Replying to LO29495 --
Dear Organlearners,
Pixie Delite <pixie_delite@hotmail.com> writes
>You made me think yet again. DO you think Mr Lange
>that the longing for an LO is one based on tacit-intuitive
>perception in all cases? Let me describe my first experience
>with an LO to you.
Greetings dear Joy,
Please call me At. I am far more comfortable with it.
It is a deep philosophical question whether a person can long for
something of which that person is not tacitly and even not subconciously
aware of. It is already difficult to argue about longing for something
which is perceived only tacitly-intuitively.
I cannot argue about the latter, but i can certainly draw on many cases in
my past after they have emerged from the tacit level to the formal level.
One such a case is that after having obtained a MSc in physics, i was dead
set against a PhD on some specialised field in physics and in which the
rest of physics and especially other subjects will not figure. Today i
know that i did not want to give up the wholeness which i gained after 5
years of study at university, following a course against the mainstream of
training. Because of the headstongness i landed with my butt in soil
science. It was a good thing because in it i had to learn about LEP (Law
of Entropy Production). If i had specialised in phsyics, the chances are
pretty slim that i would up to today had been ignorant to "entropy
production" as a fundamental concept.
>I realised I was a human body, with a soul entrapped. A soul
>trapped by its own desire to be not tacit in its experience
>anymore. TO be able to imbibe explicit knowledge from all the
>information available around it. At that very moment, when I
>realised the union of the spirit and the body -- the pure form of
>energy and its manifestation as a physical for pure sensual
>pleasures -- I had my first experience with an LO.
Joy, why do you articulate it as "first experience with an LO"? I would
have articulated it as the "first experience with wholeness". Wholeness
is as real as a LO, but wholeness is not a LO. It is an essence of the LO.
I have had similar experiences. The most profound one was when i
discovered emprically that LEP operates in not only the material world,
but also in the mental world. My body and mind became even more one
body-mind knowing that LEP works in both.
>So, does it mean it ultimately boils down to the individual.
>The organisation is what you make it to be -- not what it is
>or what you want it to become but what you make it to be
>according to the limitations of your perception -- even
>holistic perceptions!
I thought so too when i was younger. Now i realise that i am only part of
me. The rest of me are my fellow humans, the billions alive and all those
already dead. I know it sounds stupid, but that is how it is. The best
description i ever found to describe it is Benjamin Franklin's "If we do
not hang together, then we will hang individually." Perhaps "i-am-we-are"
may also describe how i think myself to become.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.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.