Dear Organlearners,
John Gunkler <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> writes:
>I try to distinguish between:
>1. Those who use language to "muddy the water that it may
>look deep;"
>2. And those who try to use language with precision in order
>to convey profound meaning that is not available using ordinary
>language.
(snip)
>Now, the problem: How are we poor mortals to determine which
>uses of language are validly useful technical vocabularies and
>which are mere obfuscation employed for the self-aggrandizement
>of the user? Ah, that's a bit difficult.
Greetings John,
Thank you for articulating this distinction on the LO list. I have seen it
happening occasionally on other lists also.
I think this distinction refers to a pattern which is prevalent in email
communication whereas it is hardly observable in paper based
communication. The shorter the periods of publication (like daily
publications such as newspapers) the more observable the pattern becomes
also there. This changing rate at which the information is passed in the
communication, is an important clue to identify the pattern. What pattern?
Let us bear in mind the following information concerning the material
world. The slower the units (building blocks of a crystal) in an Ostwald
digestion process move, the longer it takes to see that crystals change
(increasing or decreasing) in sizes. Temperature which measure the
intensity of molecular chaos (diversity of motion) plays a great role
here. The lower the temperature, the lower the diffusion rate of building
blocks from one to another crystal.
Before I make the jump from the material to the abstract world, a little
bit of history. Please read my reply to John Zavacki's contribution in
"Language, Obfuscation, and the Perception of Greatness LO21407". In that
contribution I have given a short history of the concept "temperature". I
will use it once again, but now for the abstract world. O, what terrible
obfusction might lie ahead?
The temperature of thoughts rushing around in email communication is much
higher. That is why we may become aware of the Digestor as model for
self-organisation close to equilbrium.
The two kinds of people which you refer to have thoughts. Their thoughts
in each topic concerns a crystal. Their thoughts on a certain topic are
two kinds of crystals in a Digestor. The crystals of thoughts of one kind
grows while the other kind shrinks. The growing kind may be large in the
lower order m and small in the higher order M. But they may also be small
in the lower order m and large in the higher order M. The shrinking kind
will be lowest in M.
When we mix all the crystals of one kind of person together, one crystal
for ecj kind of topic, I usually speak of the quantitative value of m (of
the lower orderS) and the qualitative value of M (of the higher orderS).
Those with a small m and large M may orginally have been larger in m and
smaller in M. But as Deming might have said it, they have found the key to
profound knowledge.
What is this key? To grow in m as far as their surroundings will allow it
and then transform as much as possble of their m into a M. To strive for
quality, Deming might have said. Usually, unlike in a clacier, it happens
at the edge of chaos. By breaking up their crystal structures and thus
dedreasing m, usually leaving their seed crystal alone, they obtain the
free energy to produce the entropy so much needed to reach the edge.
Sometimes they have to let go of even some of their seed crystals. This
is known as new insights replacing old ones.
Occasionally some person has to let go of all of his / her seed crystals.
This is known as a paradigm shift.
John, its like like you have written:
>Is this obfuscation? Well, to someone who has not gone
>through the learning it may well appear murky. But to us,
>who went through the learning together, it is just the opposite.
>That "murky" word is very clear to us, and very useful -- in
>fact, probably even necessary if we are to go further together
>in learning about the painter's art.
Then you ask:
>Do you agree?
Yes. What about you?
>Now, the problem ....
(snip)
>I have some personal rules of thumb that we can share if
>anyone wants to pursue this. I make no claims for them
>other than usefulness for myself. Please let me know if
>anyone is interested in starting this dialogue.
The Digestor is also useful for me. I claim nothing more.
Yes, please. Tell us about it. I will try to keep quiet.
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>