Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to you all.
In LO23286 I wrote:
>When is something real? How important is this question (as our
>topic) to learning organisations?
I then told how we here in South Africa since the fall of apartheid are
learning how to deal more inclusive with reality. I concluded with:
>Perhaps I should stop here so that you feel free to participate in the
>dialogue on this topic of "When is something real". Perhaps the next
>part of my contribution will destroy all your creative energy. To prevent
>that, I will now write it, but only mail it a couple of weeks from now.
>
>END OF PART I
Since then we had the following contributions to this topic: I will quote
what I think is important to each contribution. The result will be
lengthy, but it helps to draw a rich picture. It is now interesting to see
how much my own contemplations in PART II on reality reflects and fails to
reflect these contributions.
Tricia Lustig <Tricia@lasa.demon.co.uk> in LO23312:
>In my mind, I make a map of what is out there. It is at best an
>approximation. My map is different to yours and to others, but I
>ASSUME we all have the same map. And so do you. And this is
>what we call 'reality'. But it is all an illusion that we 'dream up' in
>order to function.
(snip)
>Is the 'map' real? Can an approximation be real? I would hold that
>frequently our maps of reality are delusions, and that learning is
>uncovering the delusion and getting better at forming maps of
>reality.
>A never-ending task, which we shall never complete, and never perfect
>...but the fun is in the trying!
~~~~
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> in LO23313:
>Somehow, reality seem to be changing...
~~~~
Michael Bremer <cgcmike@aol.com> in LO23329:
>Our culture does not have a bearing on what is real....culture only
>impacts (defines) what we believe to be real.
>
>Few people can rise above their cultural boundaries and see things
>differently. We can be thankful for those who do because they allow
>the rest of us to redefine "reality" hopefully a little more
>holistically.
~~~~
Dan Chay <chay@alaska.com> in LO23336:
>With Dick's quote in mind, and your question, I think of "The Walking
>People: A Native American Oral History," by Paula Underwood, a
>very interesting, beautiful book. It is published by "A Tribe of Two
>Press."
>In the following excerpt is the story of the name, Tribe of Two:
(snip -- extraodinary quotations like "She saw all this Ancient Wisdom
disappearing around her and grew determined it should not die, but
be perpetuated down the generations, until a new generation
learned
to listen.)
>The story that follows in 833 pages of verse is really quite
>amazing --
>and humbling.
>
>Certainly, some things are real (and live) as a result of culture
>because you believe it.
~~~~
Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> in LO23352:
>I have continually come across the tension between:
>1 Science seems to determine what is real... and
>
>2 If there is an objective reality that transcends our fallible
>perception
> and experience, it doesn't matter to us: we have no way to have
> contact with it. The reality we have is constructed in a social
>process.
(snip)
>So, the gist of my proposal:
> - Each person experiences a different reality
> - We study the coherence and repeatability of experience and
>produce
> theories
> - When the process converges, we have a properly "accepted
>scientific
> theory." In the popular language, I suspect this will still be
>called
> "reality."
(snip)
>This reconciliation of the opposing views (1) and (2) above seems so
>workable to me... It's practical, when the process converges we can
>say we understand something. Usually, convergence enables us to do
>practical things (computers, cell phones, man on the moon, etc.).
>When it does not converge, we have to admit we don't know.
>
>My grand question: Why isn't this the resolution for spiritualists,
>philosophers, scientists, and public thinkers troubled by the tension
>between (1) and (2)?
~~~~
Bill Buxton <wbuxton@hns.com> in LO23356:
>Everything we perceive and everything we express about those
>perceptions, including science, is a construct in some fashion.
>Hence the suggestion of a different way of sorting the reality sheep
>from the reality goats. It's not whether we've nailed what is really,
>really out there ... really, really real in some absolute sense
>divorced
>from the fact that we're human beings asking the questions. It
>seems more useful to ask whether something is "objective" in the
>scientific sense above or "subjective" in the artistic sense above
>(or
>pick your own labels, but I wouldn't buy "true" and "false" as
>candidates, nor "real" and "unreal").
~~~~
Leo Minnigh <l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl> in LO23365:
>Rick ..... Your final question triggered my following direction of
>observation:
(snip)
>We interpret a lot of our surroundings as 'real' with the use of our
>senses. The translation of these perceptions are than interpreted in
>our mind. During a long history, mankind agreed upon a common
>vocabulary to describe these perceptions
(snip)
>Why could we agree about most of these perceptions? Because we
>invented 'objective' gauging instruments.
(snip)
>We see already from the above examples that for certain perceptions
>of 'reality' the level of agreement is not the same as for other
>types of
>perceptions.
>
>And now our sixth sense: the mind.
>Intuition, thoughts, dreams, belief, etc. Are these 'things'
>perceptions?
>Maybe.
>But if so, we are not able to test them with a neutral instrument.
>There is not such instrument. But even worse, there is even not a
>common vocabulary. So we are not able to reach a certain level of
>agreement.
(snip)
>Maybe once there will be a vocabulary and an instrument. And then....
~~~~
Barry Mallis <bmallis@markem.com> in LO23372:
>I so enjoyed reading Rick's thinking about Science and Objective
>Reality. I am of the mind that the issue will never be "resolved." In
.fact,
>the question below which Rick asks is, for some, begging the answer.
>The answer is built into the question, or, the question ultimately
>has
>no reality for attempts at connecting fact and spirit. Fact and
>spirit
>coexist. Pure parallel lines. Infinite.
>
>What I like about this list is that we launch the private realm into
>the
>public one. And each of us is affected in a unique way. Miraculous. I
>wonder if there's a lesson in that?
~~~~
John Gunkler <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> in LO23399:
>How do we reconcile our differing perceptions? James' answer: by
>accepting the one that "works out" best in use (in the long run.)
(snip)
>James was no fonder of "absolute scientific truth" than any modern
>scientific thinker is. His notions, like those you propose, are
>based
>on something one might call "conditional acceptance" founded on
>"the pragmatic test" I have simplified above, and subject to change
>with subsequent experiences.
>
>Frankly, I have never found a better set of principles. As to why
>these
>principles haven't reconciled "spiritualists,philosophers,
>scientists, and
>public thinkers troubled by the tension between (1) and (2)" I have
>several speculations:
>A. Some prominent members of these groups do not, fundamentally,
>want reconciliation. They derive their sense of worth from
>continuing
>the schism.
>B. Many people choose to misunderstand William James -- making
>absurd claims for pragmatism that he would never have recognized.
>C. There are still those who choose not to accept your basic premise
>that we cannot contact objective reality (in useful or infallible
>ways.)
>.....but they don't see the "cure" as acceptable so they persist in
>their
>errors in the hope that, some day, the truth will magically appear.
~~~~
Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> in LO23408 (reply to LO23399)
>To me, the next important extension of these ideas is the "action
>science"
>point of view, that the observer is part of the system, not standing
>apart
>from the system being studied. This extension is important when
>studying
>any system involving human beings.
(snip)
>Thanks for this... I like your articulation here. The notion of
>"conditional
>acceptance" is an important corollary of the process. We might also
>say
>that we hold these theories "provisionally." Both terms mean that we
>can
>use and rely on substantiated beliefs, but we should always remember
>that there may be limitations NOT YET EXPERIENCED. When they arise,
>we'll need new theories that extend what we have learned to date.
~~~~
Philip Pogson <ppogson@uts.EDU.AU> in LO2342:
>In your long post, the excerpts below from one paragraph seems to me
>to summarise the issues.
>
>>But, there's also a question about people on the street:
>
>Are we all not "people in the street?" Howard Gardner argues in
>"Leading
>Minds" that even "sophisticated professionals" have a mental age of
>8-10
>years outside their key area of expertise. Why then should it
>surprise us
>that all people at all times do not understand all things equally
>well?
(snip)
>>Why such lack of rigor? Lack of reflection.
>
>Although you may not have meant it this way, it seems to me that the
>whole debate around James and Pearce has an air of externalising the
>blame for for not understanding onto others.
~~~~
John Gunkler <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> in LO23428
>>But, there's also a question about people on the street: As a
>>successful species, why do we human beings appear so inconsistent
>>in what we believe and how we form beliefs? Why such lack of rigor?
>
>I'm puzzled about this too. Of course the usual response (and it's
>probably right, as far as it goes) is that our public education
>system is
>failing us. But the deeper question is "Why is education failing
>us?"
>
>But, frankly, I think it goes deeper than that. Somehow we talked
>ourselves into a situation in our education system, and in society at
>large, where we no longer focus on helping people get what they
>really need (in the long run.) Instead we feel we must meet people's
>expressed, current needs.
~~~~
Michael Bremer < CGCMIke@aol.com > in LO23432:
>I think this topic on reality and the spirit is very important.
>However,
>I feel somewhat intimidated in commenting since many of you are so
>articulate and insightful in your remarks within this learning lab.
>I usually fail to fully remember the quotes, the titles or even the
>interesting little stories that so many members in this community
>seem to freely site. My reality I suppose is to remember the essence
>of those messages as I understood them at that time.
>
>Nevertheless, I will plod forward.
(snip)
>I tend to look at Objective Reality as a timing thing.
(snip)
>Perhaps our scientific methods are not quite in alignment yet to
>bring
>about our spiritual realization. I know I still have a lot of work to
>do
>and it is so easy to loose focus. Reality...the Yogi Berra quote, "It
>ain't everything it's cracked up to be!" is probably on target. We
>know
>the easy part. The rest of reality....we are waiting to learn. That
>is
>why networks like this learning organization exist.
~~~~
Robert Bacal < rbacal@escape.ca > in LO23439:
>I think there's two questions in Rick's post. 1) the issue of
>inconsistency and 2) the issue of lack of rigor and reflection.
>Quite different questions.
>
>But the deeper question is "Why is education failing us?"
>
>I don't accept the question and its presuppositions, and of course
>each generation makes the same remark about education with
>respect to the more recent generation.
>
>The answer is completely simple, perhaps. 1) The world is currently
>set up in such complex ways, that were we to be reflective and driven
>more by logic, we would never do anything at all (sometimes I wonder
>if that's the case with some people anyway), and 2) there is
>certainly
>some suggestion re: cognitive science that this is the case and that
>there is a biological restriction on working memory underlying this.
>
>The short answer: We CAN'T do it.
~~~~
Harriett Robles < HJRobles@aol.com > in LO23441:
>Can you tell us how you REALLY feel? :-) At the risk of trying to
>match you word for word (and it's late and I'm trying to soothe a
>sore
>throat with tequila), in the immortal words of Pogo: "They is Us."
>Could it be that education is as much a reflection of who we are and
>what we value as any other social system we construct? If we look
>into the classroom and despise what we see, whom should we hold
>responsible? And how? Mind you, I don't have a pat answer to this
>because the educational system is as complex an organization as
>ever you'll find, but I did want to put forth the question.
~~~~
Brian Gordon <briangordon@livetolearn.com> in LO23452
>I don't think that the school system has EVER taught people
>what they really need. The purpose of education is most certainly
>not to teach children how to think, because that would involve
>vquestioning authority, and we can't have that, can we?
(snip)
>I suppose it depends what we think children "really need (in the
>long run)." I think that more creativity, openness (including being
>open to other ways of organizing society and organizations), logical
>reasoning ability, and so on are very important. Schools currently
>focus on rote learning and obedience. (My apologies to those
>schools which do not operate in this manner!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
BEGINNING OF PART II
15 years before Peter Senge articulated the concept of a "learning
organisation", I observed during 1972-75 as a teacher that high school
pupils who suffered much in learning dissabilities often came from "broken
organisations" such as families, peer groups and communities. Today I know
that those "broken organisations" are organisations which functioned
little, if any, as learning organisations.
I also noticed that many of these pupils usually had a very restricted or
distorted concept of reality. It was often the result of stark exclusive
thinking due to the "mind programming" by these "broken organisations"
which they belonged to. Today I know why. When we perceive reality we do
it both individually (with "dassein") and collectively (with "mitsein").
(The closest English literals for "dassein" and "mitsein" are "it-be" and
"together-be".) Any person's "dassein" experiences have to emerge into
perceptions of reality by connecting TROUGH "mitsein" relationships (like
language) to the "dassein" experiences of other people. This entails that
the quality of an individual's authentic learning depends on the quality
of the learning organisations to which that person belongs. In other
words, the back-action of the learning organisation as higher order
emergent enrich the learning individual as lower order emergent which is
especially evident in the perception of reality. An educatinal institution
which does not function as a learning organisation makes its educational
task a futile attempt because of the failing back-action.
Since the lack of authentic learning in a pupil seems to be related in
some degree with the lack of learning organisation involvement as well as
a lack of perceiving reality, the following "intuitive hunch" emerged
within me:
An organisation is a LO, despite its claims to be a LO by definition
or decision, when that organisation persistently tries to answer
openly and freely the question "When is something real?".
Such an "intuitive hunch" is called a conjecture. But what is a
conjecture?
Conjectures, like hypotheses, postulates, axioms, logical theorems and
empirical laws, are a special kind of propositions. A proposition is
either true or false but not both. A hypothesis is a proposition assumed
to be true until evidence emerge logically or empirically that it is
actually false. The hypothesis or its denial can equally well be subjected
to verification, but in the case of a conjecture the verification of the
denial is intuitively senseless. A conjecture lacks the soundness of a
theorem which has a logical proof or a law which withstood empirical
falsification .
It seems as if there is no difference between a hypothesis and a
conjecture. But there are differences which are vitally important.
Firstly, in the case of an hypothesis we assume without "intuition" the
proposition to be true. That is why we can also use the denial of the
proposition as the hypothesis. But in the case of a conjecture the
conjecturer "knows by intuition" that proposition is true. Thus the denial
of that conjecture is intuitively false. Secondly, hypotheses are
relatively short lived in terms of verification whereas conjectures are
notoriously difficult to verify. Thus some hypotheses may become
conjectures, but the opposite does not apply. A conjecture cannot become a
hypothesis unless we ban our "intuition" from the picture. A conjecture
can become an axiom, but only through a paradigm shift. Whereas in an
axiom everybody recognises it to be true (although nobody can verify its
truth) only some people recognise a conjecture to be true.
Now let us get back to my conjecture above about an LO and think about it
in terms of our topic "When is something real". Is the concept of a
conjecture real to you? Does my conjecture qualify as one? Can this
conjecture serve as a criterium for identifying a LO in addition to
Senge's definition? Is Senge's definition for a LO not actually also a
conjecture? Can our civilisation emerge into a new civilisation in which
my conjecture is not necessary anymore?
Some time ago we had an interesting dialogue on using the concept
"organisation" as if it is a person (an individual). Some insisted it is
wrong, but none realised that in their explanation they assumed only
"dassein" to be real . Will they reach the same conclusion when assuming
that "mitsein" is as real as "dassein"?
There is very little sense in answering the question "When is something
real" as an individual. But individuals can contribute to answering this
question through dialogue. So let me formulate my contribution to this
topic. Perhaps it will assist you to understand me better. I want to begin
it with the following summary:
Everything which is not yet real to me, becomes real to me
through interaction with all other irreversible self-organising
systems: nature, other humans and God.
Thus reality is not a being to me, but a becoming-being (or processing
structure). Furthermore, to think of reality without having organising
systems is impossible for me. I think of entropy as the measure of
organisation in chaos and order. Entropy is real to me. I think of entropy
production as the primordial way to change organisation. Entropy
production is real to me. Systems can produce entropy only when they have
sufficient free energy to do so. Free energy is real to me.
The free energy of each of us differs. It means that in the same
space-time event we will react differently. Hence, although we may be
subjected to the same event, we will derive different experiences from it.
Despite these differences, all experiences of all people are real.
Because of different experiences our emerging perceptions of reality will
differ. Again all these perceptions of all people are real despite their
differences. However, by continually sharing our experiences with each
other, our perceptions will converge to a common understanding of reality.
This common understanding is also real. We try to express this common
understanding in many ways. Some happen tacitly like when we use a
language while others happen formally like formulating a systems thinking,
philosophy or theory+practice.
The difference between an individual's perception of reality and our
common understanding of reality is a great entropic force. This force
(tension) is real. But it becomes only important to us when entropy
production becomes meaningful. Hence rather than ignoring entropic forces
such as this one, we employ them to aid entropy production and thus our
creativity.
Newly produced entropy must always be manifested, first automatically as
chaos and then contingently as order. We often try to deny the chaos so as
to try and focus on the order. But to deny chaos does not make it unreal.
These manifestations can furthermore be either destructively or
constructively. Again we often try to deny the destructions so as to focus
on the constructions. But again their denial does not make them unreal.
The sooner we understand that destructions are as real as constructions,
the better we will be able to avoid them rather than denying them.
Avoiding destructions with constructions is a very complex art. It
involves the seven essentialities: liveness, sureness, wholeness,
fruitfulness, spareness, otherness and openness. Aiming for constructions
despite all the destructions is much simpler, but also far more hurting.
This hurting is as real as the joy which come with constructions. These
destructions and their hurt cannot be condoned by constructive outcomes
and joy as the goal because the path is just as important as the
destination.
Constructive creativity leads to an increase in free energy. Such an
increase in free energy often allows a system to perform work. Hence the
workability or pragmatics of a system has often become the criterium or
even substitute for constructive creativity. In some languages like German
the word for reality is actually the word for workability (Wirklichkeit =
reality). However, a system without sufficient energy for spontaneous
changes and thus the ability to deliver work, is just as real as the
pragmatic ones. During the course of time the self-organising systems may
become spontaneous when allowed to do so. But this actualisation of their
potential does not make them more real after such actualisation. The seed
of a plant is just as real as the seed setting plant which it eventually
may emerge into.
As for me I have stopped thinking of anything as not real. One person's
imagination is just as real to me as the accurate observations of a
thousand scientists. One person's atheism is just as real to me as the
faith of a thousand believers. One person's hate is just as real to me as
the love of a thousand parents. The devil is just as real as God. This
makes reality very complex. But how complex?
The complexity of reality is all the perceptions of all humans through all
the epochs all over the globe. My own observations and contemplations on
complexity fell far short from what I learn through all other humans. This
is what makes me a human -- by commuting with the rest of humankind just
as with technology my own senses become extended. This makes humankind the
other part of me.
To conclude, the question "When is something real?" imlies that reality
has conditions and that some things are not real when not conforming to
these conditions. But for me reality has no conditions just like
one-to-many love. In other words, reality has no exceptions just like
one-to-many love. Thus I cannot answer the question specifically because I
cannot identify something which is not real. It means that reality has no
denial. Hence I cannot subject reality to logical or empirical analysis to
make it more real. I can only learn how to love all of reality.
END OF PART II
Working through your contributions and my part II brought me once again
deeply under the impression how we all differ in our perceptions of
reality. We all are completely part of reality, and yet we act differently
in it. Those differences are as real as out common understanding of
reality. One thing which struck me about all your contributions (and mine)
as as something we all know together of reality is WE CANNOT ESCAPE
REALITY. This makes LOs pretty important.
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>