At, and all,
A few more comments triggered by your long and thoughtful discussion.
On "indaba," the African version of the endless dialog, you conclude:
>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").
Would it be a distortion of your point here to say that you are applying
the language of "immergence" to judging a well-known and often described
piece of history: the displacement and destruction of "premodern" and
"preindustrial" forms of organization, and of consciousness, by the forms
of thought, of space-time organization, generated, and required by the
so-called "industrial revolution"?
Let us agree that Africa was indeed violated by the conquering Europeans,
and that European culture, Western culture, displaced and destroyed the
indigenous culture, which may or may not have been a wonderful LO
mechanism as you describe it.
Now, in the time of the millenium, Africa and its leaders must choose.
Does Africa want to be part of the modern global economy? If not, it can
choose to remain with, return to, indaba and all of its traditional modes
of being in the world.
If it decides it wants to be part of the global economy it will have to
help its people further erode traditional culture, including indaba, so
that workers come to work on time, and do all of the unpleasant daily
routines of those who work in the modern sector.
Which way do you think Africa will choose, At?
>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.
This may be an oversimplification of a very complex piece of history. It
is also possible to maintain that whereas the Japanes and the Koreans and
the other "tigers" were able to adopt and master Western space-time
routines and culture, Africa was not, and still has not. It may be, At,
that Africa can not have it both ways, that those who advise a mix of
traditional and modern cultures are dooming Africa to failure in the world
economy.
>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.
Yes, two completely different things. Perhaps: like oil and water?
>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.
Perhaps this is backward. Indaba is inherently simplistic, unfocused,
undisciplined: anyone can speak of anything on their minds at anytime.The
dialog, that is, can go in any direction, and the hope/faith is that
somehow insight and order will emerge.
Try making any point at all in an indaba!
>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.
This is the modern error of "scientism," At: trying to look at human
relations through the language of physics.
>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.
There is a difference, I think, At.
I know that "automobile" is a metaphor, an attempt to find an analogy that
might illuminate a piece of social reality.
I am not sure that when you speak of "entropy" in an LO you think you are
using a metaphor.
You speak of "entropy" as if it were "real," as if it existed, could be
described, sensed, weighed, measured.
Is entropy in human organizations "real," At? Or are you using a metaphor?
>Perhaps we can find a common language, and lower or
>remove those walls.
>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.
No, At. Not English.
And: not the language of physics transported into the arena of human
affairs, where it distorts rather than illuminates.
>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.
Why do you use the language of physics to describe your anguish, At? Why
call that pain "entropic force"?
>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.
My point, At, is that the language of "entropy" is quite easy to
learn--but it is a language that does not help solve the problems of rich
and poor.
>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.
Yes, At, you are compelled, like all prophets, to proclaim what you have
seen.
And some see and share your vision.
And some find that your vision takes us away from solutions, rather than
moves us toward them.
That is why debate, and argument, and controversy are necessary.
>What is the truth and how do we become reconciled?
There is no answer to your question: there is only the long, arduous road
of dialog, discussion, debate.
Be well.
Steve Eskow
--Steve Eskow <dreskow@corp.webb.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>