Replying to LO27333 --
Dear Organlearners,
Artur Silva <artsilva@mail.eunet.pt> writes:
>I completely agree with you, At. But I have stressed
>the importance of "revolutionary science" for many
>reasons that I would like to clarify.
>
>The first one is that I am trying to understand "metanoia" ....
(snip)
>But that is not the right answer, of course. The main point
>is the complex set of reasons that took me to consider that
>"metanoia" was the subject to choose now and in this list...
Greetings dear Artur,
I am one with you in heart="psychee"="moed".
The best advice which I can offer for any fellow learner is to shift your
paradigm so that these metanoia can emerge in you. Then afterwards you
have to question these metanoia so as to begin understanding them.
>And indeed all our "teaching institutions" have taught
>us (and still teach our young people) "normal science"
>and "single loop learning". We teach our students "too
>much" and that is still worsening with "educational
>programs" ("teaching programs") to masters and Ph.D.
Than is putting it softly. Often there is bad weather in my soul when I
think of what are being done to them who believe innocently that it is the
best.
>And I doubt very much that with more training
>(the name that "teaching" takes in the business
>world) or with more "disciplines" (a name that in
>the occidental tradition came clearly from "schools")
>we will do it.
We have two examples who actually illustrate your point. Faraday, the
greatest experimentalist in phsyics and Einstein, the greatest theorist in
physics had no formal university training. They were just too much misfits
(Farady being poor and Einstein being a day dreamer) to qualify for
university training.
>You probably have already understood that I also
>think that the "OL/LO" field also needs very urgently
>a profound paradigm shift, or "scientific revolution"
>(if we can call "science" to the "org studies"). And I
>am quite worried because it seem to me that almost
>everyone is doing "normal science" in a field where I
>think that a "profound paradigm shift" is needed.
Thomas Kuhn wrote that it is the "vested interests" of experts which
prevents them from shifting their paradigm. I fully agree. I want to add
that these experts are usually not aware of those "vested interests". And
should they become aware of these "vested interests" through anomalous
events, they will think of them as non-negotiable. Why?
The following is intended as an observation and definitely not as a
judgement. The thinking that "vested interests" which affords superior
power are non-negotiable has very much to do with pride. What goes up
haughtily has to come down with humiliation. Jesus taught his disciples
several lessons in this regard.
Technically speaking, it has very much to do with the free energy landscape.
See:
< http://www.learning-org.com/01.09/0018.html >
and figure 2
< http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/0109_landfree.gif >
Normal science happens in the shaded region going up whereas revolutionary
science happens in the clear region going down. The "vested interests"
become important in the shaded region near the summit. Again the following
applies: What goes up haughtily has to come down with humiliation
>With the general Subject "LOs and metanoia" I mean:
>we need to understand and facilitate metanoia in our
>organizations (or our client's organizations), so that they
>can become LOs. And we need a metanoia in the LO
>field to be able to do that with an acceptable rate of
>success (and we already saw that the current rate of
>success is unacceptably low).
I have respect for your viewpoint that we need to understand and
facilitate metanoia. Your viewpoint is a profound truth for me also. But I
think that perhaps I think differently than you because perhaps we think
from different paradigms. Allow me to explain.
In my paradigm I think of truth not as a "being" (ontology), but as a
"becoming-being". In other words, I think of truth as an EO (Elementary
Organiser) which can perhaps be described by word pairs such as
"making-true" or "proving-theorem". An EO always begin with its first word
(a verb) and end in its last word (a noun). For example, in the EO
"painting-picture" we begin with the act of painting and end in the
picture as its result.
I think that whoever wants to lead/guide/facilitate any organisation in
any truth should have self cycled several times through that truth as an
EO. In other words, "making-true" your truth "we need to understand and
facilitate metanoia in our organizations" implies that the
leader/guider/facilitator had to have done it at least once self. Only
then will that leader/guider/facilitator have acquired the capacity to
lead/guide/facilitate the organisation which not yet have acquired the
capacity.
That is why I wrote in the beginning:
"The best advice which I can offer for any fellow learner is to shift your
paradigm so that these metanoia can emerge in you. Then afterwards
you have to question these metanoia so as to begin understanding them."
First walk and then talk.
Artur, I am not hinting that you have not done it. You are actually doing
it with your magnificent series "LO's and Metanoia". I admire it.
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.
