Dear Organlearners,
Usually, when I switch on my computer, I first surf the web to read my
email. In them I find so many things which I feel compelled to reply to
that I have to choose the one's which I will reply to. By the end of the
day I discover that even most of even these replies have not actualised.
When I finally get to bed, I feel dissatisfied because another day has
passed in which the things which are important to me, did not get the
attention they deserve.
Today our network is down so that I cannot even read my latest email. So
I will write about something which I wanted to do for a long time --
critique.
I wanted to begin with the general statement
All qualifiers which do not promote
emergences will cause immergences.
But then I began to criticise myself. I know prefectly well what this
statement means to me, but do I really care what it means to others?
Our languages are rich in qualifiers. Consider the obvious qualifiers
like adjectives and adverbs. An adjective qualifies a noun like in
"beautiful (adjective) flower (noun)". We seldom realise how severely
we can criticise by using these qualifiers. For example, compare the
phrase "beautiful flower" with "ugly flower". Is there anywhere in
nature a flower which we can qualify as ugly? But should the whole of
nature be horrible to us, is it possible to qualify any flower in it
as beautiful?
But what about the less obvious qualifiers in our languages?
Adjectives and adverbs may be thought of as "predicate qualifiers".
But words like "noun" and "emergence" may be thought of as "class
qualifiers". They are more difficult to detect because in our language
they are not attached to something else like the predicate qualifiers.
They stand on their own. Yet they usually beg for examples. For
example, "flower" is a noun and "birth" is an emergence. The general
statement above is rich in class qualifiers rather than predicate
qualifiers. For example, it can be exemplfied by
Adjectives which do not promote
birth will cause death.
We can even have several layers of qualifiers. For example, the phrase
"absolutely beautiful flower" has two layers of predicate qualifiers.
But deep down it has already a class qualifier in the noun "flower". I
can show you examples (pictures) of some flowers which you would have
never guessed to be flowers. So what is a flower? We have to observe
EXAMPLES of ten thousands of different flowers before we can make up
our mind. Flowers are the organs of plants (anthophyta) which
reproduce sexually. The plant kindom is divided in anthophyta
(angiospermae) and the rest which reproduce asexually.
When we study closely the sentence
Adjectives which do not promote
birth will cause death.
which exemplifies the general statement
All qualifiers which do not promote
emergences will cause immergences.
even the simplified sentence begs for examples. The word "adjective"
has already been noted. An example of an adjective is beautiful. Thus
it is class qualifier, although its meaning concerns predicate
qualifiers. But what about the nouns "birth" and "death"? Are they
class like (do they have examples) or are they individual like? Again,
after studying thousands of different births and deaths, are we ready
to concude that they are class qualifiers themselves.
Now what has this to do with critique? I think that it is wise to
think about qualifiers before we want to criticize or respond to
critique. We should try to make sure which qualifiers are operating.
The first thing we have to do, is to distinguish between predicate and
class qualifiers.
Every sentence in every contribution on this list (like everywhere
else in life) relates to an individual on its one side and an audience
on its other side. The sentences are are the mouthpieces or "umlomos"
in our dialogues. The individual is the person who wrote the sentence.
The audience are the people who read it. The individual can write in
either his/her personal capacity or as a member of an organisation.
The audience can be all the readers of the list, or some of them, or
only one of them, or not even one at all. In other words, every
sentence ON ITS OWN is a class qualifier. Herein lies a great danger
if we do not bear all the classes in mind.
When I write sentences, I try to do it in a dual way as follows. On
the one hand, I write them as a unique individual. I do not want to
represent any "class" (except one). That is why, for example, I keep
on warning with respect to philosophies that I am not an ###-ist who
embrases ###-ism. But on the other hand, and this is the exception, I
write them as a creative creature which is part of a creative creation
made possible through the Creativity of the Creator. In other words, I
try to to present myself as a unique system (called At de lange) in a
much bigger thing. I try to think of this bigger thing as a system
which I call by the name reality (Creation and Creator). I try to do
this because I am of nature a complementary duality. For example, I am
continually reminded of the "world inside me" and the "world outside
me.
I wrote that "I try to do it". By this I mean that I often fail to
keep this dual nature of me in mind. These failures are also part of
myself and thus reality. Sometimes these failures make me wonder if
this complementary duality is not part of the riddle rather then the
actuality represented by the riddle. If it is the case, then I will
have to scrap this complementary duality and all its consequences.
Among other things, I will have to scrap the idea of a system, a whole
operating in an encompassing whole together with a diversity of other
wholes. Am I willing to give up all my vested interests to make this
paradigm shift into a completely unknown future?
But then I think of, for example, what I have learned through Quantum
Mechanics. Complementary dualities are part of the fundamental make up
of nature. By scrapping them, I admit that Quantum Mechanics is a
complete failure. The Quantum Mechanics of physics is but one example.
I can cite many other examples from may other subjects in academy as a
whole. The results are always complete failures. I also think of my
own personal discoveries such as the seven essentialities. By
scrapping complementary dualities, I will also have to admit that
liveness, sureness, wholeness, fruitdulness, spareness, otherness and
openness are a complete failure. In other words, great are the vested
interests (mine and that of most other thinkers) which I will have to
scrap. But why do these failures hinder me so much that I am willing
to scrap the priciple of complementary duality and all its
consequences? Why am I willing to give up all these vested interests?
I often contemplate these latter questions, trying to find answers.
Whenever I find an answer, irrespective of the angle from which I bore
into it, the answer is concerned with one unique thing. From my
studies of creativity, I know how important it is not to get fixed on
one particular answer, but to try and find as many possible answers
and then select the best one. Even from this angle of trying to be as
creative as possible when answering thse questions, the answer is
still concerned with one unique thing. Loyalty to the Creator.
So, I am on the one side of my sentences -- a person who admits that
he is an individual, part of reality and wanting to be loyal to the
Creator. When you criticize me, constructively or destructively, it
has to take this into account. On the other side of the sentences are
you, dear fellow learners. I do not want to judge any of you -- I have
said so many times. It means that I do not even want to critisize you.
The word criticise comes from the Greek word "krino" ("kritikos")
which means to judge.
But I have to deal with your thoughts just as you have to or some of
you care to deal with mine. Your thoughts come in sentences. On your
side of your sentences stands each of you. It is seldom clear to me in
what capacity you write them and where your loyalty are. However, the
one thing which I will never do, is to try and make it clearer by
making assumptions about your capacity and your loyalty. I can only
work with what you have made clear to me. I hope that I have made my
capacity and loyalty clear.
However, we not only have to look at the people on the two sides of
the sentences. Every sentence is surrounded by many other sentences,
each representing thoughts. At the first layer, a sentence is
surrounded by other sentences in the same contribution by the same
author. Only the first sentence and last sentence are not. In my
contributions to the LO list they are always "dear organlearner" and
"best wishes". They are not formalities for me. Everyone of you is
dear to me and I want the best for each of you.
When thinking of each sentence in terms of its context rather than
people, it is a predicate qualifier. Herein lies a great danger if we
do not bear the full context in mind.
The contribution itself is the narrow (immediate) context of the
sentence. This contribution is surrounded by other contributions of
other people -- often on both sides, sometimes on only one side when
somebody begins a new topic or a topic gets depleted, or sometimes not
on any side when nobody replies to a topic initiated by somebody else.
All these contributions of all the people form the ongoing dialogue
which our host Rick manages so aptly. One thing which I try to
prevent, is to equate the ongoing dialogue with the persons
participating in the dialogue, i.e. what goes on in the lives of each
of us. For example, when a contribution initiates a new topic and it
gets not even one reply on the list, it does not mean that the
contribution had zero effect. People often reply to it in private
email. People sometimes think about it, but do not reply to it in any
mail. Whatever happens to each sentence from each of us, it is part of
the tracks which we made, becoming visible through the dialogue.
The sentence of an author is also imbedded in a broad (remote)
contect, namely all the contributions of that author.
When I deal with the thought represented by (meaning of) any sentence,
I do it in terms of its narrow context, the ongoing dialogue and its
broad context. This external organisation allows me to get hold of
much of the meaning of the sentence. But for the rest of the meaning,
I have to go into the internal organisation of the sentence such as
the use of qualifiers, etc. It is then when I often shudder, eben at
my won attempts.
Does it mean that I treat every sentence on this list like this? No. I
read them as the author present them in a narrow context. I try to
understand them in terms of the creative course the author is
following. Sometimes I lose the meaning so that I have to read the
sentence over again. I then focus on its internal organisation.
Sometimes the meaning remains obscure in terms of the internal
organisation. I then focus on the external organisation. I begin again
at some earlier sentence, usually at the beginning of a paragraph.
Sometimes I still lose the meaning at that point. Then I go to the
broader context of the author, reading through earlier contributions.
Sometimes the meaning still remains obscure to me. Then I wait to see
how the dialogue develops. Even then the meaning remains obscure to
me. But by then I am often sure that the meaning is closely related to
one of the problems which I am working upon.
When reading through contributions, I do not only focus with my
intellect, but also with my heart. In other words, I keep a close
lookout on my emotions. When I feel no emotion, I quickly read the
contribution through again, trying to find out why there was a lack of
emotions. But, usually, my emotions are soft to mild while reading
through a contribution. When I detect that my emotion is mild, but
definitely to the negative side, I force myself to find out why it is
the case. In most cases I learn -- about myself and about the world
around me. It usually leads to digestive learning. I have tried to
explain to you what is digestive learning.
Sometimes I experience strong emotions, positive.or negative.
Sometimes I chuckle or even laugh with joy, but sometimes I growl with
anger and dispair. Again I try to understand these strong emotions,
positive and negative. Again I often learn from them, but now usually
emergently. I have tried to explain to you what is emergent learning.
New insights emerged and older insights get modified.
My gut feeling said to me that I have to keep quiet on the Digestor
until somebody wants to learn what I mean by digestion. Dan Chay asked
me to explain what I mean by it. How he will react to it, I still not
know because he has not yet replied. I have learnt not to pressure a
learner for results. Thus Dan can stay quiet on the topic of the
Digestor as long as he wants to.
Where did I get the gut feeling to keep quiet about the Digestor?
Through my many experiences as a South African in a tiny part of the
world. For example, I remember something which Pik Botha said some
fifteen years ago. He was then the minister of foreign affairs, the
principal repesentative of the goverment who transformed the ideology
of apartheid into a policy. He said that he would not mind to work
under a black president. The president at that time was a white
person, P W Botha, having the same surname.
When an ordinary bomb goes off, it happens because its internal
temperature rises in less that a second with a couple of thousand
degrees. (In the case of a nuclear bomb it rises by more than a
million degrees.) The structure of the bomb gives way and the pieces
get shot into all directions, hitting other structures left, right and
centre. Pik Botha's statement was such a "bomb". In less than a day it
raised the "temperature" of white society to an unprecedented degree.
Pik Botha even destroyed any chance of self becoming president. Almost
everybody involved with uphelding the policy of apartheid, wanted to
hammer him onto a pole. How dare he say something like that.
Well, ten years later South Africa got its first black president in
the person of Nelson Madela. Pik Botha now serves under him, not as a
minister or a member of any opposition party, but as an ordinary
citizin. Why? Because he got worked out of every organisation to which
he belonged. He commited a "sin" which the people could not forgive
him. He articulated some truth about the future in a very clear
manner. White South Africans will soon have to give up the idea of
having a white president, of making racial features the prime quality
of their president. Interestingly enough, F W de Klerk and Mandella
shared the Nobel Prize for peace. Pik Botha's statement earned him
nothing, although he set the ball rolling.
Our modern western civilisation functions like that described by the
Digestor. Digestive activities like competition, predation, emulation,
opposition, rivalry and even neo-colonialisation rule almost every day
in almost every kind of organisation which we can think of. Someday
in future western civilisation will have to give up on having
"digestive" activities as the prime quality of its "president". Many
people of the western civilisation will have to accept another feature
just like the majority of white South Africans had to accept that the
colour of its president's face need not be white. The feature which
westren civilisation has to face, is the one which the communist world
had been experimenting with, namely revolutionary transformation, that
activity which had failed so much.
What -- accepting something (like communism) which had proven itself
as a failure? Yes. White South Africans had to accept it. Since the
decolonisation of Africa after WWII, only Anwar Sadat and Nelson
Mandela of South African have proven themselves to be worthy
presidents. Few white South Africans knew anything of Sadat or Mandela
when they had to make this choice five years ago. Why? Sadat was
president of Egypt at the other side of the continent Africa. Between
the northern edge of Africa and its southern tip there were, are and
will be many dangers. And Mandela? He was still in jail, kept quiet by
publication laws.
What -- do we have to accept the Digestor? No. It is merely a model
which describes something very clear to me in terms of my chemical
experience. You can work with anything else, for example, anything
which I have described in the list as competition, predation, etc.
What we all have to face, is that we cannot make any more this thing
which I call "evolutionary self-organisation close to eqilbrium", or
"digestion" for short, the prime feature of the "president" of our
civilisation. Many other cilivilsations are now trying to emulate the
western civilisation. We know what are happening to them. Let us learn
from them before it is too late.
Allow me a final noteon the topic name of this contribution. We have
to learn how to combine loyalty and critique into one thing. Some
fifty years ago, a language professor at our university began to use
the phrase "loyal critique". He was N P van Wyk Louw. He did not use
it because of critique on his work as a linguist, philosopher and
writer. He began to use it because he was questioning the very
structure of apartheid as someone WHO WAS STILL PART of it. Because of
this fact, he was flamed from the left, right and centre like Pik
Botha many years later with everything which people could lay their
hands on. Today I want to bring honour to these men, two of the great
sons of Africa.
PS. About an hour ago our network came on the air again. I was ready
to work through the contribution a last time, judging every sentence
in it before clicking on the button "send". I quickly read though the
LO digests until the next one by John Gunkler stopped me dead in my
tracks:
"Teaching new ideas to an old org LO21470".
Thank you John for something which came in just in time. Without it,
my contribution would have been a suicidal shot in the dark. I will
link this topic to your contribution.
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>