Replying to LO27512 --
Dear Organlearners,
Leo Minnigh < l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl > writes:
>Thank you too to keep the dialogue in general
>terms. I think we all could find examples of
>impaired democratic principles and impaired
>use of settled rules and laws. We don't have to
>go that far away to find these examples.
Greetings dear Leo,
Yes, we actually avoid such examples because they are so close to us. Thus
we deliberately theorise in the most general manner possible. The drawback
is that we later on will have a theory for which other people will have to
seek applications should they not have such close examples.
We can prevent the drawback by keeping wholeness and its associativity
pattern X*Y*Z in mind. Let X be our complex mind and Z be the example of
an impaired management (even government) very close to us. Thus we stand
in the relationship X*Z or "mind*government". This pattern does not have
enough wholeness to it.
We have to bring in the "interpreter" or "umlomo" Y to get the pattern
X*Y*Z. So let Y be the theory or systems thinking. By this we extend the
relationship "mind*management" to the holistic relationship
"mind*theory*management". In other words, the theory (systems thinking)
becomes the interpreter. It is one of several ways in which we can put
some distance between our minds and something very close to us.
>My personal objections against most rules and
>laws is that they are generally formulated in a
>negative form - 'thou shall NOT....', instead of
>a positive formulation (BTW here the push/pull
>mechanism of the behavioural sciences come in
>the picture again, vz punishing or praising).
I agree with you Leo. But I want to plead that we should also have an
understanding of what happened to human thinking over several millennia.
Let us remember that Rule Of Law (ROL) is a commitment not to exclude any
person, especially ourselves, from any formulated rule or law. What
applies to one applies to all.
The ROL in the ancient civilisations was that all actions are allowed
except those actions explicitly excluded by negative laws/rules. However,
the usurpers of the power of any organisation began with their mind
bending already in those ancient days. They changed the ROL into the
following:- no action is allowed, not even the positive actions, unless
explicitly specified by positive laws/rules. In other words, they
transformed the positive ROL into a negative ROL.
Leo, we had a while ago private dialogue on the "Overijsel" region
(eastern part) of the Netherlands. It is where Saxons (those who remained
on the continent) used to live. We have discussed the remarkable history
of some part (Twente) of this region over several millennia compiled by
Stroink "Het stadt en land van Twente". At 800AD it was the last pagan
region in all of Europe. Even though being pagan, it was also the last
region in Europe which had a positive ROL. They called themselves the
"Golden States". In order to Catholicise that region, the shrewd
Charlemagne subjected its people to the harshest negative ROL imaginable.
They had to beg permission for everything which they wanted to do, even
things like getting married, having children and educating them. Poverty
and misery unprecedented in Europe's history became daily life for that
region the next 300 years.
A negative ROL (nothing is allowed, not even the good, unless prescribed
by law) leads to a judgemental state of mind. I think it is this to which
you refer in:
>If somebody is treated in the same situation
>differently from another, the effects could be
>so serious that a mental life could be destroyed.
>People who fight their whole life against a
>injudgemental decision are numerous. This fight
>is usually within the framework of laws and rules.
(snip)
>As soon as injudgemental means are used to fight
>against injustice, the fundaments of that framework
>of laws and rules are lost. And that is probably the
>greatest danger for a community - from family scale
>to global scales.
Leo, you used one word which confuses me -- " injudgemental". Did you mean
any one of the following: equitable, even, exact, fair, fitting, honest,
honourable, impartial, incorrupt, just, lawful, reasonable, rightful,
square, straightforward, true, trusty, upright or virtuous?
The law in most countries require from any organisation in it to have a
legal constitution so as to be recognised as a legal body. Very few
organisations are aware that such a legal constitution has an unwritten
ROL which can be either positive or negative. I think that it is far more
difficult for an organisation to emerge into a LO when it has a negative
rather than positive ROL.
Since the negative ROL allows only the good prescribed by rules, it
favours rote learning. Pieces of information from the "world-outside-me",
each declared as good, have to be memorised so as to become knowledge for
the "world-inside me". But since the positive ROL allows anything except
the bad prohibited by rules, it does not interfere with creativity from
the "world-inside-me" until such creativity is ready to deliver the
outcome to the "world-outside-me". Hence the positive ROL favours
authentic learning.
The biggest problem of every organisation having a legal constitution is
that it merely furnishes what the law of that country requires. There are
many other rules and perhaps even laws made in such an organisation to
which ROL also should have been applied. It is exactly here where the
"what applies to one applies to all" hits the dust dismally. Some things
are needed in its constitution, things which are not required by the law
of that country. What would these things be?
We will have to go wider than the usual organisations which we consider in
our LO-dialogue by thinking of nations. We all know that the relationship
in a country between its government and religions are a precarious one
which can often erupt in conflict or even violence. Thus many nations have
learned through expensive experiences that two civil (not religious)
rights have to be recognised. These two rights will be found in their
constitutions.
The first is the right of the religious organisation like any other
organisation to determine who shall qualify as continuous members. I am
not thinking only of Christian denominations, but also of all other
religions like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, Pagan and Occult.
Few people seem to notice that the qualifications for continuous
membership of most religious organisations are the most complex among all
kinds of organisations. What should this signal to our system thinking on
religion and complexity?
The other civil right is the freedom to belong to any religious
organisation or even none of them. It is exactly here where the eggs often
hit the fan. Most denominations of most religions claim each that it has
the only correct path to citizenship of God's Kingdom. Thus each claim
that the government has to follow its path to qualify as a God fearing
state. It is no wonder that as more different religions are introduced
into a country, that country eventually ends up in a Godless State or a
God-indifferent State to keep its people from cutting each other's throat.
Since the nation of a country is its largest organisation, government has
the greatest power in that country. Is it not this power of government
which a religion wants to force fellow country folk of other religions to
submit themselves non-spontaneously to that religion? I think we have to
bear in mind that the earthly nation/republic/empire/kingdom of a country
and the Kingdom of Heaven where God is King are two different things. I
believe that to make them one and the same thing -- a Holy Empire -- is a
vast misconception leading to devastating practices as history teaches.
Let us think for a while of the Kingdom Of Heaven (KOH)
where God is King. I will do it in the biblical sense. The KOH
also has a constitution which is nothing else than the Ten
Commandments (10Cs) of God as had been articulated by
Moses. They are articulated in a positive (+) or negative (-)
sense as follows: (See Exodus 20:1-17)
(1) - (Ex 20:2)
(2) --+ (Ex 20:4-6)
(3) - (Ex 20:7)
(4) ++- (Ex 20:8-11)
(5) + (Ex 20:12)
(6) - (Ex 20:13)
(7) - (Ex 20:14)
(8) - (Ex 20:15)
(9) - (Ex 20:16)
(10) ---- (Ex 20:17)
The use of + or - more than once refer to several clauses in
a commandment.
>From this analysis we might be tempted to judge that Moses was (1)
negatively minded and (2) set up a theocratic government -- holy empire.
I want to comment on (1) the following. (I do not want to comment on (2)
since it is a far more complex issue.) Should we question how Moses
considered ROL, we will find that it was in a positive rather a negative
sense. In other words, the 10Cs only forbade destructive actions. We have
to bear in mind that the Israelites lived for some 300 years in Egypt as
slaves under the worst possible negative ROL possible. Thus the negative
"you shall not" had become deeply ingrained into their culture. A positive
formulation by Moses would have been unfamiliar to them.
Let me assume that a positive ROL allows me to reformulate these 10Cs (Ten
Commandments) in a positive manner without having to ask permission to do
it. I will call the outcome the "Ten Principles (10Ps) of the Enochites"
for
reasons which I will explain later on. I will arrange them in
the same sequence as the 10 Commandments given to Moses
at mount Sinai. I will use the rest of the Bible as my principal
source to transform them into the positive mode. I will also
use several other ancient documents known to me as
secondary sources. Here is the outcome:
"Ten Principles (10Ps) of the Enochites"
(1) God is respected before all other idolised imaginations.
(2) God is worshipped rather than anything in Creation.
(3) God's name is used in a godly manner.
(4) Care is taken for the sabbatical cycle.
(5) Care is taken for parents and other leaders.
(6) Care is taken for the lives of all people.
(7) Care is taken for the families of all people.
(8) Care is taken for all belongings of all people.
(9) Care is taken for the dignity of all people.
(10) Care is taken for the needs of all other people.
It is usually said of the 10Cs that they resolve into two tables, the
first four (1-4) concerning God and the last six (5-10) concerning fellow
humans. The 10Ps also resolve into two tables, but the first three (1-3)
which concern God and the last seven (4-10) which concern fellow humans.
The number 4 in the Bible often refers to human matters while the number 6
refers to incomplete matters. But the number 3 refers to godly matters
while the number seven refers to complete matters. Thus for me there is
something most compelling when the 10Cs become transformed into the 10Ps.
Commandment 4 in the 10Cs become a crucial principle in the 10Ps. We will
soon look at it.
I write "Ten Principles (10Ps) of the Enochites" because such principles
were tacitly in the hearts of people like Enoch who lived before the Great
Deluge. The 10Ps were also in the hearts of Noah four generation's later,
Eber (father of the Hebrews) another four generations later and Terah yet
another four generations later. We might even call the 10Ps the "Ten
Principles (10Ps) of the Hebrews", but I think they go back to before the
Great Deluge. Terah was the father of Abraham with whom came a new
dispensation. I think that Melchizedek, king and priest of Salem(=peace)
during the times of Abraham, was also much aware of these 10Ps.
Only many generations afterwards did Moses articulate these 10Ps formally
after having broken in anger God's own articulations in God's own writing
as the Ten Commandments. It took Moses another forty days to write what
God had articulated as we still have them today, except for perhaps some
later editing. Moses also organised a religion for the Israelites, seeing
that they wanted a religion and thus mistook the "religion of the calve"
(Baal) for the true religion.
It is important to figure out the role of religions in those ancient
times. The oldest archeological records which we have of any religion (but
certainly not of any human culture) go back to ancient Mesopotamia and
Egypt six millennia ago. Noah lived in those times. Nimrod, a grandson of
Noah, had the practice of transgressing all principles like the "Ten
Principles (10Ps) of the Enochites". It made him the most violent and
mightiest man on earth.
However, eventually 72 judges brought him to trial and found him guilty of
transforming humankind into inhumane societies. He was duly executed.
Afterwards the priests of Semiramis, Nimrod's wife, developed the religion
of Baal by the deifying Nimrod through his son and introducing the dogma
of religion.
The religion of Baal is the first system known to me which had a negative
ROL. Furthermore, it was also the first system to sanction the
transgression of principles like these 10Ps under certain conditions to
ensure the power of the empire and the priesthood. In other words, the
religion of Baal used destructive creativity to control by force people's
beliefs and to suppress any revolt against such forcing.
Dear fellow learners, please bear in mind that principles like these "Ten
Principles (10Ps) of the Enochites" existed hundreds of years before the
religion of Baal was created. They also existed a thousand years before
the Mosaic religion came into practice. We will never know how many
principles there were and what each principle involved. But we may be
reasonably sure that they existed before religions were practised.
Please, also bear in mind that the above fictive articulations of the 10Ps
are merely my own humble attempt to get an idea of what they involved,
using Scripture and many other ancients documents. There is no historical
document in which these "Ten Principles (10Ps) of the Enochites" had been
formulated. Thus no one can be commanded to follow them since they are
merely imaginations of my mind. Because they come from me, they have no
authority. I have often stressed that the answers to my own questioning
merely serve to question, but not to teach dogma authoritatively.
I have formulated these ten patterns as detached ongoing statements. You
may formulate them in any way you wish. I will have no objections. For
example (1) may be formulated as a command by "Put God before all other
idolised imaginations." It could also be formulated as the modal
expression "God ought to be respected before all other idolised
imaginations.". It could even be internalised by saying "I want to respect
God before all other idolised imaginations."
I call these ten articulations principles. You may call them whatever you
like such as commands, directives, rules, commitments and guidelines. I
will have no objections. I myself could easily have called them
"chromosomes of the DNA of love-agape" rather than "principles of the
Enochites". But with such a name I ran into the technicality that many
people would not know what words such as chromosomes and DNA mean.
I have arranged the 10Ps in the same sequence as the 10Cs for your
convenience. You may shuffle them as you please. I will have no
objections. You may even begin to cut them up into 100Ps if you wish.
Otherwise you may combine them into as few as 2Ps. I will have no
objections. What I am deeply concerned about is that we will have to
become spontaneously conscious that certain patterns are necessary to keep
every organisation or society humane.
This awareness is implicit-tacit-intuitive, kept alive by the softness of
the heart rather than the hardness of the mind. How we are going to
explicate-articulate-formulate them is thus of minor concern to me, even
though I know that for others it would be of major concern. Some would
want them in this form and others in another form. This is natural when
people want to learn authentically in terms of their constructive
creativity.
When I study each of these 10Ps and all of them together, they tell
exactly what Jesus said, namely to love God (1-3) above all things and to
love all humankind (4-10). Furthermore, there is no way how the first
three principles can be misused to give preference to one religion before
all others, even atheism. They actually tell us that we have to respect
all religions involving God, irrespective how they each articulate the
role of God as King of Heaven and Creator of Creation.
The fourth principle is extraordinary in that it commands
us to get a deep insight into the rhythm of creativity involving
humans and the rest of Creation alike. It is the
"umlomo"=mouthpiece in the associative pattern of all 10.
This pattern can be expressed as
. (1-3)*(4)*(5-10)
or
. complete*creativity*incomplete.
(4) involves such things as the "free energy" and "entropy
landscapes" as well as the 7Es (seven essentialities of
creativity) in one of the recent topics in our LO-dialogue.
See:
. Fitness Landscape and other landscapes. LO27257
< http://www.learning-org.com/01.09/0053.html >
As for the last six 10Ps, I wonder if there is a fellow learner who will
not agree with them. They are the outstanding principles in any peaceful
and prosperous society. It is a pity that the "Ten Principles (10Ps) of
the Enochites" have not been worked into the constitution of every nation
who loves peace, freedom and the positive ROL so as to prosper too.
But what about our lesser Ordinary Organisations (OOs) which endeavour to
become LOs (Learning Organisations). Would the 10Ps not be a sufficient
constitution for such LOs? We are often informed that organisations should
have a vision and a mission. Organisations also must have a legal
constitution. But what about its spiritual constitution? Can the 10Ps act
as its spiritual constitution?
I can easily imagine many members of most non-religious
organisations objecting against the first three 10Ps because
the three principles will introduce religions into such
organisations. They are aware that many people will use their
religion to introduce God into any subject. It will even happen
in the spiritual constitution of any organisation. But this is not
what these first three 10Ps do. They rather do the following:
(1) tells us that we should put God before our own religion or any other
one as the ideal (idol?).
(2) tells us that we should worship God rather than anything in Creation,
including religions.
(3) tells us that we should have respect for God's name and thus all
religions of which the primary function is to articulate God's name.
However, it is actually foolish of me to explain what (1-3) tell. They
tell us about God, but not about any religion. The words "religion" or
"common faith" or "public beliefs" do not occur in them and thus cannot be
read for sure into them. Hence even my explanation above is not for sure,
but merely to be questioned.
As for atheists, I found that many of them have tacitly a deep respect for
God. But most a-theists are actually "a-"=anti- + "theist"=theology. They
despise the notion that people claim that they can produce correct
information on God as subject -- that the creature can explain the
Creator. Is that which comes from within to without not unclean?
Perhaps the most profound person of the last millennium living up to the
first three 10Ps is Albert Einstein. (1) He firmly believed in God as
Creator and Manager of all things. (2) Yet he never promoted one religion
as superior to other religions. (3) He always spoke with great respect for
God when using God's name.
Einstein was the greatest theorist in physics. Faraday was the greatest
experimentalist in physics. He practised his religion as a devout member
of the Sandovanian "sect". Yet nobody will ever learn from the writings
and speeches of Faraday what his religion was simply because he did not
force his beliefs on others.
I think that Einstein and Faraday, like many others, are fine role models
for any LO. Let us then respect that (1) God is primordial and superior to
all religions, (2) the worship of God is more than the practice of
religion and (3) God is far more than using God's name in religions.
Many people believe that the tragic and evil events of 11 September 2001
have put religions in the limelight so as to make sure which one of them
is the correct religion. Many people believe that violent destructions
have to be curtailed by offensive defence -- the war against terrorism. It
is not for me to judge such beliefs.
I personally believe that both war and terrorism, no matter what the
justifications for each, are evil. Both lead to death of innocent people.
Nobody's cause is so important that it can condone the death of an
innocent person. I think that many other people believe the same. But our
problem is to formulate with a positive ROL in our hearts a spiritual
constitution with which we can scrutinize all our beliefs and guide all
our deeds.
The constitution of Jesus, namely (1) love God and (2) love all humans,
seems to be too esoteric for most thinkers. I belief his constitution will
work if we want it to work. But sadly I also have to bear in mind that
Jesus had been forced too much into religious dogmas which people also
want to work. This is why we have to reach out to a spiritual constitution
beyond the domain of religions.
Perhaps the "Ten Principles (10Ps) of the Enochites" or whatever you will
transform them into will serve as the constitution to scrutinise our deeds
whatever our beliefs. The 10Ps tell us what makes the human humane. They
also tell us how life becomes in the Kingdom of Heaven where God is King.
These 10Ps serving as our spiritual constitution have no authority other
than we feeling them in our hearts. We can deny this feeling, but we
cannot escape from it.
Would the terrible events of 11/09/2001 ever have happened if these "Ten
Principles (10Ps) of the Enochites" or something in this spirit were fully
in operation? Would the poverty and misery in Afghanistan ever existed
before 11/09/2001 should these patterns of the heart have been fully
operative there too? We care either for the honour of God and the healthy
living of our fellow humans or not. Our deeds will bear witness to what
constitution and rule of law we lived up to.
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.