Dear Organlearners
John Zavacki <jzavacki@greenapple.com> wrties in LO15780:
> This thread is one which annoys me. There are many ways to use resources,
> natural, human, or economic. Use does not imply ownership and ownership
> does not imply slavery. In the same way, that we use dialogue here, the
> enterprise as a community of practice is in a continuous state of resource
> sharing.
It is good to have different strong viewpoints on any topic. This will
drive us sooner to the bifucation point and, perhaps, better
understanding.
In the old days the men of fortune (like pirates on sea and robbers in the
bush) took by force for their own use without respect of wonderskip. Thus
you are correct - use does not imply ownership when brute force overrides
sanity.
In the old days the men of fortune also captured humans to sell them as
slaves although they did not own them. Again, you are correct - ownership
does not imply slavery when, again, brute force overrides sanity.
But the old days have been surpassed by the industrial age which has
culminated in the technological age. What has become of the men of
fortune? Did they die out as the dinosuars? Or do we employ a paradigm
which makes the inaccessible to us?
Most of the peoples of Africa and South America still struggle to enter
the industrial and technological ages. They do not have the new paradigms
to blind them. They experience how raw materials go out at cheap prices
and superior goods come in at an exorbitant prices. They experience how
they have to follow the cultures of the countries of fortune if they want
to have any say in their own future. This blind them just as much as the
new paradigms would do. Thus they do not understand their suffering.
...snip...
> The human is not the resource. Human resources are time and knowledge.
I almost agree. Human resources are entropy (the complementary or "arrow"
of time) and information. Knowledge, however, is innate to every human,
growing creatively withing that person. Information which comes in and
which goes out is not knowledge.
> The term human resources is no more threatening that material resources,
> machine resources, or knowledge resources.
I strongly disagree. The word "resource" implies ownership - a linguistic
fact. The words "ownership" and "stewardship" have different meanings
which are very important. I cannot find any dictionary to support a
connection between "stewardship" and resources. Since English is not my
mother tongue, I also cannot fathom any intuitive connection. It is our
behaviour as if we own Nature as OUR resource which is finally threatening
our very existence.
> A learning organization is one
> which knows how to combine all of these resources into a greater resource:
> wealth.
If the wealth which a supposed learning organisation has created do not
have a loving harmony (metanoia) as its central feature, then it is
definitely not a learning organisation. Thinking about humans by term
"human resources" is destroying this loving harmony. It has been noted on
this list several times. In my city Pretoria (which is a town compared to
your cities) the well being of at least 10 000 famlies have been destroyed
by the "necessary reallocating of human resources".
John, as I grow older, the more I learn how certain words and terms have
an innate degradory power in them. I am of strong opinion that "human
resource" is such a term. That is why I avoid using the term, eventhough I
am free to use it with degradory consequences. The reason why I try to
avoid degradations is because I believe we have to follow upgradings. This
the way of the-web-of-life.
> The creation of goods and knowledge increases learning potential.
> The only resources depleted are time and materials. Unfortunately, time
> is one of the most valuable of human resources and every time I read from
> this list, I have used more of mine. I am, then, At, your humble slave!!
As I have said, I never want to own another human, even in the tiniest
part. I do not even want to own your time. At the top of each contribution
it is indicated by a "From:" who wrote it. If you do not want to spend
your time TOGETHER with me, skip my contribution.
But we cannot allow censure or conformation where learning is decisively
important. We allowed this to happen in South Africa and its brought us
close to destruction. Now, three years later, some voices here and tehir
are again calling for censure and conformation.
No, the spirit of learning is not censure or conformation. The spirit of
learning is questioning - awake and even in sleep. We have to question
each other on this list. Eventhough the questioning will unlock all sorts
of emotions, we have to keep up with the questioning.
I must admit, your use of the word "annoys" initially annoyed me - until I
questioned myself. Things which probably work fine in a first world
country, seldom work in the same manner in a third world country because
of the humans involved. It ranges from cars (10x more accidents here) to
terms like " human resource".
Thank you for responding to what I have written.
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/>