Dear Organlearners,
Steve Eskow <dreskow@corp.webb.net> writes:
>I appreciate always the spirit of your messages, and have
>learned much from watching you, and reading you.
Greetings Steve,
Perhaps I should feel flattered.
However, I am rather very curious when you write:
>I do not think the languages of "entropy," or "form-content",
>or the distinction of induction and deduction and other logical
>categories are useful, are helpful in finding the sources of the
>trouble, and perhaps fixing the troubles.
I will have to explain my curiosity to you and hook it to something which
has happened in our country -- the TRC hearings.
In terms of my own viewpoint I wonder how you generate the free energy to
keep on reading what does not seem to make sense to you. I myself would
fell fast asleep after the first few paragraphs. In terms of your
viewpoint -- I admire your guts. I easily fell asleep in church during a
service when the pastor, as we would say in Afrikaans, "gorrel" (literally
in English "gurgle").
My family think I bring shame on them. The only one who still does not
pich or punch me, is my granddaughter Jessica.
Why? There is really a tragic thing happening among many of our local
students which few lecturers are even able to perceive. Perhaps it
happens also in other parts of the world. After some months of study these
students realise that what they expect in general from the university and
in particular from the degree which they pursue differ widely from what
they actually get.
Then comes many moons of finding guts wherever to demonstrate that they
can follow their choice all the way. Some succeed, but others (using your
metaphor of an automobile) find their batteries flat and fuel tanks empty
-- no study any more. Some of them by "strange coincidences" cross my path
and then it becomes my task to coach them back into spontaneous learning.
I have had some extraodinary successes, but the few failures are like
nightmares. Even worse nightmares are students sleeping during my lectures
as I am doing during some lectures of the pastor.
But let us get back to the topic which you have selected (I wanted to use
"emerged" rather than 'selected") for us.
>As you have guessed, I think David Bohm, and his notion of
>the endless dialog, and Senge's adoption of the Bohmian
>approach, a mixed blessing.
>
>For me, learning is a contact sport: it needs the clash ands
>collision of minds rubbing against minds, ideas encountering
>challenge.
Here in South Africa the majority of black people are very fond of what
they call "indaba" -- a dialogue in which all participants express their
views, but always conserving the status quo, avoiding any change in any
order. It is the prerogative of only the "indoena" (the senior management)
to do make any such ordinate changes. It is the task of the rest in the
indaba to paint a picture for the indoenas, using as little contrast in
colours and deviations in patterns as possible so as not to be outcasted.
Many white people here get very frustrated by these indabas and I have the
feeling that you would too.
Me also. My pastor belongs with fellow pastors of congregations nearby our
own congregation of our common denomination to what they call in Afrikaans
a "broederkring" (literally a "brother circle"). The days when our pastor
"gorrel", I can sense how he preaches so that the "broederkring" shall not
get annoyed should they get hold of his sermon.
It seems as if an indaba never get to something tangible and valuable,
wasting time and effort. Yet, in the days when the African culture was
still not influenced by the European culture, the indaba played an
immensely important role. It prepared the indoenas for any revolutionary
plunge into an unknown future in terms of and with the full knowledge of
the all the people who they had to manage. It gave them the kind of
"systems thinking" which they needed to manage the people.
But European culture destroyed this wonderful (LO?) mechanism. It
introduced them to "European time", thus causing a clash with "African
time". What is the result? The tragic destructive immergences in Africa
south of the Sahara -- immergences of which are only "the ears of the
hippopotamus show" (their saying for the European "tip of the iceberg").
>I now try to teach graduate students a 3-stage approach to
>intellectual conversation. I call the stages "dialog," "discussion,"
>and "debate."
>
>We "dialog" long enough to be reasonably sure we have heard
>what the other is saying, and trying to say. We move to
>"discussion," with its "percussion," in an attempt to isolate and
>clarify the points of difference; and if we cannot find agreement
>at the discussion stage, we move to "debate."
>
>I have wanted to move to "discussion" and "debate" with you,
>but have not yet learned how to do so in the framework of LO.
Steve, European culture have not yet learned how to connect effectively
with even the "indaba". But typical of "European time", they jump to the
next stages of what you have so beautifully articulated as "discussion"
and "debate". And with that very behaviour they loose all those following
"African time" along the way. Eventually things go the European way. But
the past couple of decades Africa rose up ("uhuru") against it, trying to
regain the African way and still competing with the European way. The
result? A total disaster in synchronisation and harmony as you all know.
Thus I have immense respect for your desire to go to "discussion" and
"debate" in specifically the LO framework. But I think that we will need
much dialogue (the "indaba" type, i.e free of "discussion" and "debate" to
do so). Why? Because "dialogue" (indaba type) on the one hand and
"discussion"- "debate" on the other hand are two completely different
things. The "dialogue" (indaba type) is inherently complex with focus on
the implicate while the "discussion"&"debate" is almost simplistic because
of focussing on that which has been articulated. If your do not believe
me, just try to make your point in a debate by telling your opponents that
your intuition tells you that you are right.
In other words, the difference in European time and African time has,
among other things, very much to do with the "measurement problem" of
quantum mechanics on which I have written some time ago. Thus it is not
strange that of all people it was David Bohm who became so sensitive to
the importance of the dialogue (indaba type) because of his full knowledge
(experential, tacit, formal and sapient) of quantum mechanics. However, I
perceive something deeper than Bohm and will later on comment on it.
(snip joke on paradigm shift)
>(But what is the paradigm that is ending; and what is the new
>one to which we are shifting? Postindustrial? Postcapitalist?
>Poststructuralist? PostChristian? Postmodern?)
Steve, it is my opinion that something far deeper and wider than the
typical Kuhnian paradigm shift is now happening. I do some minor
consultancy work in and around Preoria. I come into contact with some (not
many) ordinary factory and farm workers who have read more about Kaufmann,
Maturana, Bohm, Capra and others than most PhD students -- and they dont
care a damn about getting to a university where they are supposed to learn
about the thoughts of these people. Many of them began their voyage of
discovery on internet as their university -- a new way to get a look on
the universe. It makes me ashame of admitting that I am part of a
university which they now are bypassing.
I have described in some earlier contributions what I think is happening
so that I will not repeat it here. But I find it remarkable that you
string up so many "post-###-isms". You are certainly trying to articulate
something of which you are tacitly very much aware of -- but what? Even
more important, which of "dialogue", "discussion" or "debate" will help to
clarify this tacit knowledge?
>You have created a "discourse," At. A lens of language through
>which you see the world. In your world "entropy" is "real," and
>its effects penetrate human organizations and account for much,
>and can be measured. In the world you have created the
>"essentialities" are not linguistic constructions, but "truths."
>
>Yours is what others have called a "grand theory," a total view
>of the world and how it is organized, and how it changes.
Well, how "grand" is a theory or "total" is a view if it does not take
into account the complexity of things (being type) involving such as
diverse concepts as entropy, knowledge, faith and love?
Perhaps it is my megalomaniac stripe, but I think that many universities
have forgotten what the task of the university is the day when they were
forced to decide that they should be knowledge factories. For me the task
of a university is to create the future by thinking (not knowing) of
everything in the universe. I find that those students who think exactly
the same as me, also find the knowledge factory a horrible place which
they are forced to attend.
>I, on the other hand, can not hear and appreciate "grand theories."
>I believe that notions of "local knowledge" are more helpful:
>smaller discourses that help clarify, explain, change.
>
>For example: understanding and perhaps helping to change a
>troubled university department.
Steve, I can think of something much more humble on which I had to grind
my teeth 33 years ago. Soil -- that which often is spoken of as dirt. When
I took my classical physics and chemistry to soils, I discovered that
these disciplines fell far short from helping to "clarify, explain,
change" that thing called soil. Eventually, I succeeded in using "entropy
production" to do so, just to realise something much, much more worse.
What made perfect sense made no sense at all to ordinary farmers.
Furthermore, even the classical knowledge on soils made no sense to them.
>I do not think the languages of "entropy," or "form-content",
>or the distinction of induction and deduction and other logical
>categories are useful, are helpful in finding the sources of the
>trouble, and perhaps fixing the troubles.
I also had the same believe at the end of 1971. I became very suspicious
that it all had to with the way in which we are supposed to learn and
eventually think in terms of the knowledge so gained. Thus I switched from
a career as scientist to become a teacher in order to learn first hand
what learning is about. The only willing to go with me was my dear wife.
The rest of my colleagues, friends and family thought I was crazy.
>I think the "local knowledge" called "ethnography" more useful
>in working with an organization. If we look at a "department"
>through the lens of the "culture concept" and try to assemble
>"thick descriptions" of how this "culture" operates--roles,
>relationships, power, issues, language, etc--we may begin to
> get insight into the nature of department as a system.
>
>The "culture" of the department may include "factions" or
>"subcultures." And the department/culture lives within the larger
>culture of the "faculty" and the "university."
Last Saturday afternoon I had to transport with my truck some of my
worker's possessions to their homes. I had to drive some forty miles to
get there, having had ample time to think about your "local knowledge"
called "ethnography" and how we experience it here in South Africa. One
worker was sitting in front with me and I asked the person to point out,
where it was possible in this incrdible mixture, the different kinds of
communities as we drove past them -- Sotho, Ndebele, Shangaan, Venda,
Zulu..... and then others from outside South Africa's borders coming from
Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, DRC, and even as far away as Nigeria, Ghana,
etc.
We were talking about people flocking to South Africa (and in this case
Pretoria) from all over Africa to find the liberation and richdom which
Nelson Mandela promised to the black people of South Africa. Whereas
Mandela often stressed that nothing could come if not sustained by sound
learning, they heard only the promises and not the learning as the clause.
And there I was driving my truck, thinking of the "tree of immergences" of
which learning forms its branches. How I wish that you could have been
with me to see with me what conditions these people were living in -- to
let you know that I am aware of "local knowledge" just as you. I said that
in words to the person next to me who merely nodded, having no words self
to say more about this "Steve Eskow".
>So, this is the "discourse" I would tend to employ in dealing
>with a college.
>
>If you look at your message below, you move quickly to physics,
>and "differential equations."
>
>So far, At, we are separated by walls of language.
What I did, was to make you aware that since you have selected a physical
automobile as your metaphor, you need to accept the full consequences of
selecting this physical metaphor. Among such consequences is one that the
laws of physics expressed by "differential equations" do exactly the same
as you did with your metaphor.
>Perhaps we can find a common language, and lower or
>remove those walls.
This was exactly what I did, trying to tell you that I have followed your
metaphor in ordinary English language in two ways. Firstly, I followed it
in English and in terms of my experience as a owner of a car. Secondly, I
followed it in terms of my training and experience as a physicist.
You have used above a university "department" as a metaphor rather than
the automobile. I think I understand what you are saying. Should I have
replied to you while using only the concepts which you have used, you may
have concluded that we seemed to have struck upon a common language which
is good enough for all the unfortunate people from all over Africa which I
have written about. That common language seems to be English.
Sadly, reality is different. The far majority of those people squatting
close to Preoria cannot even read or write English. The rest of them will
find such a discourse as yours very difficult to follow and a discourse as
mine as completely unintelligent. Those who will find your discourse easy
wont stay near Pretoria. They move much closer to Johannesburg for their
fortunes since Englsih is the main language for discourse there.
But what happens to them when finding a place where this "common language"
seems to apply? The far majority of them remains to be squatters. Their
dream slowly becomes their nightmare.
Steve, please accept I am just as concerned as you in finding a "common
language". You operate in local communities situated in the USA while I
operate with the same here in South Africa. The immense diversity of our
own situation -- peoples and their normal culture as well as the shocking
poverty and crime of those who cannot handle such complexity -- is a great
entropic force within me. It causes pleasure within me when I obesrve when
these people succeed to create constructively, but also causes pain when
they create destructively.
But how do we create such a "common language" which you speak of?
The answer is very simple -- by "free-complex dialogue", almost of the
"indaba" kind, but not quite it. In the "indaba" the "indoenas" have to
be honoured. These "indoenas" are people, the authorities in power. The
"indoenas" which I have in mind are not people, but thoughts with
authority more than people in power. Plato would have called these
"idoenas" ideas. But Plato talked about ideas which could be expressed in
the Greek language. I think of ideas going far deeper since they come from
the experiences and tacit knowledge of each of us.
I know that I am now able to express them with the concept "entropy
production" and its related concepts. But I also know that it is a
"language" which few others would be able to learn. Thus I have not, do
not and will not claim that it is the "common language" which we seek. But
I do claim that for me it has been immensely valuable to prepare my mind
so as to recognise the details of such a "common language". And I am
compelled to tell it to others so that a few can follow it too.
One of that details is that we have to stop fixing the grammer of our
natural languages for the sake of academical purposes. I have argued on
this very list how the suffixes "-ship" and "-hood" show how people
speaking Germanic languages had been thinking a millemium ago about things
such as "creativity" (the "-ship") and "systems thinking" (the "-hood").
That was the days before people studied those languages as they did study
Latin and Greek. Like Hegel (and Goethe earlier) I am deeply under the
impression of how ordinary people intuitively manage to express in their
natural language details which academics discover many centuries
afterwards as formal knowledge. I am deeply under the impression how
writers use artistically stories to capture things which have not even yet
been expressed in a natural language.
Perhaps I should have told stories rather than painting a rich picture
with "entropy production". But of such stories, including many of Homer,
Socrates concluded that they were the imaginations of writers having no
substance and misleading people in the birth of noble thoughts. In this
respect I differ from Socrates. Even the wildest imaginations of any
person becomes part of reality, whether that person manages to articulate
them or not. So what kind of "law" do we have which operates here, making
even wild imaginations as real as facts?
I believe that the "open-complex dialogue" (perhaps we may call it the
Bohmian dialogue) will lead us to that insight. You believe that
"discussion" and "debate" are needed to clarify that insight. I believe it
too, but have discovered on more than one occasion how deadly it is to the
"open-complex dialogue" when done in a manner ignorant to how
detrsuctions happen.
Furthermore, I am able to explain, describe and predict it in terms of
"entropy production" and its related concepts. This gives me the advantage
to understand that "discussion" and "debate" will come automatically -- we
need not promote it. What I have to care for, is the "open-complex
dialogue" and put as much into it as is possible for me. My family cries
for my attention and many of you fellow learners cry that it frustrates
you. I cry because I cannot visit the deserts as I used to.
We have a saying in my language "van lekker lag kom lekker huil" (from
nice laughing comes nice crying). Many of us here in the New South Africa
are discovering something much deeper -- from crying together comes
lauging individuals who wipe off the tears from each other's cheecks
through the spirit of love. This happens in "open-complex dialogue". I
wish I could experience it happening in "discussion" and "debate". I have
followed the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)
headed by Desmond Tutu as closely as possible. Whenever the "discusson"
and "debate" phases took over, the tears dried up, not because somebody
else wiped them off through unconditional love, but because of anger and
hurt caused by such "discussions" and "debate" taking over.
The TRC hearings are probably the strangest thing ever to have happened in
our country. Perhaps this is the spirit of my contributions to this list
-- that which had been intrigueing you.
What is the truth and how do we become reconciled?
>Be well.
The same to you. Please forgive me for testing your patience
with such a long 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>