Dear Organlearners,
Tom Abeles <tabeles@tmn.com> writes:
>AM de Lange wrote in a small part:
>
>>should we replace Systems Thinking with "Belief".
>
>Interesting question for a listserv which is trying to map
>Senge's model onto organizations!
>
>it is worthy of serious thought and discussion
To which Rick added:
>[Host's Note: I'll second the thought! What would it look
>like if we replace "Systems Thinking" with "Belief?" ...Rick]
Greetings Tom and Rick,
I think it is important to revisit the context of the phrase which Tom
refers to. Rol Fassenden gave a fine analysis of the position of LOs in
Higher Education, even by admitting that he was somewhat cynical. See
LO19587. < http://www.learning-org.com/98.10/0208.html > He observed that
passion for the five disciplies is notably scarce in Higher Ed. In my
answer to him (LO19610) < http://www.learning-org.com/98.10/0231.html > I
wrote metaphorically that his observation means that "spiritual fuel
tanks" of educators are empty and that they need a Systems Thinking which
will enable them to "fill up" again. I then also wrote:
>But do we have such a Systems Thinking available
>ourselves? And if such a Systems Thinking is available,
>might we not be struck with blindness ourselves so that
>we will not be able to recognise it? The Bible, for example,
>gives some significant answers to these questions, should
>we replace Systems Thinking with "Belief".
Allow me to paint a richer picture. First of all, we should never
forget that it took more than two millenia for the Bible (Old and New
Testament) to develop into its canonical form, involving God and more
than a hundred writers. It is most important to observe that God
respects the individual personality of each of these writers. I often
think of the Bible as the most remarkable RICH DIALOGUE between God
and humans ever to be recorded.
We will not find in the Bible in its source (original) languages
(Hebrew and Greek) the term "systems thinking". Neither will we find
this term in most translations of the Bible in target (even present
day) languages. Translators use words in the target language
corresponding to words in the source language such that
* the meaning is as closely as possible (isomorphism)
* for as many speakers in the target language as possible.
But the translation is not as easy as these two requirements seem to
suggest. For example, what about idiomatic expressions in the source
language. Should they be translated literally, descriptively or even
idiomatically when the target language also has an idiom with the same
meaning. Another example, what about metaphors? Few of the metaphors
refering to the arid nature in the Middel East will make sense when
the reader lives in an icy, artic or a humid, tropical region. Few of
the metaphors refering to the cultures millenia ago still apply to
many modern cultures.
Let us take a sidetrack for a moment or two and compare the Bible to
the Koran. The Koran was written by one man, namely Mohammed
(570-632), who thus became the father of Islam (Moslem) who refer to
him as the Prophet. Mohammed realised that people speaking Arabic
languages needed a translation of the message of the Bible. He was
sensitive to some of these translation problems and especially to the
seemingly inconsistent and incoherent nature of the RICH DIALOGUE
involving so many people over such a great time span. Thus he wrote
the Koran as a DUAL DIALOGUE involving God and only one individual,
namely himself. Should we study the Koran and the Arabic civilisation
more closely, we will find that Mohammed was a powerful systems
thinker who lived in what we may call the "golden era of Arabic
civilisation". Thus it becomes more clear to us why Islam has become
one of the major religions of today. (In my report on my recent tour
to the eastern and central countries of Southern Africa, see
Learning by Touring LO19522
< http://www.learning-org.com/98.10/0143.html >
I did not mention my observations and thoughts on the rapidly
increasing role of Islam in these countries because it did not fit
into my main purpose with the report.)
Does it mean that the Bible has nothing to say on "systems thinking"
because that phrase does not occur in either the source languages or
target languages? No. What we have to do, is to carefully give an
account of "systems thinking", say, in the sense of Peter Senge. Then
we search in the Bible, using the source language(s) and at least our
target language, for a concept which, when given a fair account of in
terms of the WHOLE Bible, corresponds reasonably to the concept
"systems thinking".
Well, in terms of the thread (subject above), the first possible
candidate must be "belief". Thus we have to establish the Bible's
account on "belief". This is a complex task with many pitfalls as the
history of Christianity the past two millenia shows. One of the most
serious pitfalls for the researcher is to confuse the his/her articles
of faith with what the Bible itself clearly identifies as articles of
faith. My opinion, based on my own investigations, is that "belief" is
not the best candidate. I think that the best candidate is "knowing
the will of God". Thus, when Rick second the thought "What would it
look like if we replace "Systems Thinking" with "Belief?" ", I am
quite willing to participate in this intellectual excercise for the
purpose of painting a rich picture (having a dialogue) on "systems
thinking" and "belief".
I do not want to bash your brains by explaining once again why I will
participate in this dialogue, but the reason is very important.
Knowing and believing is not the same thing. The Bible itself gives an
example. The devil (satan) knows more of God than anyone of us, but
does not believe in God. My reason is that believing is one of the
emergent levels of "deep-knowing". The activity "believing" emerged
form the activity "learning" which itself emerges from the activity
creating (human creativity).
Thus in my own "systems thinking" (jigsaw puzzel) one of the pieces
which I have to fit is "belief". I am fully aware that some of you may
view it the opposite, namely that "belief" is the jigsaw puzzle and
that one of the pieces to fit into it, is "systems thinking".
In fact, I cannot exclude myself from this opposite viewpoint. It is
because there is a feedback loop between my "systems thinking" and my
"belief". I also know exactly when I assume this viewpoint that
"belief" is the puzzle and not one of the pieces of a puzzle. It is
when a major emergence is taking place in my systems thinking. I also
know why it has to be that like that. It is because my "belief" causes
"entropy production" from which my "systems thinking" will benefit. In
other words, my belief acts as a carrier of "spiritual free energy"
when I concern myself with transformations of things other than
belief. But when it concerns transformations of my belief, the carrier
for this "spiritual free energy" is "knowing the will of God" which I
try to articulate with my "systems thinking".
Thus the one thing in the thread "Systems Thinking vs Belief" which I
am not happy with, is the vs (versus). It may lead to the notion of
exclusivity, either "systems thinking" or "belief", but not both
neither none. This exclusivity is deadly to life. Exclusivity requires
a "binary evaluation" which we know better as "judgement". See
Conflict in LOs LO19578
< http://www.learning-org.com/98.10/0199.html >
It is tragic, but understandable from my viewpoint of complexity, that
so many people in the history of Christianity resorted to judgement.
Judgement created immense conflicts. Some calling themselves
Christians did horrible things in terms of their judgements, believing
they had the right to do so. Add up all these horrible things through
the almost 2000 years of history of Christianity, and its clear why so
many people today do not want anything to do with Christianity. It is
also my tragic judgement that many of these bashers of Chistianity
judge the Bible to be the source of these wrong doings of Christians.
But the Bible tells something different. It tells that many people
will pose as "people of God" while they actually are not "people of
God". It also tells that "people of God" should not make judgements on
this issue because only God can be the Judge to that. It even tells
that God will not judge until the last day of this dispentation has
arrived, known as Judgement Day. Lastly, it tells that God who is
Love, is also patient and do not want any human to perish. Yet, humans
persist judging left, right and centre, below and above, including
God.
Crazy, is it not? No. This is complexity in its grand sense. Almost
2000 years ago Jesus described the essence of this complexity in terms
of the metaphor of two roads. The one is broad, linear, even, heavily
populated, perishing and eventually ends in hell. The other road is
narrow, sinuous, rough, sparsely populated, rejuvenating and
eventually leads to a new dispensation -- a new heaven and a new
earth. With just a couple of verses He summarised what most of the
prophets needed many chapters to do so. Now, almost 2000 years
afterwards in what is characterised as the post-christian society,
scientists are beginning to tell their version of complexity, needing
books to do so. They are still much confused, but words like system,
adaptation, self-organisation, sustainability, autopoiesis, entropy
production and bifurcation becomes standard terminology in their
versions.
We all have to acknowledge that there are many more "belief systems"
than merely the "Christian system". Even the "atheist system" is a
"belief system". The diversity among "belief systems" surpasses by far
the diversity within the "Christain system". Let us now think of
"believing" in the context of this diversity of "belief systems". It
is this latter "believing" which I have in mind when I ask the
following question.
Why do we need "systems thinking in our
believing" and "believing in our systems thinking"?
To make our spiritual life not only sustainable, but full of bliss,
passion, curiosity, hope and above all, love.
Hey. Wow. Huh. This last sentence, is it a fact? I will answer it as
follows. Consider, as an example, the sentence "the sky is blue". It
is a fact for all people who can see. Most people can see and most
people can get out in daylight on a sunny day to look at the sky. But
for blind people it will never be a fact. Neither will it ever be for
them a farce -- a nonfact. It can be for them at LEAST a "chaotic
proposition". This chaos means the sentence can be true, it can be
false, it can be both and it can be none. It can also be a "fuzzy
proposition", partly true and partly false.. But it can also be at
MOST an orderly proposition. This order means the sentence can be
either true, or false, but not both and neither none. (Note the
judgement here!) To deal with such orderly propositions,
mathematicians have developed their own kind of logic which they call
symbolic logic. But what about the least case of chaotic
propositions -- how can we deal with this case? Let us go back to one
of the roots of our Western Civilisation: the age of Socrates, Plato
and Aristoteles. What did those Greeks do? They set up a place
(symposium) where they could talk (dialogue) about the self-imposed
"blindness" of Socrates -- the man who, by doing so, acted as midwife
to the opening of their minds and the birth of their noble thoughts.
That last sentence is a fact to me, revealed by a few of my own unique
experiences. But like Socrates I said to myself: "I know nothing about
that sentence. Let me set out on a course to find out what I can know
about it". I am still on that course, "learning by touring", getting
more and more experiences of that very fact. But often I have to warn
myself to stay on that course by remembering my own ignorance, by
imposing blindness on myself, by going back to chaos to see where it
will lead. Thus my need for dialogue without judgement is great. As I
have explained to Winfried Dressler, see
Chinese 5 elements and LO LO19562
http://www.learning-org.com/98.10/0183.html
I use this dialogue (flow of thoughts) together with my "World Yin
Yang" to produce entropy within myself in order to get to the edge of
chaos where bifurcations happen. This is why I participate so much on
this very list because of its focus on dialogue and learning.
Thanks Rick for making it possible.
Thanks all who suffered it so far. I owe you a "decent explanation".
Here is a "technical explanation".
Some complain or hint that I write too much, that the flow of thoughts
or diffences in thoughts are too much. Well, you can at any time jump
out into calmer (less chaotic) waters. As for me, tomorrow might be
too late to let it happen. Since I know how to produce entropy in the
abstract world of mind, I will have to do it until other people can
take over or I fell over. Please note that I do not inundate you with
entropy created outside yourself. What I do, is to supply either the
entropic fluxes (flow of thoughts) or the entropic forces (contrast
between different thoughts), but not both on the same topic as I move
from topic to topic. As soon as you pair your own entropic forces to
my fluxes or your own entropic fluxes to my forces, YOU begin to
produce entropy YOURSELF. You then begin to experience how your mind
moves away from equilibrium, how your rigid mental models become
plastic and sometimes even transform into liquid. Many have written to
me in private about these mental experiences. It is to them that I owe
the "decent explanation". The "decent explanation" begins with step
one:- please participate in the dialogue, come hell or high water.
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>