Dear Organlearners,
William Auvinen-Bray <Bosatsu@home.com> writes:
>My question is how does a person implement theorists such as
>Senge, Covey, Drucker, Blanchard, and many others, in a learning
>(espoused) environment that adheres only to the status quo?
>
>I am currently (trying) to finish my graduate degree at Chapman
>University and I have been in nothing but a "up-hill" battle to
>complete this degree in organizational leadership. We are being
>instructed to be systematic thinkers,
(snip)
>but this could not be future from the truth when bringing in
>what are the seen problems in then instruction to the
>administration or academic bodies. My rub is when learning these
>ideals how do you create a change environment from a subordinate
>position when all the people that "hold" the power "call the shots
(snip)
>Does anyone have thoughts as to how to put theories into working
>reality?
Greetings William,
Thank you for voicing the plight of tens of thousands of students in every
country so clearly. To this we can add the voice of hundreds of thousands
of workers who are not aware of such theories to imbetter their lives. But
what about the millions of children who are becoming the victims of
educational systems which are falling apart or already are in shambles?
I hope that you will recieve many answers to this vitallly important
problem so that the immense complexity of it will come to light. Why?
There is a growing myth today that the more complex any topic becomes, the
less certain we are about it. It is a myth for historical reasons. It
occured time and again in the history of humankind, only to be trumped by
an emergence to a higher level of human consciousness on each occasion.
It is easy to show that it is a myth by a thought experiment. What can be
more complex than life on our planet at present. Does it mean that we
become less certain about life? It certainly appears to be so if we
observe the lack of taking corrective measures on the pollution of our
planet. Consider the hot house effect -- the encapsulation of heat
generated by the chemical activities of human kind because of an increased
consentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Few scientists believe
that we have a crisis at hand. For every voice of caution tens of
reassuring voices try to overcome it.
Here is the thought experiment. Go and see a movie like Armagedon. This
movie is about a gaint asteroid which will hit the earth and how some
heroes prevented this from happening. Unfortuantely, the movie does not
picture what would have happened if the heroes failed in their mission.
Thus you will have to picture yourself what will become of life on earth
is it has to go without sunlight for just one month. Here is the facts.
Should an asteroid of 50 miles in diameter hit the earth, it will liberate
so much dust that the sun will be darkened out for at least a hundred
years. As for an actual experiment, put your favourate pot plant or pet in
a refridgerator (it is dark inside except when opening the door) for one
month and see what a mess it will become.
I have used the thought experiment above to stress the importance of the
essentiality sureness. The more complex anything becomes, the more we
should concentrate on the heart of the complexity -- that which is
essential to maintain the complexity. Herein lies much of our sureness. In
the case of life on earth it is the insidence of sunlight. We can be sure
that when we cut out sunlight, most form of life will soon cease to exist.
But I have used the thought experiment also for another reason, namely to
stress the theory on the availability of energy for future organisations.
The sun is our main source of "free energy". Now what is free energy?
Every system contains many forms of energy -- the more complex a system,
the more forms of energy it exhibits. In each form of energy some amount
of it is not available because that amount helps to maintain the present
organisation of the system. The entropy of the system is a measure of the
present organisation of the system. To change the organisation of a
system, entropy has to be produced. This can only be done by using the
free energy, that part of the energy in any system not needed to maintain
the present organisation. If the system is its own supplier of free energy
for entropy production and thus organisational change, the system acts
spontaneously. If a system in the surroundings have to supply the free
energy and thus force the system under consideration to change by doing
work on that system, the system acts non-spontenously. It will stop acting
as soon as the controlling force stops working. Consequently the free
energy (the result of the combination of the energy and entropy of a
system) is a measure of that system's dynamic ability to change.
A car can change its position by consuming fuel (source of free energy)
which will make its enjine run. Without fuel the car cannot propel itself.
It has to be pushed or pulled by another system having the necessary free
energy.
A car is a physical system. But William's question concerns the minds of
people. The mind is an abstract system which opens up the spiritual world
for humans. So far I am the only person who is sure that the Law of Energy
Conservation (LEC) and the Law of Entropy Production (LEP) also hold for
the abstract world of mind. One of the consequences is that no mental
change is possible if the mind does not have the free energy to sustain
such a change. Let me stress it even closer. No learning is possible
without the mental free energy to do so.
But what is the case for the rest of humanity? Gradually the myth
developed that there is such an immense abyss between the material and
abstract worlds that it is impossible to bridge this abyss. For the
material world hundreds of different exact laws have been discovered the
past 300 years. Our technology is proof of the working of these laws. But
for the abstract world not even one law has been merely suspected. On the
contrary, the vast majority of humans now believe that mind is free to
follow whatever course it decides freely upon. They believe that there is
no certainty in the ways in which mind may act.
They may be right that mind does not follow any law. But if I am right,
then there must be a reason why humankind has not yet discovered any law
of the mind. I can offer such a reason. The world of mind is so complex
that humankind has not yet evolved mentally to perceive this complexity.
Consequently humankind has not been able to discover the "laws of mind".
Its useless to discover any law, physical or spiritual, should we buzy
ourselves with only a fragment of that law.
William, the people responsible for the change which you desire, are not
able to deliver that change because they do not have the mental free
energy to do so. Even the teaching and learning of the organisational
theories which you have refered to are useless if they do not result in
increasing mental free energy. That is why you have been caught up in a
uphill battle. But I want to assure you that because of this very uphill
battle, you mental free energy is slowly increasing. Merely consider the
fact that you have written such a clear and important contribution. It
would not have been possible of you did not had the mental free energy to
do so.
How will these people acquire the mental free energy to do what they are
responsible for? The answer is deceptively simple. They will have to live
mentally a creative life and not suppress or impair their creativity. But
to explain this answer is orders more complex. It is what I have been
trying to do the past three years on this list. Unfortunately telling
these people responsible for the necessary changes that they have to
become more creative will have no effect. The proof of the pudding is not
in its recipe, but in its eating. Theory without practice is worthless,
even if it concerns the heart of the matter, namely "entropy production
with free energy". We all have to ACT CREATIVELY for our mental free
energy to increase and thus for us to become spontaneous.
As St James writes: We can speak of our faith, but eventually it is our
deeds which count.
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>