Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
> What I usually mis in such moralty, restricted to social interaction, is
> the link to the biosphere, which provides for the basis of human life. In
> analogy to At's extension of human "creativity" to "deep creativity"
> involving all levels of becoming new order, I could extend moralty to
> "deep moralty", including responsibility for the biosphere.
Winfried, I agree with you.
Should we do so, we are up to our necks in "reality". It is
interesting to note that in "real" the preffix "re-" means "again"
while the "-al" refers to the word "thing". Compare it with words
such as "allias" ("alius" another thing) and "alien" (strange thing).
I have read once somewhere that the word "al" in proto indogermanic
probably meant "thing, the, all, unfathomable".
There is for me an extraodinary relationship between "deep
creativity" and "deep morality". It is the relationship between
single "creative holons" and the higher order "creative holon" which
may emerge from them. In order to have the higher order holon, the
lower order holons have to share their power of change
("creativity"). Thus symbiosis becomes an example of "deep morality".
I sometimes describe "deep morality" as the caring (promotion) of
"deep creativity" to the benefit of all creative systems involved.
Our (humankind's) lack of deep morality is beginning to cause a
perceptable back-lash from the rest of nature.
This is similar to what you are saying:
> Meanwhile, as long as "really care" does not include "deep moralty" thus
> leading to a tautology, even the best LO may contribute to the execution
> of the biosphere as the base of human life.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
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>