Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to all of you.
Many creative people make as soon as possible sketches (notes, drawings,
cryptic signs) of ideas which emerge within them. For this purpose they
usually carry a pocket book and pencil with them (or a laptop for the rich
postmodern person ;-) Think of Leonardo da Vinci or Ludwig van Beethoven
for whom it was a daily habit.
These sketches often seem to be mysterious gibberish to others. But the
person who recorded them knows exactly what they mean. It seems as if the
person does not trust his/her memory. But often that person will not look
up a recorded sketch when using it in a bigger project. It seems as if the
person makes these sketches as the means to another end. Yet that person
values these sketches on their own highly and often preserve these
notebooks carefully. So why do creative people have this peculiar habit?
I personally think in terms of my own experiences that it has little to do
with the fear of forgetting an idea which emerged. It has far more to do
with transforming that which has been born in the "world-inside-me" to the
"world-outside-me" -- to articulate by any means the noble thought which
has emerged within. Once that tacit thought emerging from experiences had
been articulated in even the most mysterious expression, it becomes
possible to articulate it again in a form appreciable to many other
people.
I wonder how many fellow learners are aware that a dialogue, in contrast
to a discussion, also have to provide for these creative sketches. As
fellow learner Winfried Dressler recently put it so beautifully -- we not
only communicate in the LO-dialogue, but also put our minds into action.
This means that those who participate in the dialogue should have patience
and respect for anyone articulating a noble thought for the first time.
Perhaps the person will do it with information uncommon to us or seemingly
unrelated to human organisations. For example, the person may write about
rocks, leaves or molecules and the organisation in them. It is then up to
us to learn about the metaphoric value of such sketches.
Often the original sketch of a noble thought may not suite other
participants. In such cases it is far better to ask for a clarification or
reformulation rather than analysing that sketch blow by blow into pieces.
Often the original sketch seems to be beside the issue. In such cases it
is far better trying to connect that sketch with others going back to the
issue rather than brushing it off. Often the sketch is the introduction of
a new topic, or the revitalising of an old one. We need such sketches for
the Goethean "Steigerung" (fire-works display ;-) of the LO-dialogue.
I want to encourage fellow learners to articulate their precious and
profound authentic learning in our LO-dialogue. Through the kind hostage
of Rick Karash we are enabled to do just this. Many of our contributions
and certainly some of mine are these "get-them-out-sketches" which seem to
ignore the current threads. But occasionally I become aware how a fellow
learner uses his/her past "get-them-out-sketches" to express in a
magnificent composition something which is dear to all of us. I bow to the
brave ones who have done it. Sketch your thoughts even though you may
think that others will find it silly. It might be silly to a few, but this
is how all the roads to wisdom for all of us begin.
When men begin to cry easily like women or women begin to assert
themselves easily like men, I feel a joy which cannot be described. The
same happens when the young join minds with the old or the scientists with
the artists. When we combine our passion for creating with our respect for
the creating of fellow learners, we arrive at home in the universe. It is
an event which words like glorious and bliss fall short to describe.
Through the years I have seen many who have joined the LO-dialogue and
some who have stopped contributing to it. Some contribute frequently while
others do it occasionally. Nevertheless, I have observed an awesome
maturing in many fellow learners from their first hesitant sketches to
their present marvellous contributions. Some essays are short and some are
long, but their innate power is revealing. These fellow learners remind me
of one of the sayings of Jan Smuts:- When in doubt, do the brave thing.
Anyone who sketches a noble thought for the first time, is doing a brave
thing. These learners did it long ago and the benefits from it is now
showing clearly.
To those who want to join in the LO-dialogue for the first time, the
recent examples set by Elixabete Escalona and Daan Joubert can be
followed. "Intro -- John Smith". Tell a little bit of yourself. Then
present your sketch. You do not need to motivate your sketch, but you can
if you want to. You also do not need to present your sketch as a careful
argument. It rather can consist of observations and questions. Perhaps you
want to begin by replying to what some fellow learner wrote. Do it and do
the "Intro -- John Smith" separately if you want to.
You do not need to give the "Intro -- John Smith". But the "Intro -- John
Smith" serves an important role. It helps us to get a better mental
picture of who you are and what you do. I myself look at any sketch as a
whole and the personality of the person who created it as its field. Jan
Smuts, father of holism (1926), thought of any "whole&field" as wholeness.
As your sketches become more, some of them also telling more of your
personality, this "whole&field" increases. Jan Smuts thought of this
"increasing wholeness" as holism. His thesis were that all evolution
(geological, biological and even spiritual) is the result of holism, i.e
increasing wholeness. The evolution of your personal knowledge will
certainly result from it. The evolution of our LO-dialogue will also
benefit from it. For example, only recently I found out that John Zavacki
and Winfried Dressler, old-timers to the list, have similar jobs.
Michael Polanyi created the term "personal knowledge". He had to because
some dozen years earlier he created the term "tacit knowing". He defined
it as "we know more than we can tell". Some things which we know we cannot
tell and other things we know we still have to tell for the first time. We
gradually become more conscious of how we know things, what knowing we
cannot tell and what knowing we still have to tell. This growing
consciousness is personal knowledge. The paths by which it happens are
called authentic learning.
Is it not strange to think that Polanyi published his book "The Tacit
Dimension" in 1966? Already more than 2000 years ago "gnosis"=knowledge
was very important to the Greeks. So why did they not know about "tacit
knowing"? Well, one man did, but he had to drink the poisoned beaker for
applying what he knew. It was Socrates. The Greek civilisation without
its Socrates is unimaginable. He used to say that his teaching is
midwifery, to help a learner how to get his inner noble thoughts get born.
Perhaps it is fear for having to drink the poisoned beaker too which
caused later thinkers to stop exploring this inner, tacit dimension of
knowing.
But I think there is another reason. Why did the Greeks not
thought of 20th century's Quantum Mechanics or Relativity
Theory? Because so much water had to run into the sea of
complexity! Tacit knowing and drawing upon that tacit knowing
in our sketches are also complex. Furthermore, as I have
explained long ago in
"The Digestor"
< http://www.learning-org.com/99.04/0167.html >
complexity can become very intimidating. So if you want to
E-mail us your first sketch, you need to be brave to overcome
this intimidation of complexity. Dozens of questions will mill in
your mind like "will someone take exception?" or "will someone
mop the floor with me?". However, such questions are a good
sign that you have taken due care in your sketch. The rest is
just for you to scrape the courage together to mail your sketch.
I myself, even though having written hundreds of contributions,
sometimes hesitate strongly to click the "send" button. The latest
one was "The silent backlash of war. LO27989".
People will often hide behind the sketches (information) produced by
others as the so called authorities to attack anything complex.
Fortunately, it stopped happening in our LO-dialogue a couple of years
ago. Our individual consciousnesses ("dassein"=it is) and our collective
consciousness ("mitsein"=with is) have outgrown this practice. I still
remember how fellow learner Leo Minnigh once wrote to me in private
(perhaps he sent it to the list too, but I cannot remember it) that this
"dassein&mitsein" is the essence of wisdom. Since our LO-dialogue is
growing in wisdom, you need not to be afraid to introduce yourself and
sketch what your heart tells you to do.
There is enough wisdom in our LO-dialogue to prevent your sketches to
become demolished by the tyranny of the experts. I personally think that
authentic learning cannot produce experts. An expert knows a lot about one
thing and very little about all other things. An expert thinks very
little, if any, of wholeness ("unity-associativity") and otherness
("quality-diversity"). Wholeness and otherness are essential to authentic
learning. You who have not written before are part of the wholeness and
otherness of our LO-dialogue. We appreciate the sketches of all fellow
learners because they are crucial to the Personal Mastery ("dassein") and
Team Learning ("mitsein"), i.e., authentic learning of all of us. But we
will also appreciate your expertise in some subject because in any team
learning there has to be a leader.
Lastly, what should you do when someone wrote something to which you
disagree strongly? Please do not hesitate to respond. But bear in mind
that such a strong disagreement can cause negative feelings in you and
thus a win-lose rather than a win-win atmosphere among all of us. So I
would suggest to hold back your contribution for one day so as to cool off
and then look at it again. Change what you think need to be changed and
then mail it. Please, I beg you to mail it rather than holding it back on
second thoughts.
Such writings which contain a strong disagreement, but set forth in a
constructive and civilised manner, are vital to our LO- dialogue. They
help to create what I prefer to call entropic forces. An entropic force is
a difference in values of something intensive. Something is intensive when
it stays the same whether you write little or much about it. In other
words, it is independent of the scale of writing. For example, principles
and assumptions are intensive. Your viewpoint on a principle and the
different viewpoint of someone to whom you want to respond, are the two
values creating that entropic force.
Subsequently other fellow learners will also respond to your writing.
Their writings will usually make up the entropic flux. An entropic flux is
a difference in values of something extensive. Something is extensive when
it changes according to the amount which you write about it. In other
words, it depends on the scale of writing. For example, experiences and
skills are extensive. Your experiences and the different experiences
(perhaps not even articulated) of the person to whom you want to respond,
are the two values creating that entropic flux.
These entropic force-flux pairs will then drive our LO-dialogue to the
bifurcation on some ridge of chaos. Should we pay enough attention to the
7Es (seven essentialities of creativity -- liveness, sureness, wholeness,
fruitfulness, spareness, otherness and openness), the bifurcation will
result in a constructive emergence rather than a destructive immergence.
Thus all who participate will learn something novel. Sometimes this
novelty can be a great accomplishment.
I cannot give a better example than the discovery of LEC (Law of Energy
Conservation) during the 1850's, taking several years. Here a team of
thinkers with different professions (for example, Schwarz was a medical
doctor, Joule a physicist and Faraday primarily a chemist) all put their
different viewpoints to each other. With awe and excitement they became
aware how LEC began to take shape in their minds. Furthermore, they all
became aware how LEC was completely different to all other laws of physics
and chemistry discovered up to that time. Today we may say that together
they discovered the first phenomenological law of nature. What a truly
novel emergence as a result of team learning.
The same may happen in our LO-dialogue. We cannot expect every noble
thought emerging through team learning to be a profound emergence like
LEC. But we can expect that at least one noble thought to emerge which
will become crucial to the future course of humankind. Thus I want to urge
you once again, respond to something which is vitally important to you.
Your sketch may very well be like a butterfly flapping its wings. It sets
the air in motion, this gets amplified and eventually in another region
far away a storm develops, giving much needed rain to the parched earth.
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.