Dear Organlearners,
Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net> writes
(under the subject: Pay for Performance LO21362)
>My issue was and still is one of concern about
>anthropomorphizing, about endowing nonhuman entities with
>human qualities and characteristics. (Reification has to do
>with treating abstractions as though they are material objects
>and that wasn't and isn't my concern.)
>So, let's go back to learning -- and to anthropomorphizing
>and to Doug's back on track post.
Greetings Fred,
As you will note, I am replying to you under the subject Reification.
Anthropomorphism and reification are closely related. They are also
closely related to creativity. How close we will soon see.
Fellow learners may soon think while proceeding through this
contribution that I have lost complete focus on organisations in
general (like businesses) and learning organisations in particular.
Please have patience and I will show that it is not the case -- if you
can endure this long contribution ;-)
Perhaps I should have given my original contribution LO21361 not the
subject name "Reification", but "Anthropomorphication". Why? Because
the information which we exchange (commute) on this list (and not
merely on this topic) is in terms of something very characterestic of
humankind, namely langauge. Herein lies our pitfall.
For example, I call you by the name "Fred" and you call me by the name
"At". We respond to these calling of names. We are doing something
which only humans can do. When I write about a "plant", before
anything else, I endow it mentally with a tag on which I have written
"plant". A "plant" cannot do the same, i.e. "endow me mentally with a
tag on which it has written 'human' " before it does anything else.
Thus it seems as if I am not anthropomorphising the "plant" by giving
it the name "plant". The same applies to the bottom part of the
"plant" called "roots". However, one step further and I write "the
plant HAS roots". But can a plant own/possess? Is ownership/possession
not a human characterestic?
I am aware of two attempts to solve the problem of anthropomorphic
possession which have to do with the logical entities, namely NO and
EVERY. One possible solution is to insist that NO human can possess.
However, it has often been tried in the history of humankind, usually
for political or economical reasons. It failed dismally by leading to
a degradation of humans subjected to it. The other possible solution
is to assume that EVERY "thing", including any human, can posess. It
also failed because of the complexity which it results into. A third
possible solution is to resort to linguistic tricks, for example, to
speak of "the roots of the plant" rather than "the plant HAS roots".
The logical consequences of such linguistic tricks are monstrous.
I have included a handle in the former paragraph for the
post-modernists, namely "logical entities". Many of them will jump up
and exclaim that no solution was possible because the solutions were
based on logic. But we cannot get so easily off the hook. Let me
explain why.
When we say "no human can possess", we said it so that the statement
"no thing can possess" can be applied universally. This statement is
exactly the opposite of the statement "every thing can possess".
Logically we have four possible cases of which only one will be
universally true:
both statements are true
only the one statement is true
only the other statement is true
none of the two statements are true.
However, underneath these two statements and their logical
relationships, we have done something very, very important. We have
invoked the name "thing" by qualifying it as either "no thing" or
"every thing". By merely invoking the name "thing", we have jumped
over our heads into the subject call "reification". Even
mathematicians do it with their most (in)famous act "Let X be ...".
How can that be?
The following explanation contains what I had to learn self. In our
local scool system where as a child I had been taught English as a
second language for ten years, this pattern or similar ones were never
even mentioned to me. Even worse, in the twelve years I have been
taught Afrikaans (my mother tongue) as first language, the Afrikaans
equivalent of this kind of grammer was also never taught to me.
In English grammer and specifically morphology the suffix "-ify" in
the word ABCify means "to make ABC" when ABC derives from Latin.
Likewise the suffix "-ification" in ABCification means "the processes
leading to ABC and the result ABC". Thus the word "reify" means
literally "to make 're' ". The 're' here is not the prefix which means
"again", given to words from Latin origin. It is a modification of the
Latin words "rei" or "res" which both means "thing". In other words,
reify means literally "to make thing" and reification means literally
"things and their making". Is the (in)famous "Let X be ..." not an
example of reify? Definitely yes.
Even with the phrase "means literally" we are over our heads in the
subject reification. Compare for example the meaning "things and their
making" with the meaning which Fred has given "Reification has to do
with treating abstractions as though they are material objects".
Fred's meaning corresponds to that of three dictionaries which I have
consulted. Let us call it the conventional meaning. Making a
conventional meaning from a literal meaning as well as the converse,
is for me nothing else than reification. Since my concept of
reification differs in an important aspect from the conventional
meaning, I must qualify my concept. I do it with "deep reification".
We will soon see why I am using the qualification "deep".
Anyway, in what aspect does my "deep reification" differs from
conventional "reification"? The input and the output of "deep reify"
can be a material or an abstract object. Compare it to the input of
conventional "reify" which can only be an abstract object while its
output can only be a material object. A word, other than
"reification", in the English language close to the meaning of "deep
reification" is "transformation". There is a word even closer in
meaning, but in this case "the dog bites its own tail". It is the word
"creation". The root "cre" comes from the Latin "creo" which means "to
make". In other words, the literal meaning of "creation" is "makes and
their making".
Creativity is considered as a property which only humans have. Thus
creativity refers to "makes and their making" only when humans are
involved. But when a bird builds its nest, is it not an example of
"makes and their making"? Why do I have to restrict the concept of
creativity to "makes and their making" only when humans are involved?
Is this not a case of anthropocentrism, the twin of anthropomorphism?
To me the bird is doing something creative. It has creativity.
Likewise a simple molecule like H2O has creativity. They all differ
only in degree. So once again I have to qualify my own concept of
creativity as "deep creativity" (Another example of "deep reification"
;-) But by doing so, am I not anthropomorphising the bird and the H2O
molecule in terms of the conventional meaning of creativity? Yes. That
is another reason why I speak of my own understanding as "deep
creativty".
Fred, observe what has happened in this contribution so far. I began
with anthropomorphism, moved to reification and ended with creativity,
showing how these three concepts are related by the very language
which we use. When you write that your issue concerns
anthropomorphising, I not only respect your concern, but applaud you
because we have to think seriously about it. I am willing to walk with
you in dialogue many miles on anthropomorphism.
But who will walk in dialogue with me on reification? I have shown
above a little bit in terms of anthropomorphism and creativity the
voyage which I am making. So exactly from where and to where is my
walking? Leo Minningh will probably call it a meandering along the
river of thoughts towards the sea of ideas. In a certain sense I do
meander from one idea to another idea. But I always return to one
particular idea and leave it again. It is like water flowing to the
sea, evaporating from the sea, coming back to land as clouds,
precipitating as rain and finally flowing back to the sea. This idea
is closely related to reification. What is this idea?
It is the IDEA of reality. Its root is again the Latin word "res" for
thing. The related Latin word "realis" means "of the thing itself".
Since I have written that I frequently visit the idea of "reality",
people may conclude that I am a realist embracing the philosophy
realism. When I write that my voyage is in reality from any idea to
any other idea, they have almost a water tight case. However, when I
look up the definition of realism in some dictionaries, they all
compare realism as a philosophy opposite to idealism. Yet I have
written that I meander from idea to idea in something which itself is
an idea. This ought to make me an idealist who embraces idealism.
Confusing, is it not? No, not to me. I have stated it clearly in a
number of contributions to this list that I am not a ###-ist who
embraces the philosophy of ###-ism. I am a free person who do not want
to be labeled by a tag, neither by myself, nor by anybody else. I now
also understand why. I am creative, I need to be creative and I want
to be creative. The essentiality wholeness
("associativity-monadicity") tells me that its opposite, namely
fragmentarism, the cause of isms, has to be avoided because it will
impair my creativity. Wow, will the demarcationists say, now he has
given us a handle to box him in. He is nothing else than a holist
embracing the philosophy of holism. My reply will simply be: wholeness
is but one of seven essentialities and I try to adhere to all seven of
them.
Wow, now he has given us a better handle to box him in. His adherence
to essences makes him a phenomenologist embracing phenomenology. My
reply will simply be: entropy exists as much as the seven
essentialities. Wow, a new handle. He must be an existentialist
embracing existentialism. My reply? Entropy is like energy, but
entropy production becomes. Wow, now he is dishing out a handle which
we cannot even follow. He is evading us. He must be an "evasionist"
clinging to "evasionism". Yes, except for the suffixes "-ist" and
"-ism", I am definitely on a voyage. I have said so. Is the etymology
of "evade" not "e-"=out and "vado"=go? Two months ago a young
philosopher during a workshop exclaimed happily: "Now I know what you
are -- you are an activist!" I replied "No, being is just as important
to me as becoming."
Fred, the thing which I wanted to reify, is that I am on a voyage in
reality. Perhaps the reason why people cannot box me in, is because my
concept of reality is different to the conventional meaning of
reality. Let us again speak of my own understanding as "deep reality".
Thus it should not be strange that all languages are real to me and
not only English or Afrikaans. All languages are part of reality. Thus
I often visit languages. The word "reality" is English. Great was my
surprise when I looked up the Zulu word for "reality". Except for
using "reality" as a loanword, Zulu speaking people do not have an
original Zulu word for it. In other words, if a Zulu person does not
know English, he/she will not know the word reality. What about its
English meaning or even a meaning according to Zulu convention?
Zulu is one of more than ten Banthu languages (Xhosa, Suthu, Tswana,
Shangaan, etc.) in South Africa. Zulu is one of more than a thousand
Banthu languages in Southern Africa (Congo, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenia,
Tanzania, Angola, Zambia, Malawi, Mocambique, Namibia, Zimbabwe,
Lesotho, etc.). I list these names so that South and Southern Africa
can become more real to you in terms of what your read and hear in the
media about these countries. (Note how I try to reify this part of the
world and its peoples.) My surprise was just as great when I found out
that the dictionaries of several other Banthu languages which I could
get my hands on, also could not specify a native word for reality. I
then had several discussions with my friend Ben Goslin who is an
oracle on Banthu languages. He confirmed my suspicion that a general
pattern is operating here.
Then I began dialogues with native speakers of Zulu, Suthu, Tswana,
... I explained to them the meaning of the native word which I was
looking for. They did not have a native word for it. But greater was
my surprise to find that they all had some tacit knowledge of this
meaning without having a word for it. That explains why those people
from Southern Africa who know English well enough, will use "reality"
as loanword. But does it also explain why the majority who does not
know English, do shocking things which are so often reported in the
English media? How can people learn individually and organisationally
when they cannot reify by names the things which they are trying to
learn?
At this stage many of you fellow learners will say that I have used
the word reify wrongly. I should rather have used words such as
"designate" (to make ### recognisable by sign), "circumscribe" (to
mark out the limits of ###), "define" (to end or fix the meaning of
###) or "articulate" (to form clear speech of ###). But I am not so
sure that I am wrong. Let me explain.
In my own mother tongue the word for "reality" is "werklikheid". Many
other Germanic languages have a similar word, for example
"Wirklichkeit" in German. Because English has an Anglo-Saxon
substratum, the literal equivalent in English would have been
"worklyhood", except that this word does not exist. Note that a word
such as "likelyhood" (the character of being likely) does exist,
constructed by the same rules of English grammer. Since the word
"worklyhood" does not exist in English, a conventional meaning of it
cannot be given. Thus I will have to find synonyms, other than
"reality", to describe it.
One word which comes close to it, except for the suffix "-ism", is
"pragmatism". The meaning of pragmatism as a philosphy is "if it
works, then it has value". Pragmatism has definitely become the
dominant philosophy at the end of this century and this millenium.
Think, for example about Bill Gates and the MicroSoft Corporation. If
a computer application works, they (people from MS) buy it, modify it,
bundle it in their products and sell it. It seems as if they have
perfected their operations in terms of the Digestor as model for
self-organisation. Another example: think about the nuclear bomb
dropped on Hiroshima 44 years ago. It stopped the Japanese people dead
in their tracks. This idea worked. Why will NATO not buy this idea and
use it upon Yugoslavia? (Sorry, Fred, for this bit of anthropomorhism
here ;-)
Have I used the word reify wrongly? What is more real than the
reification of the former pragmatic idea through bombs? Which
pragmatic idea? The idea that we can stop the destructive actions of
other people by our own destructive actions. Where will pragmatism
lead us to other than the anhillation of humanity?
Fred, in your reply (LO21362) to Doug's comment
>>I suspect this impairment will limit the contributions from
>>the L-O efforts and eventually the L-O movement will be
>>displaced by a new HR/OD fad.
you write:
>>That sounds like an "If-we-don't-get-our-act-together-we're-lost"
>>message.
I think that it is high time to realise that pragmatism will
eventually destroy all learning and not merely cause a jump from the
"learning organisation" and "knowledge managemnet" fads to something
new.
Many years ago, while still studying for my teachers diploma, I was
told, no, indoctrinated that the pragmatism of Dewey from the USA and
the communism of Lenin from the USSR should be avoided in our local
education because both were deadly to the ideology of apartheid. (Here
is a surprise for you -- many tried to reify apartheid in terms of
"Christian Nationalism") Well, apartheid did hit the dust. Many former
supporters of it still believe that pragmatism or communism were
responsible for its demise, although few still favour its
resurrection. I think differently. Apartheid hit the dust with little
bloodshed because enough people got the common sense in their heads
that apartheid did not work, does not work and will not work. Does
this common sense makes them pragmatists or communists? No, eventhough
the pragmatists or communists among them claim proudly "we told you
so". Does my opinion makes me a pragmatist or communist? No, I am not
a ###-ist embracing a ###-ism.
So how did some South Africans (anti-apartheid and formerly
pro-apartheid) got that common sense in their heads? Through learning!
It is not my opinion. I have walked with many of them in dialogue on
apartheid. Without forcing any idea in their heads, I questioned them
carefully on this common sense that apartheid has no future. Where did
they get it from? Without exception, it boiled down to self-learning.
Before I end, I want to indicate that I will appreciate a dialogue in
reification on the issue of making abstractions MATERIAL objects.
Furthermore, I think that the last word on "reality" as "worklyhood"
has not been said. Bear this in mind in connection to my recent
discussions on the order relation
/_\F < W
of Gibbs in a variety of subjects. In this expression
/_\F = "change in free energy"
< = "is smaller than"
W = "work"
The work W seems to indicate pragmatism, but the /_\F on the other
side indicates something else.
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>