Dear organleaners,
> I believe that Capra's "Ecological Literacy," (Web of Life) presents an
> important view-point, within the context of presenting current thinking
> from the world of Cognitive Science. I've also enjoyed some dialog with
> Cliff Hamilton, who writes of fringes and elephants. I believe that his
> contribution to our understanding of organizations may be very worth our
> while to consider. Also, At de Lange seems to be proposing an intriguing
> and challenging perspective, which I'm looking forward to reading more of.
> The concept of organizations as organisms speaks profoundly to me. I'm
> certainly not an authority, as are most of you, on learning organizations.
> However, my intuitive skills respond to the concept of living
> organizations (as proposed by Mr. Hamilton).
and
> I apologize for the length of this posting, and thank you for helping to
> generate the thoughts that swirl behind it.
Richard, its is rather a pity that I could not quote your entire
contribution. Thank you very much for a well thought and timely
exposition. It is clear that you are on the journey towards "ecological
literacy", a favourite expression of Fritof Capra.
In another thread "Teaching the Smart" I warned members that only the
mechanics of learning (creativity) had been discussed. I used the
metaphor of a car to make it easier for them, but even that did not help.
I beseeched them to also give attention to the dynamics, even if they have
to proceed from intuitive and tacit grounds. There is nothing wrong or
dangerous to proceed from intuitive and tacit grounds. In fact, it is
natural to emergences. Only after something has emerged, can it be
formalised and objectivated. Premature formalisation and objectivisation
prevent emergence.
My own perspective is very much in line with that of Capra, as well as
Progogine, Maturana, etc. It may appear presumptious to write it self, but
I must say that I go much further than any of them. Like Capra, I also had
to find an expression like "ecological literacy" to denote what I had in
mind. I even toyed with "ecological literacy" itself a number of years
ago, but realised it was far to restricted. Later on I toyed with
"creative literacy".
But, fortunately, I finally realised that "creative literacy" was not only
a tautology, but also an inhibitive tautology. Can anyone of you think of
a literacy which did not emerged creatively? And why do I now see it as
inhibitive? It suggests that creativity without a "literacy" is not
desireable. This is nonsense. It is definitely not true of nonhuman life.
And it is definitely not true of human learning. Thus I had to conflate
"creative literacy" to creativity.
At first, although compelled, I was very hesitant to do it. But once I did
it, I began to realise that I was actually dealing with 'deep creativity'
(sic), together with 'deep entropy' (sic) and 'deep learning' (sic).
When Capra's book "the Web of Life" appeared, I was very excited to learn
that he also has to think of 'deep ecology'. Now what does this attribute
'deep' mean?
It is an attribute which we rather should not have used. The reason why we
use it, is because we are very immature in allowing emergences for
concepts which are basically not simple, but complex. I can think of one
main reason for that, namely that we are very immature in our emergent
learning. Thus, when we use words, we are not capable to envisage the
"field" which surrounds each word.
We would be very much inclined to call this field an 'emergent field' when
we deal with the work of thinkers like Capra, Prigogine, Maturana,
Jantsch, etc. However, Jan Smuts, the father of holism (Holism and
Evolution, 1926), already had been sensitive enough to envisage this
'field of interaction' which surrounds 'wholes'. It is very instructive to
notice that when people finally began to employ his word holsim, they were
ignorant to the 'field' which surrounds any 'holon'.
However, we have to resist the singular qualification of this 'field'
since it is basically self a complex concept! In other words, it is not
merely an 'emergent field'. I can still clearly remember how in the middle
eighties I struggled to see something more than merely the 'emegergence'
aspect of this field. I intuitively and tacitly knew that there had to be
something more. Emergences cannot empower themselves indefinitely. There
is not such a thing as the 'continuous revolution' which the Marxists
preach. An insistence on continuous emergences finally leads to the grand
immergence of all emmergence planned on it.
I finally managed a second emergent on the concept 'field'. My book will
show that there is indeed a magnificant complement X to emergence, one
which works in a push-pull manner together with emergence. This push-pull
pair X+emergence or X+revolution is not only to be found in the abstract
world of mind, but also in the material world, living as well as
inanimate! Or as I now rather wish to describe it, this complementary
push-pull pair is common to all creations in their mutual interactions,
whether these creations are physical or spiritual.
I do now want to say too much about this X. I would rather have you to
read in my book about it. I will explain X in detail, theoretical and with
many example from life, in the chapter on The Dynamics of Creativity.
Then, in a later chapter called To Learn is to Create, I apply it
extensively to learning itself.
I already did wrote about X in previous contributions, but it seems that
nobody was intrigued by it. But let me say this just to wet your appetites
or ler shivers run down your back. For many years the world has been
subjected to western capitalism and eastern communism. We all know what
has happened to eastern communism. The continuous revolution has failed.
Thereby many people gave up on even the idea of a singular revolution,
paradigm shift, quantum jump, etc. In other words, they become vene more
ignorant to emergences.
But as a collorary, they also become more ignorant to this X, the very
thing on which capitalism is based on. In other words, they become more
ignorant to the push-pull action of X+emergence. Like the communists who
believed in an indefinite string of revolutions, they also believe in an
indefinite string of Xs. As the communists found themselves bewildered
when their indefinite string finally immerged, western capitalists will
also find themselves bewildered when their own indefinite string finally
immerges.
Many of you, dear organlearners, advise organisations on how to prepare
themselves for the future. Do you also advise them how to prepare
themselves for the inevitable fall of capitalism? Do you advise them on
how to keep on living after such a fall?
Please try to see that the car's fuel tank is almost empty, that its
battery is almost flat and that ist air filter is clogged up. To keep on
pushing that car forward once it has run out of life, is utter madness.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>