Replying to LO26392 --
Dear Sajeela and Co-LO participants,
Sajeela, thank you for your thought provoking response. I'm dancing on
the edges of chaos. My response is unfortunately a bit "superficial" due
to time constraints - thus I will hardly touch the surface even though I
believe that some of the questions you raised warrants a "deep"
exploration!
You wrote,
> When we cease to experience the actuality of an experience, and we begin
> to believe that the abstraction of that moment is more real then the
> moment itself, have we lost the beauty of the moment and therefore cease
> to accurately predict/measure/value that moment? Conventional wisdom would
> have us believe that the abstraction is more accurate, which is like Truth
> with a capital T --- it excludes all other truths and therefore is a
> distortion of reality.
I'm of the opinion that the actuality of the experience and the
abstraction of the experience form a complementary pair and is not in
conflict with each other. The moment the abstraction becomes more
important than the actuality of the experience - something is impaired.
Is the fragmentation of the physical and spiritual not an important cause
of the lost of beauty?
> Tertiary Wisdom © (Ramsey 1996,1997). [ allows for more accurately gauging
> the emergent nature of organisations and occurs long before the moment one
> is recognising and absorbing meaning; is intuited. Learning in this way
> may allow for dramatic changes in awareness beyond that of double loop or
> second order knowledge] as I know it is actually not capturable --- or
> once captured, it ceases to be what it is, and is instead an "image"
> formed by the perceiver. So I would say this: Tertiary Wisdom can be
> observed, known, felt, experienced, but probably not contained.
Whenever the surroundings "interrogate" the system, the organisation of
the system will change! I belief you are right when you say "it ceases to
be what it is". I am compelled to ask whether we should endeavour to
"contain" Tertiary Wisdom (as I currently understand it)? I have often
become aware how often we endeavour to capture the emergent nature of
organisations through quantitative measurements - falsely believing that
the quantitative measurements will reveal the whole truth.
You went on to say:
> It's a bit like this:
> The world is an active, transforming solution in which one can observe
> and otherwise sense that things are happening by the presence of or in
> relation to other things, in an exact and iconic way ---- becoming a
> common reservoir of metaphor and allusion called "language". We approach a
> constant kaleidoscopic flux of paradox ---- that which seems patternless
> becomes a rarer pattern of disorder --- and we then attempt to give it
> order through the frozen will of words and other technological
> extensions. This is at best inaccurate.
I do not believe that words are necessarily frozen. I am however of the
opinion that words often get "frozen" because of the peculiar nature of
the mental model that you mentioned, the mental model of sensing and
observing that things are happening by the presence of or in relation to
things in an exact and iconic way!
> Yes, we have many extensions/technologies that
> capture moments well, including language. But of what good are these to
> the human condition?
I belief we do allot worse than we tend to think. Just think for a moment
about the LO dialog that we are all participating in. We are often not
very "successful" capturing the moment through language.
> This is the crux or issue of Value. If we focus on
> capturing the moment and harnessing this to predict drivers of future
> business wealth, how are we shaping the future? In whose interests, and
> why? With what longterm impacts on which stakeholders?
Yes, yes! The questions you have raised are extremely important. I
suspect the answer to the questions asked and the implications thereof is
staggering - almost beyond our comprehension. I have contemplated the
questions you have asked in the past and the conclusions I reached shocked
my out of my wits. I would like to share my thinking regarding these
issues.
The nice "old' issue of value. Well, we use this word Value to describe
so many situations and we extract so many meanings from it. What is the
value of the company? What is the value of the assets? On what values do
you base your existence? We can go on and on.... As far as I am
concerned there's two dimensions to Value that complements each other - a
physical and abstract dimension (We could probably even name them
"physical value" and "spiritual value"). I belief that the complementary
duality of these values are imbedded in the organisation of any system.
The complementary duality of these values play a crucial role in the
organisation of a system/s.
We have become extremely adept at focussing on moments - a snapshots. We
often use a snapshot to predict the future with disastrous consequences. I
really contemplate going to the local cinema in order to stare at a
"frozen"/ paused frame for two hours...Have you ever seen such an
intriguing "movie". Imagine the review of the "movie" in the "movie
review" column!
I would like to explore the movie metaphor further. When we refer to a
movie do we not merely refer to the change in snapshots in a continuum of
time and space? Yip I believe so. The change of the frames/"snapshots"
in a continuum of time and space constitute a movie. I am convinced that
the "movie" is extremely important and we are often not looking at it!
Does the importance of the "movie" mean that the "snapshots" are not
important? I do not think so. They must be complementary. Try to think
away the snapshots - will the movie still exist? Try to think away the
movie - will the snapshots still exist?
I believe that focusing on the snapshots alone thus excluding the movie
(pattern/trends etc) is a manifestation of a paradigm of simplicity.
Focusing on the movie and snapshots as a complementary pair is a
manifestation of a paradigm of complexity.
As an example I would like to share an important experience we had. Like
most businesses we require finance. We recently applied for an increase
of our existing facilities at a renowned international banking group. So
we followed the normal procedures regarding approval for finance and
submitted the following as requested by the bank:
A short company profile
The audited financial statements - the snapshot.
Financial projections in the form of budgets.
A month or so later the bank returned. The credit approval committee was
concerned about our "bottom line". Well, we make good profits they said
but we should make more. They main concern was the fact that we "spend" so
much money on a "development" program. We did not only "spend" allot of
money on the mentioned program but we also didn't "invest" in resources in
order to market our "unique" involvement with the community. (Well our
community program entails the following. We use athletics as a vehicle.
We have appointed two persons on a full time basis that work with +/- 120
underprivileged children in a local township on a daily basis.). The
success of this program is currently causing us tremendous harm and pain.
I belief that the merit of our application was exclusively judged in terms
of the physical dimension of Value and solely in terms of what could be
quantified by means of "dollars".
There are so many other compelling examples. Consider the rise and almost
demise of Nissan. And the stockmarkets? Nothing fails like success!
How often does success impair openness and change? Why should we - we are
so successful doing the things the way we do!
You further wrote:
>So I am wondering Roger about who gets to define what is valuable, and what
>may get left out as a result of a given process being frozen by
>conventional wisdom.
As previously mentioned I belief that the complementary pair - physical
and abstract dimension of value - is crucial to the organisation of the
system. I am increasingly becoming aware that these two "dimensions" are
crucial in the organisation of systems (Maybe I should rather refer to
value as wealth/health). I came as a shock when I realised that the future
of a specific system - meaning the future of the current organisation of a
system - is not determined by the organisation of the specific system! But
what is "valuable" and what is left out is determined by the organisation
of the system as a whole (the biggest of the biggest system). Yip, the
gravity that keeps the earth in orbit around the sun does not depend on
the mass of the earth alone, nor of the masses of the earth and the sun,
but rather by the masses of all the "objects" in the universe.
The value's of the system as a whole will determine what is valuable and
what gets left out. But how? I believe through what is known as the
requisite complexity manifesting through the Law of Requisite Complexity.
It is the requisite complexity of the system as a whole(the biggest of the
biggest system) that will eventually determine the fait of an specific
system functioning within a bigger whole(the biggest of biggest system).
I'm referring to fait of an specific system to the extent that the current
organisation of the system will change to a different organisation in the
future- yes the value's of the specific system imbedded in the
organisation of the system will change too!
Consider functioning in a system that we call democracy. Now consider the
following. We exercise our democratic rights by voting on specific
issues. Lets for e.g. say we vote via a referendum regarding the issue of
genetic engineering. What if a certain frame of reference, is a
prerequisite in order to make an informed decision regarding genetic
engineering? What if this frame of reference is lacking? Lets assume we
are in South Africa and over 50% of the population is illiterate in fact
75% of the population has never even heard of genetic engineering.
None than less the name of the game is "democracy" and we exercise our
individual democratic rights to vote on the issue of genetic engineering
even though a frame of reference as an prerequisite is lacking. What will
be the outcome of the decision making through the democratic process?
Devastating!
Lets for e.g. assume it has been determined that someone has a genetic
predisposition to develop type II diabetes. Lets assume the person lack a
frame of reference regarding the genetic predisposition (the condition of
type II diabetes, the impact of the environment as well as following
specific lifestyles etc.). The interaction of the systems cause extremely
small changes over a long/extended period of time - it is these minute
changes over a long period that will eventually determine the outcome -
whether you will develop diabetes or not! You have been told how important
your dietary habits are and you go shopping! How will one choose between
what food to buy and what food not to buy, if one does not have any
experience regarding the impact of food and/or the impact of food is so
minute that the effects thereof cannot be recognised immediately? In fact
one does not even have experience suffering from type II diabetes! What
if it is a fact that your choice of food will have a irreversible effect
on your health - good or bad over the long-term? Once you have developed
type II diabetes it cannot be reversed! Coin flipping in the shop.......
heads or tails. What will it be?
What can we do as individuals should we exist in such a system?
But wait. We can also leave our fait(the decision) in the hands of a
selected group of informed intellectuals. What do you think will be the
eventual outcome of their decision? Devastating! Devastating because the
system as a whole lack the requisite complexity!
What can we do?
I recently read about a referendum that was held in California whereby the
Californians voted(60%) in favour of charging 14 year old children as
adults (should they be charged with murder). I wonder what the outcome of
a similar referendum in California would have been should the voters had
to decide whether to allow 14 year olds to drive, buy liquor and
cigarettes and be allowed to vote in future referendums! I suspect the
answer will be NO. Not only will the answer be an emphatic no but such a
referendum will never be held! (I have to remind myself to never say
never)
Is the irregularity (in the answers of the referendums) indicative of a
lack of requisite complexity for the system as a whole. Was the decisions
made based on a paradigm of simplicity? I suspect so.
The following thought struck me like a bolt of lightning. Should the
LRC(Law of requisite complexity) be a reality, which I believe it is, then
the requisite complexity of systems are not equal! The requisite
complexity of system A does not equal the requisite complexity of system
B. Yes Equality is not a reality. I have to contemplate what was said
during the French Revolution. Liberty, Equality and Freedom? I am
convinced that a mental model of Equality will prevent Freedom - it will
be destructive!
I believe that we are tacitly aware that the requisite complexity of
systems are not equal. Yes I am aware of the fact that I will not be able
to run in the final of the 100m in the coming Olympic games! What is
devastating is the awareness of "things" not being equal within a paradigm
of simplicity! I have witnessed on numerous occasion how the awareness of
"things" not being equal manifests into:
"Things are not equal" + judgement. Yes the notion that equality does not
exist immediately give rise to the idea that one system is therefore
superior to the another system (which is inferior). We are infact doing
the following (2 systems called System A and System B):
System A + (adjustment for superiority) = System B + (adjustment for
inferiority). Yes we are indeed trying to reverse time! Are we trying to
reverse our ingorance concerning the awareness of differences?
Is this mental model - Systems are not equal = Judgement (inferior and
superior) - not a root cause of the rise of so much hatred etc. Consider
the rise and demise Nazism. Consider the rise and demise of Apartheid in
South Africa. Consider the harm of imposing a specific system organised
around the systems requisite complexity, on another system with a
different requisite of complexity. Why are these systems often plagued by
rogue learning, regurgitation and memorisation of information?
Should we not allow systems to develop spontaneously from within the
system.? What harm will be done, to what systems and with what
implications? What systems will benefit and for how long will they
benefit? If we interfere with a system how should we proceed to prevent
destruction?
I belief that within a paradigm of complexity we cannot but recognise that
the organistations of systems are not equal BUT neither can we
regard/interpret the differences in the organisations of the systems as
indications of superior or inferior statuses of system/s. Is it not
exactly the recognition of the differences without judging that "allows"
for authentic and emergent learning?
Still dancing on the edges of chaos.
Regards
Alfred Rheeder
Carpe Diem!
--Alfred Rheeder <pvm@pixie.co.za>
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.