Dear Organlearners,
Please forgive me for quoting so much of Doug's message and for
writing much more myself.
I find it very diffcult to cut away anything from the message of
Douglas Max <dmax@bellatlantic.net> who wrote:
> I posed this question:
>
> > Sad to pose this question also..."would the US have had more impact by
> > simply saying "please" tell us what you know so that we can stop this sort
> > of thing happening again?"
>
> At responded:
>
> >No. We are too much engrossed by a culture of hurting all over the
> >world in every dimension of humanity.
>
> I also sadly agree. And I should say that I'm not so naive to believe
> that simply asking "please" would have, in fact, been effective...but it
> would have been an interesting way for the US to model a break in the
> cycle of hurt. If the reward is insulting (read hurtful)to the spirit of
> he or she who accepts it, as the bomb was to those killed and maimed, as
> the children who go without food and clothes...unfortunately the list
> could gone on and on...then wouldn't it have been an interesting
> "experiment" for the US to have tried?
Doug, when I wrote the above answer to your question, I was so
depressed because of this culture of hurting that I said to myself --
"throw but one sentence to Douglas, telling him to face reality
rather than answering his question." I am sorry, I have hurt you. I
know it because you came back with your question, but first you
had to teach me (as in the above quote) how important this question
is to you.
> Even if we'd have simply asked for help, then the next morning every TV
> network would have tried to get the "hero" on, movies of the week would
> have been skripted, deals for the authorized biography would have been
> made...the "hero" would have been idolized even if they'd been like you
> and your wife, wanting to give back the reward. It couldn't have been
> given away, especially if you had given it away.
I cannot help but the think of the immense parallels with the life of
Jesus. His almost three years of ministry made him a hero among the
people. Then, when he entered Jerusalem with hosannas, people began
to idolize him rather than to learn as he teached them to learn. But
they were not prepared to learn at all so eventually they had to call
for his crucifiction.
> But then, I guess you'd have a tremendously tall pulpit upon which to
> preach, to teach, and to change this LO of ours.
Douglas, I would like to be remembered as a teacher rather than a
preacher.
Does the true teacher not question unceasingly? Did Jesus not set
a mangnificant example? Does the true teacher not learn just as much
as the learners through questioning?
A preacher, on the other hand, proclaims what he/she knows. This
knowledge can come through divine relevation or self-learning.
Knowledge revealed by other people cannot qualify as divine
relevation, but has to be questioned unceasingly. When a teacher
changes irreversibly into a preacher, that person has initiated
his/her own self-destruction.
> How do we stop the cycle At? When people understand? How do we teach
> them? If every which way we look we see models of hurt, how do our kids
> learn? Downsizing, hunger, religious wars, bombings....
Doug, I will answer your first three questions together. Your last
question I will answer after your your observations on your own kids.
We can break ANY cycle ONLY through learning. (The capital letters is
the preacher in me showing through ...grin...). I want to give you four
examples.
Philip of Macedonia struggled with the cycle of slavery. Macedonia
was the source of slaves to all the countries around it. Philip used
his last money to import great teachers to learn young Macedonians.
In just one generation, through his own son Alexander, Macedonia
became the second greatest empire (area wise) in the history of the
world.
There is no greater example than Jesus, who was addressed by the
people as didaskalos (teacher).
The Holy Roman empire did a terrible thing (650-700) through Pepin
and later his son Charles the "Great". It brought the cycle of
miserable poverty to the Frisians, Franconians and remaining (Low)
Saxons on the European continent for 600 years Then in the 14th
century, these people (as a result of being the last of the crusade
waves) realised that they will break the cycle only through organised
education. In less than 100 years their economy bloomed, known as the
Hansa era. This was followed soon afterwards by the Reformation and
hence the colonisation of the rest of the world.
During the nineteen fifties, it seemed as if the whole world would
transform to the communistic order. The launching of Sputnik was the
last straw. People in the USA realised that it would gain
technological dominance only through massive education in science
(from primary schools to advance research institues). My own
schooling and undergraduate studies were still according to the old
ways. But ten years later I had to teach the new revolutionary
science curricula when I became a teacher for four wonderful years.
Today, twenty years later, the iron and bamboo curtains are history.
President Kennedy's calling for learning did the job.
Unfortunately, as we now know, there are many kinds of learning. So,
which kind of learning should we choose? In my opinion, memorisation
+ regurgitation in the lower echelons and cut + paste in the higher
echelons are definitely out. I want to go even further -- any kind of
learning which results in mere understanding is also definitely out.
Such kinds of learning may have been beneficial up to the 20th
century, but for the remaining centuries they will be useless. Why?
Because complexity has become part of our daily lives.
The problem with complexity has already been figured out by the
ancient Greeks and documented by Homer in story form. The story of
the Minotaur residing in the Labyrinth and how the young Theseus
found the solution is a fine example. The ONLY KINDS of learning
which will be good enough, are those which will create and sustain a
passion for learning of all reality. (The capital letters are again
the preacher in me showing through.)
How do we teach them? A fair answer to this question will take
many screens and a full answer will take many books. A short answer
would be the following. Help learners to organise themselves in such
a manner that they neither lose their passion for learning, nor
prevent the learning of others. We have a fine example in Socrates.
But I want to get the following off my heart. Stop letting the
religious dimension make the picture opaque. Stop letting multitudes
of so-called followers of religious teachers tell you what they think
these teachers have teached. Go to the teachers themselves as your
authentic sources of information.
Study the Jesus of the Bible as a historical figure whose main
purpose was to teach. Study what he taught about teaching and
learning. It took him three years to set up an organisation among
twelve people which, after his death and resurrection, emerged into
the most profound Learning Organisation ever to be known.
Also study the Budha of the far east and the prophet Mohammet of the
middel east as to what they taught about teaching and learning. God
does not let the rain fall only upon christians. These ancient
religious leaders knew more about the ART of teaching and learning
than most modern commentators on the subject do. (ART is the
skillfull harmonising of theory and practice as well as medium and
message into fruits which keep the soul alive.)
> I'm lucky, my kids are too young to recognize all our problems (being only
> 2 and 4 years old). What's the world going to be like when they're old
> enough to want to understand how this all works...emphasis on "all." They
> ask, I answer; they see models and are forming larger models to
> understand. When their models get larger, more sophisticated, I'm
> frightened of the honest answers I must provide.
Doug, I have five children between 22 and 28. Me and my wife tried
to teach them how to question life. Their questioning made other
people (such as teachers and peers) to hurt them immensely. Their
"hurt through learning" was also my hurt because I was responsible
for it. As they grew older, I saw how they reduced their hurt by
questioning much less. However, they became hurt in a new way because
of their ignorance and arrogance. Their "hurt through hubris" hurt me
and my wife even more because it is much worse than their "hurt
through learning".
How to stop the cycle among our children? Thank God it seemed to have
stopped at my second oldest child Jeanette. She has been the
emotional one of the five. When hurting drove her dangerously close
to the edge of self-destruction, I begged her on a certain Thursday
to go and visit the only "true teacher" in all her school years, a
lady with the name of Lynette. Me and my wife went the Firday evening
to Lynette and asked het to take care of Jeanette. The next morning,
Saturday, Jeanette paid Lynette a visit. It lasted only an hour. But
it broke the cycle. In that hour Lynette teached Jeanette that
* she and only she is responsible for her self-organisation
* there are other people in the world who are true teachers and who
can help her to organise herself.
The bliss came when a few months afterwards Jeannette hugged me and
my wife, telling us that we were, after all, her best teachers. But
with four more to go, we often feel that we have failed. This feeling
of failure hurts us very much.
> I'm not sure all this message comes together, but I hope some will join me
> in trying to solve the problems of this world.
>
> How does the cycle stop if we're too engrossed in our culture of hurting?
Doug, I have said so many things that the essence may get lost. Thus
I have kept it for last, very thankful that you have reiterated your
question.
* The cycle becomes broken by the first irreversible step in the
right direction, how insignificant or distasteful it might seem to
us. Encourage any emergence in any person so that all people
become rich in emergent experiences.
* We must deepen our concept of creativity through learning and
our concept of learning through creativity.
* We must learn to distinguish between destructive creativity and
constructive creativity.
* We must learn what causes destructive creativty and what causes
constructive creativity to know what to avoid and what to promote.
* We must experience the highest emergence possible in constrcutive
creativity, namely unconditional love. This love gives us the
power to HARMONISE destructions and constructions.
Harmonise? I wanted to write "This love gives us the power to avoid
destructions and promote constructions." But then I would have told a
lie. I had to destroy (deconstruct as Derrida calls it) many things
in my own life which prevented me to create constructively and I
expect to do it till the end. The older I become, the more clearer it
becomes to me that when I destroy, I have only myself (and nobody
else) to work upon. This is the deepest meaning, I think, of the
modern fashion word "self-organisation" in complexity theory.
The sin of fundamentalism, I think, is to make this self-destruction
of destructive things a collective issue rather than a private issue
of the individual. Even if it concerns the head of a state, it
remains a private issue. But in the case of a public figure that
person has to resign and go private in order to signify that
self-destruction is a private issue. A public figure who does not
resign, only feeds the fire of fundamentalism. It will not stop the
culture of hurting.
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>