In this follow-up to the introduction in a section titled
> SELF-LEARNING IN TERMS OF CREATING KNOWLEDGE
you state the following and then relate your own experience: (I apologize
for including a long segment of your original.)
> We cannot rely on our tacit knowledge indefinitely. If we merely rely
> on our tacit knowledge, it will eventually become depleted. Thus
> each of us will also have to create knowledge on purpose, even with
> respect to the seven essentialities. This will again happen first
> emergently and then digestively.
> How will we create knowledge on the seven essentialities? Each of us
> will have to do it by primarily by observing consciously our own
> learning of ANY topic (including the seven essentialities). It is
> seems to be easier to observe consciously the learning of others, but
> that is an illusion. We do not really know from moment to moment how
> another person thinks - we merely have from time to time that
> person's articulated responses to work from, responses which we
> notoriously misinterpret.
> I will describe how it happens with me. When I learn a
> topic consciously, it is impossible for me to learn also consciously
> how I learn that topic. Why not? I cannot learn in an enquiring
> manner two distinct topics simultaneously. In other words, it is
> impossible for me to do syn-learning.[Greek: "syn"=together.] But I
> do learn about the one topic for a short while, switch over to the
> other one for a short while, switch back to the first one, etc. etc.
> In other words, it is possible for me to do para-learning (see
> multitasking in computers). [Greek: "para"=beside.]
> The seven essentialities are involved in the self learning of any
> topic. They themselves form a topic. I can learn about them as a
> topic when I learn any other topic. Although I cannot do it by
> syn-learning, I can do it by para-learning. When this happens, I
> learn a little bit about the topic, then "sort of stepping away" and
> learn a little bit about the essentialities, then switch back by
> "sort of stepping closer" and learn a little bit more about the other
> topic again, etc, etc.
What interested me here was the description about how you learn, any
topic, not just the seven essentialities. It caught my attention because
the description fits how I approach learning. Thus, it occurred to me
that studying the framework might be fruitful in developing further
insight to the seven essentialities. And so I create here a list of the
essentialities from your note.
"becoming-being" (liveness)
"identity-categoricity" (sureness)
"associativity-monadicity" (wholeness)
"connect-beget" (fruitfulness)
"quantity-limit" (spareness)
"quality-variety" (otherness)
"open-paradigm" (openness)
And now I look at each for its presence in the learning method.
By moving out of the confine of a single topic into related, and
especially unrelated topics, the mind is freed from narrowness of thought.
If I am studying the theory of complex systems and I move from reading
Progogine to Capra to Maturana and Varela, I free up my mind from the
constancy of trying to interpret the thoughts and interpretations of
specifically one author and open it to the richness of a variety of
thoughts. If I also study articles on patterns, group think, mental maps,
etc., I further open my thoughts to other aspects of complexity theory.
In this fashion, I prevent myself from becoming fixated with any one
aspect, i. e., developing untested paradigms, and thus becoming
overbalanced in any one area. (introduces aspects of openness, otherness,
spareness, fruitfulness, sureness)
But, if I suddenly insert work on a totally unrelated problem, such as a
real time manufacturing or engineering design problem, I actually find it
clears my mind of unidirectional focus that may be narrowing my thoughts.
When I return to the original study I normally have a much fresher outlook
that incorporates a better ability to recognize interrelationships between
issues, greater ability to work around previously blocked insight and
sudden realization of previously unrecognized truths which in turn results
in an improved motivation to continue. (introducing wholeness, liveness)
Some people call the process a "reality break."
In the same sense, faced with a problem in real world work that is
blocked, I also find that submerging myself in a study such as the theory
of complex systems will produce the same result. I have always believed
my mind continued to process the problem, though in the subconscious,
where it was not constrained by the focus of conscious thought. Most
often then result is sudden insight to the problem's solution. (liveness)
The pieces had all been present except for the realization of the
interconnection. (wholeness, sureness)
Finally, in putting this together I have come to realize, once one passes
through a bifurcation point, the system returns to a stable point and the
cycle begins again. Thus the more static part of the flux-force pairs
reappear, but as you said in your comment on "being-becoming-being," the
result is not symmetrical about the becoming. Thus the learning cycle
appears as:
immergent learning <-
\
flux-force -> entropy production -> bifurcation |
\
->
emergent learning ->
followed by the further flow:
emergent learning -> flux-force -> entropy production -> etc.
[Host's Note: Sorry about the diagram above... If you want to create a
text diagram on the LO list, keep it less than 75 cols wide and do not use
tabs, just spaces. ...Rick]
David
David T. Novick e-mail: david.t.novick@boeing.com
Mail Stop: GE99 Phone: (714)762-5522
The Boeing Company Fax: (714)762-6222
Autonetics GN&S Comnet: 252-5522
3370 Miraloma Ave
Anaheim, CA 92803
--"Novick, David T" <David.Novick@West.Boeing.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>