings
that these leaders should do all in their power to prevent WWII happening
were seen by them as the insane utterings of someone who have self become
crazy by delving too deep into holism.
Allow me to tell about myself for I might do injustice to Jan Smuts. I have
self been deeply entrenched with this Mental Model that
. whenever qualities like good, right, true and
. lovely comes into any telling, then judgements
. are automatically implied by their very coming
. into the telling.
I indent this description of the Mental Model because I have tried to
describe it as precisely as I can. Rather than giving this unique Mental
Model a name I will refer to it as $Mental Model$ by using the $ signs as
the quoting sign.
I have but a few memories of my own consciousness before the age of eight
years. But since then my memories of my own consciousness exploded rapidly
as I learned to read and began to read books like crazy. Even in these few
memories before my reading began, I vividly remember how each of them
concerned a judgement involving good, right, true or lovely. I was unaware
of this $Mental Model$ all my life until a few years ago.
I will now have to tell something about the religious facet of my own
life. It is not at all intended to evangelize any one of you fellow
learners. It is but a case study of authentic learning. I hope that it
will benefit some of you as a case study. I will also use the word "sin"
the first time ever in all my contributions on Internet over many years. I
have avoided using the word because of my tacit knowing since some ten
years ago. I can now tell this tacit knowing, but I will not for now. I
will still avoid using the word "sin" in any other contribution. The maim
reason is that this word invokes too much rote learning. thus displacing
authetic learning.
I woke up one night from sleep, which happens to most men beyond a certain
age. As I got onto my feet, a voice said to me "What do you think happened
in Paradise?" The voice and its Speaker did not surpise me. I went to the
toilet, thinking what a curious question it was. I went back to bed and
fell asleep seconds afterwards. The next moring as I was waking up,
(thoughts usually forming in my mind within seconds after waking up), my
very first thought was: "Adam and Eve judged God." Only then I remebered
the curious question. Consequently I rushed to the Bible to make sure that
this was the answer to the most curious question. I was so surpised. I
have been taught since childhood that the sin of Adam and Eve was their
disobediance to one of God's commands. They ate the fruit of that one tree
of "good and bad" which God forbade them to eat. I was a victim of rote
learning, despite all my efforts as a midwife to authentic learning to
avoid rote learning.
The "eating of the fruit of the tree of good and bad" can also be
interpreted as a metaphor for making judgements. The serpent can also be
interpreted as the demonial in the personality. God said that they should
not judge. The serpent tempted them into judging that God did not want
them to become like God by God's very warning to them that they should not
judge. So they judged that God is God because God can judge. Yet in the
rest of the subsequent evolution of the Bible there is a seemingly
mysterious message from God. "I do not judge because I am love." A couple
of weeks later I became aware of this devastating $Mental Model$ which I
had.
Please do not call this Mental Model the "judgemental" one. I am honest
when saying that since my Christian rebirth some thirty years ago I have
consciously and deliberately tried to become less judgemental. In other
words, we might speculate that already some thirty years ago I tried to
unlearn this $Mental Model$. It is by far not the same thing for me. I
tried to unlearn my judgemental behaviour and have made some progress
thanks to God's grace. Those who know me for more than thirty years may
witness to it. But how could I unlearn something (this $Mental Model$)
which I was not even tacitly aware of until a few years ago when the Voice
questioned me?
This $Mental Model$ is not merely what we may call "judgementality". It is
something which goes much, much deeper than "judgementality". For example,
my deliberate decision not to use the word "sin" on Internet has been made
to avoid "judgementality". It was never made to avoid this $Mental Model$.
This $Mental Model$ involves something which I will name by the word
"adjunction". Just an explanation please. An "adjunction" is for me some
universal similarity or correspondence in form between any two system
which have quite different contents at least. In a less universal context,
i.e, in a local context, I would rather speak of an "isomorphism". Every
local "isomorphism" becomes apparent as a result of convergent evolution
or convergent morphogenesis.
There are many different adjunctions as there are many different
isomorphisms. Only one peculiar $adjunction$ of the many adjunctions
operates in this $Mental Model$. Furthermore, at present I think that most
Mental Models do not even involve any adjunction or isomorphism. However,
to explain at this stage how this peculiar $adjunction$ operates in this
$Mental Model$ is not possible. I will have to tell much more before I can
use that telling to tell of this operation. I will rather wait for this
peculiar adjunction to manifest its operation in the $Mental Model$
somewhere in our LO-dialogue so that I can explain its operations in terms
of our experiences rather than my tellings.
I became aware of God's message "I do not judge because I am love" from my
very first readings of the Bible, but I never understood the message.
Today I know "that" the $Mental Model$ prevented my understanding and even
"how" it prevented my understanding. The explanation is actually so simple
that it is almost hillarious were it not so serious. Despite all my
efforts not to judge,
(1) I judged this to be one of God's mystic messages and
(2) I judged myself to be incapable of knowing by endless
. learning the full meaning of this sentence.
It is an example of how the demonial tries to take control of the divine
in my own personality.
Many Christians would say that it is an example of the spell of sin. I
would have said it myself up to a few years ago. They will also say that
the blood of Jesus cleans us from all sin so that the spell which sin cast
becomes broken. I would have said it myself up to a few years ago. But I
will not say so any more because I am now aware that even the blood of
Jesus follows a path of "endless becoming", i.e. evolutionary path. Since
some thrity years ago I began to rely on the blood of Jesus for my
salvation. Yet it took almost thirty years for me to become aware through
my own authentic learning of this $Mental Model$ (and one articulated
midwifery by the Voice).
Does this mean that the blood of Jesus is weak or that I have weakened it
by not admitting some or other sin and begging to be washed clean of it?
No. It rather means that even knowing follows an evolutionary path along
the many intricate steps of learning. We cannot have all knowing at once
with one powerful step of learning. Nothing in Creation just works like
that -- first nothing and then immediately afterwards everything. Creation
is not a picture, but a movie. Even my own personality, tiny among
billions of others, is not a picture, but a movie.
How does the demonial try to take control of the divine in the
personality? Today I am aware of many ways, but the principal way is to
judge conditionally rather than to love unconditionally. This $Mental
Model$ prevented me to become aware how the demonial try to take control
of the divine in my own personality. This $Mental Model$ had been a most
serious constraint in all my learning up to a few years ago. To make you
fellow learners aware of it, I bagan to write about LEM (Law of Excluded
Middle) in logic. LEM is not this $Mental Model$ because LEM involves
merely the quality true and not also good, right, lovely, etc.
Allow me one last example to illustrate how this $Mental Model$ screwed up
my learning. This example comes once again from my religious life.
Whenever I studied the prophecies in the Bible, I gave only one
interpretation to them. These prophecies told about God's judgements
rather than telling about God as Love. The worst is that I found many
citations in the Bible telling me to make this interpretation. What I
actually did, is to give this interpretation even to these citations! As a
consequence I detected immense discrepancies between these prophecies and
God's mystic message "I do not judge because I am love". I have talked to
many atheists who actually uses these discrepencies to explain why they
are atheists. By the grace of God I saw these discrepancies as a problem
to solve rather than as a reason to become an atheist. Otherwise I mean
nothing judgemental by these last two sentences. I love atheists just as
much as I love other people with whatever religion. Actually, I have a
special love for atheists because they have helped to unleash some immense
entropic force within me. It is the difference between GOD and NOT-GOD,
something which I at best could symbloise by the curious symbolization
/_\GOD.
But since I became aware of this $Mental Model$, I have learned to seek a
second interpretation for all these prophecies devoid of this $Mental
Model$. It is the following. They are also a careful telling of the
"endless becoming" of these qualities like good, right, true and lovely.
Since these qualities are irreversibly connected to humankind, some humans
have to enter this telling of the "endless becoming" of these qualities.
These observations of the future evolution of these qualities among some
mentioned humans or sections of huamnkind cannot be interpreted as a
judgement unless I invoke this $Mental Model$. In other words, only when I
assume that the mere mentioning of qualities like good, right, true and
lovely automatically implies judgement and thus bad for good, wrong for
right, false for true and ungly for lovely as the automatical outcomes of
such judgement, I prevent all other possible interpretations so as to be
left with one and only one interpretation, namely the judgemental
interpretation.
I want to mention specifically one of these many other possible
interpretations, namely the interpretation "one-to-many-love". Studying
all these prophecies and now discovering one by one how they can be
interpreted as "one-to-many- love" has been my greatest joy the past few
years. Thus I learned more and more about the "evolution of love". Yes,
love is not a picture for me any more, it is the movie which surpasses all
other movies which I know, including the compelling movie "entropy
production".
By now many of you may imagine that I have gone so crazy that I am either
certifiable to be removed from public or ready for the stake so as to be
removed from the living. Imagination is a most precious tool for learning.
Let us not make it powerless by invoking the $Mental Model$ even in
imagination and hence forbidding some imaginations. Imagination is most
precious because as far as I can observe, it is only humankind which can
imagine. It seems to me (as a speculation and not as a judgement) that no
other form of life can imagine. I am trying as hard as I can to falsify
(again not judge) this speculation, but I have not proceeded one tiny bit
for a couple of years now.
Like Smuts (evolution) before me and even Goethe (morphogenesis) before
him, I am discovering daily how hazardous this exploration of "endless
becoming" can become. There are mindmines ready to explode at almost every
step which I take. How I wish for that day when we as humankind can begin
with the cleaning up operation of these mindmines. But I have to be
realistic too. Cleaning up landmines in countries like Angola and
Mazambique is a deed which only a few brave persons willingly do. That is
why the task is still going on after so many years. I suspect cleaning up
mindmines will take much longer. They have been strewn by the billions in
hundreds of different brands all over the spiritual realm of humankind.
Every day I observe how they explode, maiming or even killing the
spirituality of fellow humans.
I wonder whether you fellow learners also perceive an irreversible
connection between this "endless becoming of good, right, true, lovely,
etc." and the task of creating Learning Organisations? The reason why I
have decided to tell you about this $Mental Model$ which screwed up my own
spirituality for some fifty years is that is that I now strongly suspect
that it is constraining the emergence of many a Learning Organisation. I
also strongly suspect that some of you fellow learners know this $Mental
Model$ tacitly, but because of this very $Mental Model$ you are prevented
to tell what you tacitly know. I am almost sure that many of you are at
least aware by experience of this $Mental Model$, even though your tacit
knowledge of it might be lacking by the very action of this $Mental
Model$.
How lovely is this "endless becoming" not in the learning of each of us
and the knowing of us together. As Michale Polanyi have once suggested
with visionary insight, are we not a free society of explorers.
Please forgive my spelling and other language errors because I am too
tired to focus on them in the text.
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.