Hallo Alexander,
welcome to the list. It is always a nice surprise to meet someone from
"home". (Isn't it silly to speak of "home" in this medium "mailing list",
where the whole world should be one home? - But I feel like this - maybe
it is just the knowledge that I could communicate in german. The issues
discussed in this list are demanding enough - participating in english may
be a good exercise, but it is sometimes really exhausting. There is a
chain form language to thinking to learning I believe.)
Alexander Weber wrote:
> ...does not require the control of a superior. People are autonomous,
> selforganized and - responsible, if you let them.
To whom does the "you" in "if you let them" refer? It sounds like "you"
refer to the "superior" who controls the "people". But isn't the
"superior" part of the "people" (you are not talking about god - and
whatever god does, it is surely not to control, what people do)? In a
selforganised world in which we live and of which we are part of, I think
it is misleading to divide people into some who act on others and these
others reacting on some. Yet it is puzzling, that selforganising prozesses
let emerge hierachy. Again my favorite example: atoms - molecules - cells
- organs - mind - self - ...
Of course, this is another hierachy than worker - groupleader - manager -
director - CEO, of which I assume you are talking about. Sorry that I took
one sentence of you out of context and start to think my own thoughts
(sorry to all of you in the list, to whom I have done this before) - thank
you for making me think.
The word "selforganising" is always a key for my thinking. To put it in
logical (not bio-logical) terms, it means
1.) "a" organises "a"
Question: What else has an influence in organising "a"? Let's call the
answer "b". This means that sentence 1.) is incomplete, leading to
2.) "a" and "b" organises "a"
Question: What organises "b"? If there is something else than "a" and "b",
let's call it "c", leading to
3.) "a" and "b" and "c" organises "a" and "b"
and so on, ending not before
4.) All organises all
The ultimate self is all: Selforganisation is Allorganisation. Some people
are said to know this by experience!???
For the time being, I understand myself as a relatively autonomous and
quite stable subsystem "a" with "b" << "a".
What happens if the influence of "b" grows bigger? Something is missing
here. To put it into a question for you, Alexander, as cognitive
biologist and psychologist:
What is the difference between a mystical experience and a borderline
pathology?
I am thrilled of the writings of Ken Wilber on this issue, but I cannot
say that I have really understood.
Best regards,
Winfried
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>