Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
>While answering these questions for me, I recognise that
>real hurt can come in the clothes of ubuntu and feel mutually
>beneficial and that real ubuntu can feel very hurting.
Greetings Winfried,
You have made a powerful observation. People confuse hurt and love with
one another. Why is it possible at all? Why is it possible that people
love to hurt and hurt to love?
You offered in a "side remark" the germ of the explanantion by writing:
>Impaired sureness ..... impaires wholeness .....
>I think this relation is called "cognitive dissonance". ....
>I guess that collective cognitive dissonance ..... or
>commonly impaired sureness and wholeness (in At's terms)
>is one of the >main reasons for the death of corporations
I want to generalise in two directions. Firstly, "cognitive dissonance"
results from impairing one, more or even all seven essentialties and not
merely impairing sureness and wholeness. Secondly, "cognitive dissonance"
causes the death of all types of organisations like marriages, families,
town councils, goverments, schools, institutes, churces, businesses and
factories in addition to corporations. Why?
It all has to do with dual nature of creativity. Creativity can be
constructive or destructive. Impairing the seven essentialties lead to
destructive creativity. Our cognitions (knowledge) depends on our
experiences. Our experiences result from our creative interaction with the
rest of reality. When the essentialities are seriously impaired, we have
many destructive experiences to draw upon. Our tavit knowledge which
emerges from our exprential knowledge gets impaired. Likewise our formal
(explicit) knowledge which emerges from our tacit knowledge gets impaired.
Hence, as Eysenck noted, our behaviour becomes psychotic. We confuse our
"familiarity with hurt" as "love for hurt". Furthermore, our inexperience
in love makes it unknown to us. Thus we fear love (like any other unknown
thing) as a source of possible hurt.
It sounds very confusing. But here is a quote from one of the last
letters of Jan Smuts, the father of holism (wholeness), written close
to his 80th birthday (11th May 1950).
"I wish I saw the way clearly before me, but partly
ignorance and partly the inherent human tangle in
its complexity proves too much for me. How much
easier the way would be if one saw things in their
simplicity and one's duty as a clean and straight-
forward affair. But is only at certain times and seasons
that a clear light shines on one's way, and the way
becomes a joy to go."
Smuts also admitted this confusion. But what is the clear light which
he refer to in a metaphoric sense?
Winfried, in your second side remark you write:
>.... If the normal state of consciousness is cognitive
>dissonance - neither sureness nor wholeness - from time
>to time a pair of either sureness or wholeness pops up in
>history like Smuts and Herzog or Freud and Jung. When
>will the historical moment come when the "both" will start
>to shape outside-reality? What can we do to support this
>moment to come? To act as a midwife for the birth of this
>moment to emerge?
(The "pair of either sureness or wholeness popping up in history" is an
interesting theme.)
What can we do? Although the seven essentialities are primarily related to
creativity, the richness in understanding each one comes through learning
-- the backaction of the emergent "learning" on the substrate "creating".
If a person has to act in terms of all seven of them, the person has to
know about all seven of them. But it requires a willingness to do so. This
willingness itself requires the back action of "believing" as second order
emergent to make learning wanting. For example, if I do not believe
wholeness to be essential, I will not be willing to browse through the web
of wholeness whatever it takes.
I speak of experience. I became intensely aware that the patterns
liveness, sureness and wholeness play an undeniable role in showing that
entropy production results in creativity. But I was completely in the dark
as to what the role as. I believed that this awareness will lead my search
for the role. Eventually I discovered that they play their role as
essences together with the four other patterns fruitfulness, spareness,
otherness and openness.
>Finally from hurt to love: Let me define hurt as the state of
>consciousness separated from reality. Hurting then are all
>actions taken based on this separation. Love is the state of
>consciousness in full congruence with reality.
What a beautifully articulated paragraph.
I consider reality as God Creator and Creation. Since God is Love, who can
deal better with reality than God? Since God knows all about hurt, He has
sent His Son to deal with it, to set a worthy example which we can follow
so that we can transform from hurt to love.
>But humans can be loving, they can take actions to reduce
>the gap.
Another poetic sentence, rich in wisdom. It is a joy for me to follow the
meandering of your spirit!
>P.S.: Thank you At, for contrasting hurt with "ubuntu" and
>its positive outcomes. Did you notice in this contribution,
>that I made a step forward on the form - content issue? I
>think I managed to distinguish form and content but not to
>separate both anymore.
Yes, it is exciting to observe your growth.
The complementary dual "form-content" occurs in all walks of life as I
tried to indicate in another recent contribution of mine. It is basic to
deep creativity. But why does it occur at all? It is (for me) closely
connected to the Creator-Creation duality. I believe that the form of
Creation speaks of its Creator.
>I guess that it is not sufficient to establish just any
>essentiality that has been impaired for the others to
>follow, but one specific essentiality needs to be
>established and the others will follow.
Yes, another case of "the dog biting its own tail". The essentiality
ftuitfulness entails that we have to connect to at least one essentiality
for an emergence in understanding some of them.
The essentiality otherness entails that we must also connect with the
other essentialities in due course. The essentiality spareness entails
that each one depends on all the others for learning about it. The
essentiality wholeness entails that collectively they have a much stronger
impact. The essentiality liveness entails that each one is an art (theory
and practice). The essentiality sureness entails that we have to compare
them continually to prevent degeneration. The essentiality openness
entails that that for any new essence one of the seven essentialities have
to complexify to encompass it.
It is very easy to fragment the seven essentialities into more than seven
simpler essences. It is also possible, but far more difficult, to lump the
seven essentialities into less than seven complexer essences. Winfried,
your extensive study on sureness and wholeness brings you in in a stronger
position to lump them together as one complex essence. But I think you
will agree that it is not a wise thing to do because it will make it far
more difficult to describe the interaction between them.
I love the passion with which you investigated and reported the
interaction between the sureness and wholeness. This passion is the seal
of authenticity to your understanding of this interaction.
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>