Dear Organlearners,
Long ago Mark Feenstra <mark@strategiclearning.co.nz>
wrote on the topic Authentic learning LO19223
>>You write about the role of LO's in enabling authentic
>>learning as distinct from fallacious learning. My question is
>>how LO's can sustain authentic learning in a global societal
>>ecology dominated by the modernist worldview? From what
>>I can pick up there are plenty of people who would like to
>>work in an LO but, in the same way forest vegetation only
>>thrives in forest conditions (as opposed to say prairie), LO's
>>will only thrive in a worldview that enables their emergence.
>>Otherwise they will remain a marginalised species unable
>>to fulfil their potential, and always under threat from species
>>of organization better tuned to the dominant worldview.
Greetings Mark,
Thank you very much for reminding me that we have to go deeper into your
question than my superficial reply in LO19322.
I think there are two ways in which we can view a LO when thinking in
terms of ecology. The one way is to think of the LO as that niche
(specific environment in the biome) which provides the conditions for
learning individuals to thrive. In other words, although individuals may
persist with learning in other niches, it is far more expensive and
troublesome than in a LO. The other way is to think of a LO itself as a
living species as you have done above. In this case we have to determine
the other species living together with the LO, all of them making up the
ecology of organisations. We will also have to determine the ecological
interactions in this "biome". Following this way of thinking, we have to
conclude that the LO has been a marginalised species for most of the time
(three millenia) all over the world.
Whatever way we think, the heart of the matter is the act of learning.
How important is learning to us? To stress that importance, I have
formulated it with the question: "Is learning our earnest?". The word
earnest comes from the Old English (OE) word "eornoste" which meant
"closest to earth". In other words, "eornoste" was used in OE as we will
use the word "foundation" today. Thus I could have written "Is learning
our foundation?" But by using earnest, the other words in OE related to
the root word "eor" comes into play.
For example, the OE for earth is "eorthe". Compare this with the OE
for earl (under king), namely "eorl". Thus earnest relates to both the
earthly and the noble. Furthermore, the OE for response was "eor" from
which the word "ear" also derives. The OE "earnian" also come into the
picture, meaning " to recompensate for work". People needed food to
live and the first step in food production was to ear (plow. "ernian")
the soil while the last step was to collect the "ear" (stalk which
carries grain of crop plant). Thus it is no wonder that dictionaries
describe the word earnest by
1 Intent and direct in purpose; zealous; fervent; eager.
2 Marked by deep feeling or conviction; heart felt.
3 Requiring careful consideration;
4 Coherent and consistent action
It is in this sense that I wish to question our relationship to learning.
But let us first have a look why a certain plant species may thrive in
only one kind or in many kinds of vegetation (forest, savannah, desert,
coastal, ...). It all depends on the DNA of that species. The DNA records
its past responses to its evolutionary development in a variety of
conditions. It means that the species is "itself primarily responsible"
for how it will react (adapt) to different future conditions as a result
of changes in the present conditions. This "itself primarily responsible"
can be described anew as "irreversible self-organisation". The DNA is
essential to the "irreversible self-organisation" of the species.
The pargraph above pertains to the material (physical) world to which the
brain belongs.
But what about the abstract (spiritual) world to which the mind belongs?
If there is an abyss between the material and the abstract world, then
finding any correspondence between these two worlds may only be our far
fetched imagination. But if these two worlds form the complementary duals
of one whole, then the correspondence principle apply -- one of the
lessons which quantum mechanics teaches us. In terms of my own discoveries
I am convinced that there is no abyss between the material world and the
abstract world other than the abyss we have made ourselves as a result of
our mental immergences.
When we consider both worlds as the complementary duals of one reality,
evolution in the material world corresponds to learning in the abstract
world. Furthermore, just as the DNA is the material outcome of evolution,
knowledge is the abstract outcome of learning. Just as the DNA of the
species had to be complexified by evolution so that it can addapt itself
to different conditions, our personal knowledge has to be complexified by
learning. The biological species maintains its vitality in a changing
environment (with inanimate and biological dimensions) by changing its
DNA. Similarly we have to maintain our spirituality in changing cultures
with their viewpoints by changing our knowledge through learning.
We have to distinguish between tacit (inarticulated, implicit) learning
and fomal (articulated, explicit) learning. All people have to learn, at
least implicitly, if they do not want to perish in a changing society, nor
want the society to perish. Furthermore, all people have to learn in order
to become humane. Therefor learning is the primary directive of humanity.
Those people who do not know this primary directive of humanity perish
immensely through hunger, ignorance and violence. There are hundreds of
millions of them living today. If we are earnest about learning, we have
to reach out to them and teach them about learning rather leaving them to
perish. Many other people people know this primary directive, but they are
prevented rudely from learning by unscrupulous people who have self
benefitted from learning. There are also hundreds of millions of them
living today and perishing. If we are earnest about learning, we will help
them by uncovering these immoral practices. Then there are also the
people who know this primary directive and who succeed somewhat in
learning authentically despite following a formalised way of learning
which is not fully authentic. There are also hundreds of millions of them,
vulnerable to perishment. If we are earnest about learning, we will guide
them to articulate what they know tacitly of learning, thus helping them
to improve on their learning and reduce their vulnerability.
If learning is our earnest, we will realise that learning about learning
itself (the dog biting its own tail) is an incredibly complex task like
learning about evolution, language or creativity. We can become aware of
this complexity by studying the evolution of learning theories. An
interesting website which give accounts of some 50 theories of learning is
http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/theories.html Actually, there are several hundred
theories of learning. Each theory proposes a different becoming in
learning. When we view all these theories together, we observe chaos, i.e
a diversity of becoming. It is most important to observe that the far
majority of them pertains to the 20th century, increasing faster in number
as the century grows older. In other words, what we observe is an increase
in chaos. This increase in chaos is the result of entropy production. The
entropy is produced by different cultures and fields of knowledge coming
into contact.
What we have to expect in the new millenium and probably in the first
century of it, ignoring my own complex theory of learning near the end of
this century, is that humankind will reach the edge of chaos where a grand
bifurcation will happen, resulting into either a constructive emergence of
higher order or a destructive immergence of lower order. For those people
earnest about learning the chaos will emerge into a complex, ordered
theory of learning. But for those people acting rudely towards learning
the chaos will immerge into a plethora of thousands of technologically
sustained algorithms to manage information masquerading as knowledge. It
is among these two outcomes from which people from all walks of life will
have to make a choice.
The choice is not free, but is determined by our learning about learning.
This begins by asking ourselves: Are we earnest about learning?
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>