Dear Organlearners,
Laura Roper <Lroper@oxfamamerica.org> writes:
>I have been interested in this site which is dedicated to
>learning that the discourse it seems is getting more learnED
>and more arcane. Obviously there is an audience for this,
>At in particular has many admirers and I am always curious
>to see what he has to say. At the same time, I too have
>noticed a style of discourse developing (or maybe it ebbs
>and flows having not followed this site for long) that is not
>particularly engaging, and in fact at times alienating.
Greetings Laura,
Yes, I am partly responsible for technical words and mysterious meanings
popping up in our ongoing dialogues. Somebody else put it much stronger by
writing that I mix words and meanings indiscrimately. But I do it for a
definite reason. Despite all its diversity, life (nature and culture) is a
whole. Thus I want all the closed domains to open up so that we can
interact more freely, building bridges where we need them.
I do it on this forum not for myself because it is far too stressfull to
do so. (By doing it in dialogues with myself, I am able to direct much of
this stress in constructive outcomes.) But I do it for the children and
grand children of huamnkind because they will have to cope with a much
greater complexity than us presently. Unless we begin to build the bridges
now, their mental health will be seriously jeopardised by the exploding
complexity.
I also have the disadvantage that English is not my mother tongue and that
I speak it seldom -- usually once or twice a week for a few minutes. Thus
it is difficult for me to write in an easy and common manner.
I agree with you that our discourse can become much more engaging. In
other words, we should endeavour for authentic dialogue. When reading
literature on peace initiatives, it often struck me how difficult it was
for those peace initiators to get the different parties engaged in a
common cause. But we should never forget that a major facet of an engaging
communication is to build conceptual bridges.
When we actually try to create those conceptual bridges, we discover how
complex this venture is. A civil engineer uses concrete and steel to build
a major bridge, making something non-spontaneous too happen. But to built
bridges between the immense diversity in human culture, we can use only
the spiritual nature of humans. Moreover, I am now absolutely sure that it
has to happen spontaneously. It cannot be forced like in engineering
practices because it results in too much hurt.
Obviously, when I write that we have to build bridges between all walks of
life, it entails that we should avoid alienating each other -- another
point which you make. In other words, while building new bridges, we shoud
avoid destroying the old bridges which may become less used. Making
negative remarks on old bridges or instigating controversies on them are
sure ways to destroy them.
>This is an interesting community we have created and are
>participating in in different ways (and I too extend my
>appreciation to Rick Karash who manages this site so
>beautifully). I enjoy it and have learned a lot from it.
I agree fully.
>Why do I find some engaging and others not?
This is a very, very important question. I would love to see that we
answer it with a rich dialogue.
>How might I try to communicate some of these ideas and are
>they worth communicating (e.g. does it really matter which came
>first for any practical purpose?)?
You obviously refer to my question: Which comes first, creativity or
learning? I am fully aware how wierd this question is because I first
tried it out in my family, my friends and some collegues. All of them,
except my dear wife who had to bear with me for 35 years now, found it
wierd. But is really a question which have an important bearing on
practice. Why? When setting up ANY NEW organisation, primary things must
come first. If we do the secondary things first, we will eventually loose
upon them until we have done the primary things first. It is a lesson
which I have learnt far too many times in my life in a dazzling diversity
of situations.
Here are some examples. When a couple gets married, the first thing they
have to arrange for is a bed (or at least a matress). When someone wants
to breed live fish, the first thing which that person has to arrange for
is a tank. When someone wants to drive a car, the first thing which that
person has to arrange for is driving lessons. In each of these examples a
new organisation is involved.
The explicit study of creativity is a post WWII phenomenon. Making
creativity the basis of education is something which still has to happen.
In terms of this historical development, we may easily assume that
learning (something studied for centuries) comes first and creativity
(studied for half a century) comes second. If it is the case, then we can
condone learning practices which impair or even deny creativity since the
latter may be learnt at a later stage.
But remember what Einstein once said: "Thank God that all the schools did
not succeed in destroying the creativity of all the pupils". (I am not
sure of the exact wording.) Einstein was one of the most creative humans
ever. Why did he make such a curious remark? Is it consistent with the
assumption that learning comes first and creativity second?
Note something else. If somebody else would have made such a remark, say
Zweistein, few people whould have been struck by it. But when Einstein
makes such a remark, many more will be engaged by it. The sentence and its
meaning are exactly the same. But why the increased engagement? Because of
Einstein's stature! Is this behaviour normal or abnormal? Should we not
encourage and promote the "Einstein" in each human to emerge? How will we
accomplish it? Or are we afraid of too many Einsteins in our lives?
>In any event, one can skip authors that one finds less
>congenial (either due to style or message), but then - as
>a credit to this list - one might miss something important.
Might or will? Discourse or dialogue?
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>