Dear Organlearners,
Dan Chay <chay@alaska.net> writes:
>I experience "the tyranny of experts" in a class with "hostility of
>the insecure."
Greetings Dan,
Thank you for bring this important topic into our dialogue.
The word hostility, like the word host, comes form the Latin word "hostis"
(stranger). Hostility is a thing of the heart rather than a carefully
reasoned outcome. Hostility, like enmity, is a negative feeling towards
specifically a strange thing, whether material or abstract. Therefore
hostility is a kind of antipathy (Greek: "anti"=against,
"pathos"=feeling).
There are also other kinds of antipathies. Here is a list of some of
them.
(1) acrimony, malignity -- feeling against living
(2) detestation, opposition -- feeling against corresponding
(3) antagonism, execration -- feeling against uniting
(4) abhorrance, repugnance -- feeling against connecting
(5) contention, grudge -- feeling against increasing
(6) aversion, racism -- feeling against diversing
(7) animosity, desparation -- feeling against opening up
Have you noticed the seven-fold way in which I grouped them? What was my
strategy by grouping them. Of what deliberate mechanism does this strategy
tells you? Is the spirit of this mechanism contagious? What are its ill
effects? How much of this mechanism is obvious in the following outline:
China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia
1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964, Peru 1965, Laos
1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Grenada
1983, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989,
Iraq 1991-96, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, Yugoslavia 1999?
Have you noticed that "Hostility of the Insecure" is something which occur
far more among adults than children? Why? How sad is it that we have to
warn our children against strangers -- to advise them to be hostile. But
is our warning correct? Should we not warn our children against any person
(and not merely strangers) who has destructive intentions? How much have
they experienced and thus are they able to comprehend destructive
creativity? Does the road to heaven really have to go through hell?
It is interesting that the manifestation of hostility is far less on this
list than many other lists which I am familiar with. Why? Is it our host
Rick who weeds out most hostile contributions?
[Host's Note: Yes, I do weed out a small number of msgs; I reject msgs
which reflect disrespect for participants in this learning-org discussion.
...Rick]
I think it is the "spirit of learning" which pervades this list. But what
is this "spirit of learning"? I have ferquently tried to articulate
learning on this list as "the first order emergent of constructive
creativity". Just as creativity has to operate between the two entropy
production asymptotes (low and high), learning, once emerged, it also have
to operate between these two assymptotes to become fully functional. At
low entropy production I call it digestive learning and at high entropy
production I call it emergent learning. The "spirit of learning" is the
harmonious meandering of learning between its two asymptotes. When the
seven essentialities once again guide learning into a higher emergent as
they guided creating into learning, we enter the realm of believing.
Think about the previous paragraph. Where else in the world in what
literature have you read a similar strange concoction? Does it not invite
hostility? Why am I so crazy to write about things which will cause many
kinds of antipathy? How much have you experienced that you expectations of
hostility (when providing information about something strange) are
becoming actual when people take notice of the information? There are some
days when, according to my expectation for such days, I do not even want
to link my computer to internet because of the antipathy which usually
surfaces. Do I expect the antipathy because I have negative feelings in
myself which I am conscious of? Perhaps. But I usually become conscious
of such looming antipathy when I knowingly supply strange information.
Fortunately, every day also brings its jewels of learning. This is why I
do link to internet.
Dan, your contribution is such a jewel of learning.
>Even more so, I think, when "the problem" and "the solution" is
>unclear, i.e., with problems that suggest divergence rather than
>convergence in their solutions. How to create learning
>organizations or learning communities is such a problem.
>Such a problem is not conducive to expert solutions partly
>because the locus of work must be the community itself,
>both in identifying "the problem" (in all its facets) and in achieving
>improvement to the situation.
Dan, it is a powerful paragraph because it is rich in meaning for me. Up
to the seventies scientists assumed that entropy production causes merely
chaos. The job of entropy production is not only to create chaos and
order, but also to diverge and converge. For example, when moving to the
edge of chaos, a divergence of becoming happens so that through ordinate
bifurcations a convergence into a new being can happen. Then, by moving
closer to equilbrium, a divergence of nutrients from the surroundings
happens to supply the convergence of these building blocks into a mature
being.
It is easy and usually the practice to solve problems with convergent
solutions because our society is experience in evolutionary (close to
equilibrium, Digestor) dynamics. We may also call them disposition
problems because the content of existing forms have to be changed.
Disposition problems require disciplinary thinking. However, since our
society is inexperienced in revolutionary (at the edge of chaos,
Brusselator) dynamics, it seldom practise the solution of problems with
divergent solutions. We may also call them transformation problems because
older forms have to be changed into a new form. Transformation problems
require transdisciplinary thinking.
What I particularly like, is your requirement "the locus of work must be
the community itself". It is clear from observations that in
transformation problems the whole community has to participate in order to
solve these problems. This is also predicted by the "theory of deep
creativity". But what is far less clear, is that the same requirement also
applies to disposition problems! If I solve my disposition problem in such
a manner that my winning has to be sustained by the loss of others, the
community will eventually suffer. As an example, think of professions
such as medicine or jurisprudence. How many doctors or lawyers do not get
rich in terms of their clients getting poorer? The Digestor as model in
the "theory of deep creativity" also predicts this predation.
I consider this requirement of "the locus of work must be the community
itself" of fundamental importance to scientific advancement. Let me take
myself as an example. I can publish my research findings on "deep
creativity" in disciplinary journals (irreversible self-organisation,
system dynamics, etc.) to be judged by peers. But I have experienced (see
also Thomas Kuhns theory on scientific revolutions) that it must not be
too revolutionary or shockinly digestive. Furthermore, should it
eventually gain acceptance among the experts by way of Digestor action
(intimidating the wits out of the peers by the tyranny of an expert among
them), it is in my viewpoint a questionable excercise. Why?
The requirement "the locus of work must be the community itself" applies
because science does not exist in isolation. If my reseach findings cannot
be comprehended by communities other than the scientific community, then
it has little value for me. This probably does not make me a scientist
among traditional circles, but I have learn how to live with it.
Your requirement has an immensely important bearing on the transformation
of an organisation into a learning organisation. For the transformation
into a LO the requirement becomes: "the locus of work must be the
organisation itself". Exclude merely one member of the organisation from
this locus and the LO will hardly, if ever, emerge.
>In the spirit of dialogue, I hope that people will question with
>respect what they experience as my shortcomings and seek
>to understand and appreciate what I may have to offer.
Doctors have their Hippocratic oath. What about Dan Chay's formulation
above as a key ingrediant of the oath of a LO practioner? Will it not be
wonderful when we have arrived at the full oath of a LO practioner?
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>