Dear Organlearners,
Simon Buckingham <go57@dial.pipex.com> writes to Mike Jay:
> Mike- please do not draw wide conclusions about unorg from side statements
> like this- as Cliff did before you. Unorg is in no way dependent upon
> people doing all they can- its about seeing the mechanisms that allow this
> are in place (the fundamental forces)- so that people can relaize their
> potential if they want- no-one is going to force anyone to pursue anything
> they don't want to. At the moment, there are barriers to even trying. As
> such, nothing is nullified by this partial fragmented statement.
>
> > I've noticed
> > that most of your posts assume reality to be as you see it, rather than
> > perhaps how it is? Of course, I see no problem with this until you
> > present unorg as a unified theory.
>
> Its actually my personal reality- I have implemented or been involved in
> all the ideas that unorg encompasses and it works very well for me- we
> need to work out what the differences between you and me are, whether they
> can be overcome to see if unorg applies to you, but I have no reason to
> doubt that it does. I am convinced about it- it is such a valuable tool in
> predicting how people with organized midsets are going to react.
>
> I do see unorganization as a unified theory explaining personal, social,
> political, business and economic matters at all levels for everyone.
Simon, you surely raised some hairs on this forum! I can read, interpret
and evaluate your statements calmly. But it is because of the theoretical
framework which I use. Your unorganisation theory fits into my broader
picture as a highly individualistic exposition of what happens far from
equibrium when entropy production is high.
Consider, for example, your almost hatred of "static structure". When the
entropy productiuon increases, thus driving the system to the bifurcation
(saturation) point, the emergence of the new order depend on seven
unimpaired essentialities. One of them is the essentiality
"being-becoming" (structure-function). Any imbalance or strife between
"being" and "becoming" will definitely inhibit the emergence of the new
order. A rigid or static structure is certainly an inpairing of "becoming"
(function, process).
However, by presenting your unorganisation theory as the full picture
("unified theory"), you make it very difficult for others to understand
you. The simple reason is that they have a lot of tacit knowledge which
does not and cannot fit in with what you write. Much of this tacit
knowledge has to do with conditions close to equilbrium when the entropy
production is low.
> I seek not acknowledgement, just truth. People can choose to thrive or
> just survive, they may as well thrive as the mechanisms are in place that
> allow this. Either way, I am not affected- non-implementation does not
> disprove the value of unorg, successful implementation in no way hinders
> my progress- and may not necessarily benefit me directly or indirectly-
> people can implement without me knowing- that is fine- thats why the
> materials are free of charge. The secret of success is to defunct
> yourself- and reinvent yourself through learning.
I have deep appreciation for what you have written above. You remind me
very much of Lev Trotsky - the eternal revolutionary. In a certain sense
he could also been seen as someone trying to give an account of
unorganisation. (Please, do not think that I am saying that you are
following Trotsky's principles. What I am saying is that both of you are
intrigued by what happens far from equilbrium, so much so that you are
forgetting about happens close to equilbrium.) He was so much a
revolutionary (unorganiser) that even the revolutionists (Lenin and
Stalin) had to kick him out. It never dawned on him that he found exile in
countries far from unorganisation, i.e. close to equilibrium!
> > In being an intuitive model developer myself--as there seems to be a
> > confluence of such on this list as well as a couple of others--we all seem
> > to be buying into our own reality and attempting to "extend" that ad
> > infinitum.
>
> Its not my own reality- its the reality of the world seen from my
> perspective. You seem to imply self-promotion in me promoting unorg,
> rather than helping others. I don't promote unorg for my own benefit- I
> promote it because it contains truth useful to improving circumstances-
> capitalism is flawed, technological capitalism combines economic equality
> with very free markets- I fee morally obligated to communciate those ideas
> for consideration in places like South Africa, India, Japan and Brazil,
> and believe them to be of use there. We live in a new world and we need
> paradigms to understand and act in that world- these are completely new
> paradigms and unorg is useful for explaining that world.
Simon, again I have to caution that when some country in the world is
operationg far from equibrium (which is definitely the case in South
Africa), it is happening in all other countries. And even in South Africa,
while on many levels it is operating far from equilebrium, on some others
it is operating close to equilibrium. To manage all these levels in the
same manner will be most contraproductive. We must keep a balanced,
unified mind at all costs.
> I hope unorg is proven or disproven by implementations in practice- we
> will never know how right or wrong its ideas are just by continuing this
> discussion! I would not like anyone to conclude unorg is not of potential
> use to them from these exchanges of posts- but to feel interested enough
> to go and explore them in more detail and start to implement them and look
> at the results.
Much of what you written, applies to conditions far from equilbrium. Thus
much of your theory will be proven in such conditions. However, little of
it will be proveable in conditions close to equilibrium. Thus it will be a
sad if your insights are discounted because they were applied to
situations in which they are not applicable.
In fact, it will be very, very sad because, after all, we are of one
world. Although different regions of this world act differently, we are
all speeding to the great showdown or grand bifurcation in about fifty
years from now. It is our grandchildren which will have to keep a cool
mind in those days. And if we disqualify our insights by applying them
where they cannot be applied, they will have so much more confusion from
which to recover.
What exactly will be the nature of this showdown? Nature complexifies
itself by the production of entropy, following the route of a MINIMAL
production. Human culture is also complexifying itself by the production
of entropy, however, following the route of a MAXIMAL production. The
showdown will be between nature and culture. Human culture will have to
give in - your unorganisation on a scale so vast that it sends shivers
down my spine. The sooner we realise it, the better it will be for our
grandchildren.
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 -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>