Dear Organlearners,
Steve Eskow <dreskow@corp.webb.net> writes:
>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"?
Greetings Steve,
No, it would not be a distortion. This is what ALSO happend in Southern
Africa (Africa south of the Sahara and not merely South Africa) the past
couple of centuries until 1948 plus a few years afterwards.
But it would be a great distortion to me if I do not tell what happened in
Southern Africa (some years) after 1948.
What is so mysterious about 1948? It was the year when white South
Africans voted for the ideology and policy of apartheid to become formal.
Apartheid is being practiced all over the world for many centuries, if not
millenia now. But in 1948 South Africans did the dirty deed by
formalising it into law for the whole country in all its walks. (A similar
thing, but very minor to it, happened in the southern states of the USA.
There it gave rise to the so-called Civil Rights Movement.) It is like
articulating tacit knowledge into formal knowledge the first time ever.
Its like supplying a practice with a theory. It had immense effects In
South Africa which ramified into Southern Africa and even the rest of
Africa. It can be summarised by one word "uhuru". Formalising apartheid
gave rise to uhuru. Point.
Steve, what happened to "uhuru"? The "displacement and destruction" which
you speak of and which still happens in many other countries of the world,
sort of reversed itself. "Back to the bush" many people would say. All
over the world for more than forty years people are getting reports on
what "uhuru" actually has been doing to the peoples of Southern Africa.
Utopia? No, HELL.
The easy rationalisation would be to say that the reversion should never
have happened. Reversibility for ever. Southern Africa and the rest of
Africa should have allowed the "displacement and destruction" which you
speak of to take its full course, making its people as "happy" as the
people in the industrialised, technificated and systemised countries of
the West.
Well, this was exactly the rationalisation which the majority of white
people in South Africa followed since 1948 to legitimise the formalisation
of apartheid as the law of the country. (It is most important to note that
few people anywhere in the world can accept it as a fact.) But once they
did it, what seemed to be legitimate (good) and rational (true) turned out
be a catastrophe. Most black people here In South Africa insist that it is
not just a catastrophe, but a "hideous crime against humanity". Thus they
try to punish whites by a strange new "law of the county" (some above and
others below it). But unlike apartheid, they have not yet succeeded to
formalise this new "law" for all walks of the country. Heavens forbid it.
What we must try to see here, is that both for the era of "Europe pushing
into Africa" up to 1948 and since then the era of "Africa pushing Europe
out", destructive immergences in overall had been far more than
constructive emergences. This is vitally important to understand what is
going on.
So, at this point, first over to you.
>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, I fear should they choose any one of the two ways which you have
described! Why? Because both ways will just increase the lamenting
catastrophe which is happening here in Southern Africa. I have tried to
make it clear to you in terms of the pre/post 1948 categorisation. I fear
that the rest of the world will keep telling them that these are the only
two ways. I fear that they are mesmerising themselves and their followers
because this is the only two ways they can talk about in their dialogues,
discussions and debates. Even worse, some of them are now beginning to
contemplate a mixture of the two ways, often miscalling it the African
Rennaisance.
If we consider "forward to steel, concrete and plastic" and "back to the
bush" as the two ways and a mixture of the two as a third way, I have to
stress that we have to seek a fourth way. This fourth way is for me the
true African Rennaisance, the one of which almost all people in Africa is
dreaming about. But so long as they do not seek the fourth way, this
African Rennaisance will remain but a dream.
Steve, now is the time as never before for all people from all peoples all
over the world to perceive that we have a very complex situation which
will require creative thinking as never before to get healed. I am pretty
sure that the concept of a learning organisation is vital to the healing
of Southern Africa and the rest of Africa. But like Goethe I feel my own
incapacity to communicate my insight to anyone else. He said it cannot be
done. I say it can be done, but the arrow of time is running out for me as
for all others.
What we have to do in the African Renaissance, is to forster learning
individuals and learning organisations once again AND ESPECIALLY to create
a harmony between the two. Without that harmony we can give it up as a bad
job before we even have begun.
I am now going to use Hegel's terms "dassein" and "mitsein"
(corresponding to "learning individual" and "learning organisation") to
explain the historical development of the catastrophe in Southern Africa.
The Roman Empire caused a gradual shift of the focus of people from the
harmony between "dassein" and "mitsein" to "dassein". It used militaristic
techniques to prevent the immergence of "mitsein". Somewhere between 10
and 15 centuries ago this immergence became a fact, perhaps through the
work of Charlemane. As a first countermeasure the university at Bologna
emerged 8 centuries ago trying to regain "mitsein". But in the second
university (Paris) and thereafter in Oxford, Krakow, etc, it was "dassein"
getting the upperhand over "mitsein" because of failing to attain harmony
between "dassein" and "mitsein".
Two centuries afterwards the technology of printing enabled the European
Rennaisance driven by "dassein". The next important countermeasure to
regain "mitsein" was in the church, but again because of a lack of harmony
it soon aborted into the Refomation ("mitsein" between similar "dasseins")
which split the Roman church in two up to the present. Leibniz was one of
the few people who realised this. Thus the paradigm of "simplicty", the
"dassein" who can do anything, became entrenched in Western thinking.
This led to the Enlightenment when information on other cultures and their
"mitsein" came to the attention of the "dassein".
The last important countermeasure to regain "mitsein" was the communistic
revolution almost a cenury ago. Even that also failed miserably because of
neglecting the harmony between "dassein" and "mitsein". Let us symbolise
this harmony by ++.
In the meantime, whereas Europe began to follow the path of reduction from
"dassein++mitsein" to "dassein", Africa began to follow the path from
"dassein++mitsein" to "mitsein". Unfortunately, literature for Africa on
this path is far scantier than for Europe on its path. Furthermore, for
Southern Africa there is no documentation at all because when the
"ur"-Banthu entered Southern Africa about two millenia ago, it did so with
spoken language, but no written language. Thus the oldest records about
Southern Africa which we have are those made by Europeans rather than
Africans. The oldest of these records are from South Africa almost 4
centuries ago. From West-Africa we have documents going a little over 5
centuries back.
What can we learn from all these documents? When Europe began to push
itself into Africa, it was not "dassein++mitsein" of one kind against
"dassein++mitsein" of another kind. It was "dassein" (Europe) against
"mitsein" (Africa), the clash of two paradigms. Because of "mitsein"
without "dassein", people of Africa in Africa were not able to fathom the
cause of the catastrophe between "dassein" (Europe) and "mitsein"
(Africa). One of the very few people to understand this was Smuts, the
father of Holism. Thus we have remnants (memories) of his struggle to
regain harmony between the two in the United Nations and British
Commonwealth.
The final signal to Africans of what was going on was given in 1948 with
the formalisation of apartheid. Uhuru, "mitsein" without "dassein" was
finally well on its way again, but now using all which the "dassein" could
offer to push Europe out of Africa.
I have specifically mentioned two people, Leibniz of the 16th century and
Smuts of the 20th century, who stand out as lone beacons. They tried to
explain what I now tried to do with "dassein", "mitsein" and "harmony"
(the ++), but they could not as Goethe managed to articulate it for us.
Perhaps Goethe's insight is prophetic so that I will also fail, but I
prefer to believe otherwise. The reason is that unlike Leibniz, Goethe and
Smuts, we now have a Senge also, someone who managed to formalise the
concept of the Learning Organisation. What Smuts actually tried to
accomplish with his idea of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the
United Nations Organisation, is to set up Learning Organisations! I have
went over his work time and again to make sure that I am not imagining it.
However, the problem for Smuts was that Senge came fifty years too late
for him!
What enabled Leibniz and Smuts to become so sensitive to this clash
between "dassein" and "mitsein"? Their immense sensitivity to wholeness, a
sensitivity far greater than their fellow humans. Leibniz believed to his
very death that his idea of a "monad" (a whole) was the key to solving
most of the problems during his time. The same with Smuts up to 1948 with
his idea of "holism". But then came the most devastating event ever to
him. The electorate voted for apartheid, the eaxct opposite of holism.
At first he could not understand that his people were so blind. This
intense feeling of disillusion burns like fire in each of his letters and
speeches after the election of 1948. His first words after learning of the
defeat was "Ja, so gaan dit" (Literally -- Yes, so it goes.) In my
language it has a very grave meaning -- it cannot be otherwise. But soon
afterwards, true to the personality of this man, now close to eighty
years, he began to study again which few young students in the prime of
their physical power would be able to match. Wholeness alone was not the
power driving evolution. There was something else also. But what could it
be? The next two years was too short to find the answer.
>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.
Steve, I am sure that it is more than a "may". It is indeed a complex
piece of history as I have indicated. It is a history of which the
Southern African part has no formal documentation. In other words, we
have a gap of anywhere between 15 and 20 centuries ago in which something
very important has happened, namely the reduction of "dassein++mitsein"
into "mitsein". I suspect that the emergence of Islam has much to do with
it, by I cannot get hold of enough information to go any further than
speculation. The only "documentation" we have, are the more than 1500
Banthu languages which have evolved naturally in about 15 centuries.
Trying to uncover history from their evolution from Urbanthu is like
trying to read the past in a deck of cards. I have made some progress with
the help of my friend B G, a guru in African languages, but the progress
is the "ears of the hippopotamus" and B G finds the water in which I need
him to swim often too dangerous, full of crocodiles.
Steve, as I have said, there are four roads. The "tigers" followed the
first road. That road is now very steep to them. Several African leaders
are now refering to them as "eastern kittens". It means that they know
tacitly that this road is a cul-de-sac. The second road "uhuru" is the one
which Southern African states had been following the past fifty years.
Again many indicate that they know tacitly that also this road is a
cul-de-sac. The third road is the "mixture" one -- the one you say they
cannot have both ways. Sadly, the majority think that they can.
Fortunately, there are also a few who indicate that they are aware of the
fourth road. Mandela is one of them and so is now Mbeki. Mbeki uses the
word Renaissance to articulate his awareness.
But do you know what the trouble is. Mandela had the stature so that no
other African leader really dared to question him. But with Mbeki it is
different. African leaders are weighing the three roads against each other
from the one dialogue, discussion and debate to the other, from one year
to another. A few others jump on Mbeki's wagon hoping that it will become
a bandwagon for them. What is the result? You have summarised it.
>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!
At this stage some fellow learners would exclaim: "Aha, a hierarchy is
needed" (Yes, I have been following that topic.) But a hierarchy is the
effect of an evolution. As an effect it cannot become a cause for
evolution, unless there is some clear back action and thus a feedback
loop.
So it boils down again to what is "true and good" so that Southern Africa
can follow a road which is "true and good". But do we know what is "true
and good". No. Can we learn what is "true and good"? I asked:
>>What is the truth and how do we become reconciled?
You replied
>There is no answer to your question: there is only the long,
>arduous road of dialog, discussion, debate.
My reply to that is that even this long long, arduous road of dialog,
discussion, debate is also useless when we do not focus on trying to learn
what is "true and good". It is clear to me after having reading too many
books that we will never learn as "dassein" what is "true and good". We
will have to do that learning as "mitsein". That which we as humankind
know so far about "true and good", was the result of "mitsein" learning.
Thus it is not for any bunch of "dassein"s to create that fourth road
which Southern Africa needs so desperately. The African leaders can bring
in the greatest of authorities as "dasseins" into whatever bunch they can
command, but the fourth road will still not emerge. The "dassein
creativity" is simply too limited (spareness).
What we need for the next millenium is "mitsein creativity" of Learning
Organisations.
We need it not only in Southern Africa, but also in Western Africa, the
Horn of Africa, Central America, Palestine, the Balkan region the
Polenesian regions, etc. Please Steve and fellow learners, do not let me
in this Goethenian dilemma forever in my knowing by not being able to
communicate it to you.
Only Learning Organisation can have "together creativity", not Learning
Individuals. But "together creativty" is just not a gift which some LOs
will have and other not. It is something which we will have to cultivate
just as the Learning Individual has to cultivate his/her "alone
creativity". We will need a Systems Thinking which can tell us precisely
how to do it.
I repeat:
What we need for the next millenium is the "together creativity" of
Learning Organisations.
Steve, to conclude, you write:
>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.
If anyone of you fellow learners can do better than "my" theory of "deep
creativity" based on "entropy production" (not "entropy") to improve our
System Thinking for the problems we need to solve, then please do it so
that I can learn from you.
What worries me, is that "my", not the "entropy production". It is pure,
ugly "dassein" -- part of the problem and not its solution.
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>