At de Lange wrote in LO16286:
> Simon, I am sympathetic to your views because they occupy a majorportion
> of my own views. But I am not convergent to you views because, as I have
> explained, they form only part of a much greater picture.
> The tacit knowledge of a person is that knowledge which the person has
> acquired through experiences which HAS NOT BEEN ARTICULATED BEFORE. (The
> term "tacit knowledge was created by Michael Polanyi.) When another
> person articulates your tacit knwoledge, you will immediately recognise
> the truth in such an articulation as obvious. However, to articulate your
> own tacit knowledge is one of the pinnicles of self-mastery. It is one of
> the most difficult things to do.
I would sunmit that tacit knowledge is what I seek- universal global
truths that stike yourself, myself, someone esle doing something else
somewhere else as true. People read unorg and are surprised to hear
themselves say "yes I agree- that reflects what I myself have discovered.
You almost have to do this to succeed in a global medium such as the
Internet- otherwise your content and ideas are national-specific,
situation-limited and so on. Finding tacit knowledge is "one of the mpost
difficult things to do"- but not impossible. I see such parallels with the
situations around the world- dissatiffaction with organnized business and
political organizations and so on- it is by taking the global view that we
can find tacit knowledge/ global truths. The search for tacit knowledge is
glorious.
> > I don't know when something is near to equialibrium- what is this state
> > and when does it arise? I am interested to find some limits to the theory.
>
> Let us indicicate Near Equilibrium and Far from Euilibrium by the acronyms
> NE and FE. Self-organisation NE and self-organisation FE happen in
> completely different ways. When FE, large forces (tensions) act leading to
> large fluxes (flows). Organisations (structures and processes) change
> massively through emergences or immergences. The system and its
> environment are connected in one giant changing entity. But when NE. the
> forces and fluxes are very small. Organisations change in a seemeingly
> disconnected manner, some growing and others declining. Twentieth century
> communism is as example of organisational changes FE whereas twentieth
> century capitalism represents organisational changes NE. In learning a FE
> learning experience illicit "aha" whereas as NE leaning experience illicit
> "hmm".
I think from your previous post that you said that unorg is useful for far
from situations but not in near to equalibrium situations. I would say
that unorg has relevance and use to both situations- every country around
the world no matter what situation they are in now faces the same
imperatives and challenges in this global world. For example, Asia is
deciding what level of state benefits/ welfare to have and Europe has a
lot- too much- welfare. The unorganized policy persription is the same in
both cases- private welfare provision with minimal state intervention.
Unorg has relevance for both "communist" and "capitalist" countries-
neither are perfect and both need to move towards technological
capitalism- there is no left and right in the unorganized world, just
right and wrong.
> Yes, we are of one world due to wholeness (monadicity, holism). Thus
> there are some thing which we share in common. No, we are of different
> nationalities due to differentness (variety). The peoples of South Africa
> will and cannot think the same as the peoples of, for example, Europe. We
> have different climates, ecologies, cultural histories, etc.
These are exactly the things that I ignore in searching for tacit
knowledge- they are the situation specifics- the artificial differences-
history, culture, nations, nationalities, I thoroughtly detest those
things because they are assumed to matter but do not- they are obvious
knowledge- the opposite to tacit- the hinder the recognition of universals
and the recoggnition of the wholeness. You relate the positive terms of
variety and differentness to the negative term of nationalities- I see the
emphasis on nationality as a barrier to recognition of truth. I am not a
fan of the sorts of models such as apartheid that were employed in
Pretoria.
> The showdown which I envisage, is of much greater proportions.
> Capitalism, whether it be agricultural, industrial or technological based,
> will be caught empty handed just as it was the case with Marxism,
> communism and socialism. Both communism and capitalism run on routes of
> maximal entropy production. Thus they both are in conflict with the rest
> of nature, destroying diversity and polluting the environment through
> massive immergences. They both promise the emergence of heaven on earth
> while causing suffering which embodies hell for the majority of humans.
> When capitalism finally acknowledges that it has no self-organised energy
> sources (accumulated through millions of years, squandered in a few
> centuries) left over, the clock will have struck midnight.
Technological capitalism (http://www.unorg.com/index3.htm) combining free
markets with economic quality of opportunity puts people back in charge of
their destiny, shows that external appearance factors such as consumerism
and nationalism are just artifical barriers to learning and communication
and as such allows this "nightmare scenario" of yours to be avoided.
Electronic supplants physical, ideas reign and so on.
> It is very important to see SO (Self-Organisation) NE and SO FE as a
> push-pull pair. It is impossible to have either eternal SO FE or eternal
> SO NE. The prime function of SO FE is the emergence of new orders. The
> prime function of SO NE is the growth of such orders to maturity. Mature
> old orders are needed to give birth to new orders. Bare new orders are
> necessay to rejuvenate old orders.
I would say on the basis principally of your posts that the search for
tacit knowledge supports my search for global truths and both near and far
from equilibria situations would benefit from unorganization. I am
relieved to feel and say this, but if you feel I am misguided and
close-minded to think it, and thus deluding myself, then feel free to
clarify the situations in which unorg is NOT relevant or useful.
Thank you for your feedback- its always appreciated. Best wishes for 1998.
regards sincerely Simon Buckingham http://www.unorg.com/sabc2.htm
unorganization: business not busyness!
--Simon Buckingham <go57@dial.pipex.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>