Real is what you feel - true believers and non-believers
In order to achieve the results the Academic Community has received until
today it was necessary to mentally separate the observed objects from the
observer. It is the very same reason that drives Sir John Maddox to the
conclusion that: "Our understanding of the human brain is incomplete in one
conspicuous way: nobody understands how decisions are made or how
imagination is set free." in his article: 'The Unexpected Science to Come'
< http://www.sciam.com/1999/1299issue/1299maddox.html >
That is why the question: "Is something real as a result of culture?" or "
Do Learning Organizations exist?" in another post on the LO-list are -in
itself- unproductive abstract questions. They lead to 'useful' theoretical
answers within scientific accepted parameters. The answers tell however
nothing at all about the 'meaningfulness' for human beings in a concrete
situation. Meaningfulness is always situational connected to a human
being. Real is what you feel. And what are feelings? Feelings are a
mixture of uncristalized thinking and not yet realized will.
The questions "Is something real as a result of culture?" or " Do Learning
Organizations exist?" become meaningful when the issue is complemented
with: "When is something real as a result of culture FOR ME?" or "When do
Learning Organizations exist FOR ME?"
I think I owe the LO-group a view behind the curtains of my own reasoning
and make you part of a dilemma I am trying to deal with. By doing so I
hope it helps other learners trying to deal with the same type of
questions.
The dilemma became manifest when I received a recently released book by a
member of this LO-list, Cliff Havener. The title of the book is Meaning -
The Secret of Being Alive. <http://www.forseeker.com> Reading this
difficult, but really excellent book made the next questions explicit for
me:
Who's in charge? Do I have my believes or do the believes and assumptions
have me? The same counts for desires, intentions, lust, etc. Are they
driving me or am I the one managing them?
By reading Cliff's book, watching documentaries on Discovery on scientific
discoveries, theories about DNA, cell-biology, mythology, etc. I am not
certain anymore whether I am a true-believer to non-believer. (Also see
chapter IX in "The Dance of Change".)
For not too many years ago when I studied (scientific) developments I
always reframed the theories to my own framework of thoughts. This my
framework was an imaginative- spiritual construct of layers, levels of
awareness and believe in karma and re-incarnation. For me a rich and
colorful imaginary mental world.
I was a convinced believer in a spiritual world with living spiritual
entities, angels, arch-angels, higher Self. I had studied Theosophy,
Buddhism, Rozenkreuzer, Anthroposophy, etc. and learned how the spiritual
world is constructed. Michelangelo's Sixtinian Madonna with all the faces
of the unborn souls of children around her, and Maria carrying a devine
child from the spiritual world into our world spoke deeply to my
imagination. I thought I had understood that in the ground, all spiritual
and religious cultures ground in the same source. Only its outer
appearance, rituals, vocabulary and semantics were different. I thought
*I* owned the results of my thinking and the process of my thinking. I was
a true believer.
It is frightening me how easy I can follow, understand and even agree on
Cliff havener's exposure of what the Secret of Being Alive is: meaning
itself. Five years ago I would have placed Cliff's book aside "as a nice
-but failed- attempt to kill my spiritual-religious convictions". Now I
can't!
What if, what Cliff describes and proves, is true: that the secret of
being alive is meaning itself? What if, it is true that all meaning is
contained in the systems itself, ore derived and adopted from other
systems?
It will prove that there is no spiritual guidance, at least not in the
sense I believed in spiritual guidance as a source outside the systems
(God, heaven and hell, angels, etc.)
It will prove that all the mythological worldviews were only based upon
the level of conceptualizing of a particular century, of the mental images
and concepts of that time.
It will prove that Rudolf Steiner's statement (around 1920) is true : "If
there are enough people who believe in the idea that the world is
constructed of atoms, than the world will be constructed of atoms, but it
was never intended by the spiritual world and its beings". In other words:
real is what is being accepted by or forced upon the majority.
It will prove that there will come one day that all the magic of life will
have vanished and there will be no riddles left to solve. If people look
at the stars they will only be able to see bio-chemical processes. Instead
of the magic they will only experience emptiness. "DNA has explained it
all" is what people will believe! It wont matter whether you clone or
produce artificial organic material once you own the DNA-structure of it.
Nobody will put moral arguments against it. It will be fully accepted that
the means will set the goals. The only question people will ask is whether
it is useful or not and profitable to them. There will be no other
resistance. Why should there be?
When I am around my children, look in their sweet eyes, tell fairytales to
them, say their prayers with them, I see and feel the true believe in
their eyes and in their whole being. They don't yet know what I know.
Do I want them to know what I know now? What choice do I have? Their
development and wellbeing depends on what you and I teach them as being
true and real. Their conceptual framework will be built by what the system
will offer them. Do we invite them into a society based on a meaningful
devine world or in a society in which the meaning is enclosed only in the
system itself, whatever shape it may have and get? Regardless to what is
true or not: the choice for one or another framework will have
consequences for the direction of development.
Assessment and Judgement of what is real.
If all meaning comes from the system itself, then consequently all mental
material will also come from within the system, small, big, normative or
integrative. If I am a system with its own meaning: how can I unbiased
assess and judge on my own material? What other tools than what I already
have inside me, can judge whether I am right or wrong? there aren't any!
Choices
If the idea Cliff Havener offers is true: the only decision I think I can
make is to CHOOSE to be a true believer or non-believer (in a spiritual
world) and stick to it, because the world will become what I make of it.
My view on world and man will be determined by my choice alone. I have no
other compass or guide then the one inside me, or the system(s) I am part
of. This in its turn rises the question: How many followers will I have?
The dilemma
1) I am facing a dilemma(and I think I am in the company of many): I have
accepted and lived for many years with a spiritual-religious view on life.
The meaning of being alive came (or comes) out of the womb of God.
2) I can - if I want to- also accept Cliff's exposure: That the meaning of
being alive is within the system(s) itself. it is completely
understandable and agreeable for me.
But what is true? These two views seem so totally opposite!
>From a scientific point of view the basic question: "Is there a life after
death?" has to be re-phrased in: "Is there life for ME after death?". The
answer to this question is: "No, not for YOU. Because the thoughts and
feelings you had when you were alive, will no longer be a part of systems.
They will vanish with you, because they were embodied in your physical
brains and chemo-biological system. Only the consequences of your deeds
may or may not work on. That will depend however on how many other systems
find them to be useful."
Do I want to die in the notion that I will return in the Womb of a God or
do I want to die in the notion that it will end for ME there and then?
In what notion do you prefer to live, to learn and to die?
-- Mr. Winfried M. Deijmann - Deijmann & Partners - Zutphen - The Netherlands Artists, Consultants and Facilitators for Organizational Learning, Leadership and Action Learning Events Het Zwanevlot 37. NL 7206 CB Zutphen, The Netherlands <deijmann@dialoog.net> Phone + Fax: +31-(0)575-522076 website: <http://come.to/dialoog>For information about our international workshops: <http:/dialoog.net/deijmann/workshopsuk.html>
"An educated mind is useless without a focussed will and dangerous without a loving heart." (source unknown)
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>