Dear Organlearners,
Leo Minnigh <L.D.Minnigh@library.tudelft.nl> writes:
> In the very deep and instructive contribution of At de Lange
> (LO18750), the important role of a catalyst in the chemical
> world has been explained in the transfer of A to B. A
> comparison has been made with the learning organisation
> where information is transferred.
Greetings Leo.,
Thank you for your kind words. I always have to struggle for a
harmony between "deep" and "instructive". It is because, for myself,
the complexer (deeper and wider) it gets, the more instructive it
becomes. But I have learned that there are few people who learn in
such a manner. Thus I have to remind myself continuously - forget
about yourself and think about others.
> At has explained that an effective contact of X with Z can be
> favored by catalyst Y. It is the "umlomo" in the X*Y*Z relationship.
>
> At, can you please explain to us the characteristics between Y
> (catalyst, teacher) and Z (receiver, pupil, learner) in conditions
> of an optimum number of effective 'collisions'.
Leo, this is one of two questions which you have asked.
Unfortunately, both has complex answers. I will try to keep the
answers within bounds.
Leo, let us consider the X*Y*Z of learning: X the subject, Y the
teacher and Z the learner. Note that this pattern concerns the
essentiality "associativity-monadicity" or wholeness. We are not
considering the essentiality "connect-beget" fruitfulness.
As I have said, two (usually) or more (seldom) things have to connect
effectively. People can and often learn without teachers, ie. we have
the pattern X*Z. This pattern concerns fruitfulness. But when teachers
get involved, we have a X*Y*Z pattern which still concerns
fruitfulness, eventhough it looks exactly like the previous pattern
for wholeness. If the teacher try to connect three things X, Y, and
Z, it will succeed far less than connecting two things. But what
must the two things be?
There are six possibilities. The first three possibilities are simple
duals: X*Y, X*Z and Y*Z. The second three possibilities are duals on
these duals: (X*Y)*Z, (X*Z)*Y and (Y*Z)*X. The far majority of
efforts in traditional education with big classes are one of the
three simple duals. Let me discuss them shortly.
X(subject*Y(teacher)
Lecturing method. The teacher Y connects with the subject X in front
of the learners Z, not caring whether they connect simulatenously or
not. Eventually X and Z have to connect at some formal study event.
Y(teacher)*Z(learner)
Popularising method. The teacher connects with almost every learner,
but seldom with X(subject). Eventually X and Z have to connect at
some formal study event.
X(subject)*Z(learner)
Learning resources metod. The formal study event is stretched into
the class. The teacher stops teaching, except in the use of the
learning resources.
I will discuss only one of the three complex duals because it is this
one which counts.
[Y(teacher) * X(subject)]* Z(learner)
Note that I have not symbolised the pattern as
[X(subject)*Y(teacher)] * Z(learner)
With that I want to stress a very, very important truth. The teacher,
just like any catalyst, must become "transparent". By this I mean that
the learner "forgets" about the teacher just as the learner "forgets"
about time when the actual learning happens.
Now on earth can this happen when the teacher is actively
partcipating every second??? The teacher, just like time, must
blend into the subject as background of the subject. This can only
happen when the teacher is complete master of two things: the subject
and learning as subject itself. Both requires a "cool mind" and a
"warm heart".
In order to guide the learner as unlomo,
the teacher has to be as patient as a tortoise and as fast as a
rattle snake.
Let us see what happens. The learner begins to make a collision
between a limited number (two or more) pieces of information from the
subject. An effective connection between these limited pieces of
information leads to a more complex piece of information, the germs
(memes) of knowledge. The learner has to show the teacher how he is
proceeding. The teacher internally outpaces the learner and
determines what the outcome will be. But externally he waits
patiently for the learner to arrive at that outcome.
If the outcome is correct, i.e. an effective collision (plastic,
irreversible and productive), the teacher IMMEDIATELY provides the
learner with a positive feedback and directs the learner to a new
fruitful event. All this must happen in LESS than a minute, using not
more than two simple sentences. Then the teacher becomes patient
again.
If the outcome is incorrect, i.e. an ineffective collision (elastic,
reversible, protective), the teacher IMMEDIATELY points to ONE
activity which prevented the effective collision and encourages the
learner to try again. All this must happen in LESS than a minute,
using not more than two simple sentences. Then the teacher becomes
patient again.
The following merely tells what a teacher, as catalist, should NOT
do. To give an account of what a teacher as catalyst can do, will
take hundreds of screens.
The teacher never supplies the learner with the correct response to
get done with a diffcult connection. (Should the learner have to make
a hundred ineffective collisions, then one hundred it should be, but
not necessarily in one session) The teacher never calls any
ineffective activity which led to an ineffective collision an error.
The teacher never steps in while the learner is still buzy. The
teacher never questions the learner on an ineffectve activity. The
teacher never tells.the learner to try again without pointing out an
ineffective activity. The teacher (after one try) seldoms points out
two ineffective activities and never three or more ineffective
activities. The teacher never combines two effective collsions unless
he has made sure the learner can make these effective collions singly.
The teacher never distracts the learner's attention. The teacher never
decides what connection comes next, but guides the learner in terms of
his own responses what comes next. The teacher never stick to a
collision until it has become effective, but also never let an
ineffective collision to perpetuate.
In short, the teacher has to honour the learner's creativity in all
aspects.
> Asymmetry must play an important role also on this side of the
> reaction chain. It is well known that the learner is more readily to
> accept information from a stranger, or trainer from outside the
> organisation than if the catalyst is a close friend or colleague.
> Why do I have more trouble to transform my ideas (in)to my
> colleagues than if an external invited trainer who transfer simmilar
> ideas? How can I change myself in such a way that enough asymmetry
> is reached in relation with my fellow workers? Or in a more
> domestic scene, how can parents and their children become effective
> catalysts and receivers.
Leo, this is also a very important question and I am very thankful
that you have asked it. It is one which haunts all of us.
We still have X(subject)*Y(teacher)*X(learner)
The answer is technically very simple. It is a degeneration
(reduction) of associativity with the pattern X*Y*Z to Y*Y*Z because
of a mistaken identity X = Y which breaks the assymetry in X*Y
The reasons for this degeneration of associativity are legio. Here are
some of them.
* An inability to differentiate between form and content. The
saying "do not confuse the messenger with the message" reminds us
of this inability.
* An inability to work with emerging differences. Think of the saying
"a prophet is not honoured in his own town"
* The propagation of past fragmentations. Unsolved problems becomes
haunting memories and eventually nightmares.
What I am now going to write may seem very wierd, but it is exactly
what I mean.
The problem is not that Y*Y*Z will not work. It will never work and
that is a fact. The problem is that we want to make Y*Y*Z work. In
other words, we want to undo a fact of destructive creativity. This
problem's solution is semiological. It is solved by transforming Y*Y*Z
into X*Y*Z. In other words, bring enough difference in between the
X(subject) and Y(umlomo). That is why a good doctor consult another
doctor when he gets ill or a good attorney consult another attorney
when he gets into law suite. That is why we need consultants. The
trouble with many consultants Y is that they do not keep up enough
difference between either the X or the Z. In other words, they allow
the pattern X*Y*Z to degenerate.
As you have noticed, it is especially parents who struggle with the
degeneracy of X*Y*Z into X*X*Z, Y*Y*Z or X*Z*Z. I will not discuss
each of these cases in order to save space. I will rather discuss how
to avoid this degeneracy. The basic technicue is to extend parenthood
by appointing additional parents during the development of the child.
In the European based culture it is known as "godparents" (not
"foster parents"). Unfortunately, two developments have destroyed
much of the "godparent culture" which Europe had more than a
millenium ago. The first is the notion of using institutions like the
State and Church (and later the School) to engineer the way in which
people ought to think and behave. I use the word "engineer" in the
sense of forced, non spontaneous transformations. The second is the
industrial revolution, itself an engineering feature.
Industrialisation led to urbanisation and job specialisation which
drammatically reduced the sustainability of family cultures.
Africa was much richer in family cultures than Europe. (Ray Harrel
may here give us an account of the American Indians.) The system of
"godparents" was extremely rich. Grandparents became godparents
("big ma"s and "big pas"s) soon as a young child was weaned. Uncles
and aunts became godparents ("little ma"s and "little pa"s) as soon
as the child became "school ready". As the child became older, the
godsparents gradually replaced the parents to prevent the
degeneration of the X*Y*Z pattern of parenthood.
Sadly, slavery, colonisation, industrialisation (meagre attempts) and
urbanisation (rampant) of Africa destroyed these rich "umlomo"
patterns in parenthood almost completely. To add insult to the
injury, the western idea of schools with big classes and rich, but
fragmented curricula, completed this destruction. Try to find any
book in your libraries of the social system of African nations (like
the Zulus or Tswanas) and experience for yourself the richness which
was lost.
> In other words, I miss an important part in your paragraph
> 'Fruitfulness as effective contact'. The relation: teacher-learner
> deserves more attention. There seems to be something more than only
> 'expose its [information/X] reactive centres more prominently so
> that the learner has a better opportunity to make effective
> contact'.
Leo, it is very true. Each time when I post my introduction on an
essentiality, I am painfully aware of all these gaps. But there are
two reasons for these gaps. Firstly, I use Pegasus Mail which employ
the basic Windows editor, allowing up to 64kb of message. You should
see me deleting topics at each essentiality to try and fit in those
which I consider to be most important. But I do it with a happy heart
because the essentiality "quantity-limit" (sparseness) is also part
of the picture.
Secondly, the LO is the very means by which we become aware of such
gaps and try to fill them up. Your two question above is a fine
example of how a LO should operate.
I now have a study task for you. I planned to do such a study about
two years ago, but my resources are too limited. I know that you have
some wonderful libraries and musems ("oudheidkamers") to help you
with this task.
The subject "godparents" is known in Afrikaans and probably also in
your language Dutch as "peetouers". Since I have read your
contribution, I asked more than hundred educated people of fine
character what they can tell me about "peetouers". My wife is doing
the same. And just as I, she is surprised at how little of the
culture of "peetouers" still remains. I spend almost 2 hours in our
library at the anthropology and sociology sections, just to become
even more surprised at how little has been documented on
"godparents". Except for some insights into the role played by the
church (Catholic and Protestant), very little else came to light.
What I would like you to do, is to trace the history of "peetouers"
("godparents") among the lowlandic cultures (Dutch, Frisian and
Saxon) and see what richness there was 500 years and MORE ago. I
would appreciate it very much if you could lay your hands on
information outside the spheres of the state and the church. With
your insight on wholeness (and its associativity pattern X*Y*Z) as
well as fruitfulness, I am sure that you will uncover some exciting
and important information for all of us.
We all struggle with the problem which you have formulated so crisp
"How can parents and their children become effective
catalysts and receivers."
If I can find the time, I will try to give you some information with
respect to the Banthu cultures of Southern Africa. Information on
"godparents" form other cultures (Asia, America, etc) will be much
appreciated.
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>