Emergent learning LO15744
JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Tue, 11 Nov 97 16:19:57 -0500
At de Lange wrote in LO15717:
>I have argued before that a persisting ignorance is the result of an
>inaccessible paradigm.
This is a major point that deserves more discussion.
What makes this paradigm inaccessible?
Regarding democratic socio/political systems, I feel that it is a
limitation imposed by the individual in that the individual has to
want to get involved and learn (to manipulate) the system. Therefore,
this inaccessibility is self-imposed to a certain extent. I think this
lends to Doc Holloways Semper Vigilant. Of course, there will be
situations where an individuals rights have been circumvented for
anothers personal gain (Semper V!). Our system of government was not
designed to do that, but its' design makes it possible, and likely,
without such vigilance.
However I'm not so sure I agree with At de Langes' assessment that it
takes as much total energy to maintain the status quo, especially when
this so called 'maintenance' is driven by apathy or willful neglect.
In any case, I'm very sure that changing a system (forcing a new level
of entropy) takes a great deal more energy than simple maintenance,
even if we take Simon Buckingham's tack of deconstruction (please
pardon the term, Simon, if you feel it is inaccurate).
This brings me to the subject line of this post.
I am interpreting 'inaccessible paradigm' in this case to mean the
inability to access the thought process which results in emergent
learning. Whether this is due to apathy or ignorance are two very
different discussions, but I am hoping to close the loop and examine
that relationship through dialog. I would like to start with ignorance
and examine its' roots in today's world.
I was talking with a friend of mind recently, who is a follower of
Buddhism. We were discussing today's youth culture (fashion, music)
and I lamented over the resurgence of fashions and the lingering
influence of that era's music in today's' pop.(e.g.; I heard a ska
version of Janis Joplins "Piece of My Heart" a few weeks ago. It was
excellent, but hardly original, simply mixing an old song with an even
older genre. BTW, I'm a Nine Inch Nails fan.) I stated that I was
saddened by what I perceived to be a lack of imagination on the part
of today's youth. That it seemed as if kids were into the aesthetics,
but not the emotion.
My friend agreed, adding that it is because kids are not taught that
they even have an imagination, let alone use it. Of course, this
conversation turned around learning to use ones' imagination, then
learning to learn, and finally using the imagination in the learning
process. We talked in not so great detail about his own discovery of
his imagination, karma, and learning process. He said "I never new how
much I could learn until I met Buddha". Gee, spirituality juxtaposed
with emergent learning. Imagine that!
There are many possible causes for this lack of imagination.
Television, Madison Avenue, public schools catering to the lowest
common denominator, two earner families using the TV as a babysitter
because they are 'too busy, too tired' when they get home from work.
How about it, org learners. What is the cause of the 'inaccessible
paradigm'?
There is a song out today by Temple Of the Dog (can't remember the
title) in which the chorus goes:
"The kids of today should defend themselves against the seventies".
Should they? Should we tell them to get their own ideas? Is Madison
Avenue and Television, now dominated by Baby Boomers, attempting to
vicariously relive the plastic aspect of their youth through today's
youth, and at the same time sanitize the experience by eliminating the
very circumstances which lead to the ubiquitous freedom of expression
(i.e., Viet Nam war and Civil Rights protests)?
Why can't we teach our own children how to learn?
"Dare To Be Different" - JHC
--
JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>