Replying to LO23913 --
Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes
in reply to my
>>the property spontaneity may lead to most powerful
>>conceptualisations.
>
>I understand that At de Lange made this notion while
>regretting that spontaneity is undervalued in CAS
> ........
Greetings Winfried,
I am sorry for not responding sooner. The topic "To become or not to
become" is very time consuming.
"undervalued"? Perhaps we must have some time a dialogue on "How to value
concepts."
I feel sad rather than "regretting" it. Why? As for myself, the concept
"spontaneity" plays a role in my own learning as important as the concept
"veracity" (a person's disposition to truth). It helped me to knit many
things into the "web of creativity". However, I am fully aware that what
is beneficial to me is not necessarily benefical to many others -- again
LEM getting shredded ;-)
> ..... (although surely not on this list, as I respond
>spontanously to the 23866th spontanous contribution ;-) ).
Thanks for this excellent observation. Almost 24 thousand contributions
and you are the first one to point out what other feature except learning
all these contributions have in common. How long will it take before a
fellow learner connects spontaneity with learning, thus wondering what the
result may be called and what the value of it might be.
Perhaps you should not have explicated this unique feature. Why? Because
some people will always want to replace the genuine with an imitation. In
the case of spontaneity such imitations are self-destructive as sure as
the sun gives off light. (Winfried, I know it will puzzle you -- why the
"sureness"?) The same holds for veracity. Compare this with what you have
cited:
>In an article on Kurt Lewin's Change Theory by Edgar H.
>Schein, I found the following
> <http://learning.mit.edu/res/wp/10006.html>:
(snip, thank you very much for the whole piece)
>Identification is thus an efficient and fast process, but it
>may lead to solutions that do not stick because they do
>not fit the learner's total personality. If one wants to avoid
>that, one must create learning environments that do not
>display role models, thereby forcing the learner to scan
>and invent his or her own solutions.
Please note the word "forcing". This is the "weak" spot in an otherwise
very good explanation. I am not going to rectify it.
When learning approach the edge of chaos where bifurcations happen, we
have to know where the "weak" spots are so as to try and prevent
destructive emergences. When learning is managed according to this
article, this "forcing" may proof to be the weak spot.
The concept spontaneity enable me to understand why this "forcing" will
probably be the weak spot. In other words, the concept spontaneity helps
me to manage my own learning.
>Managed: controlled, willfull, practice, measures, outcomes,
>doer, active, non-spontanous...
>
>AND
>
>Learning: insight, scanning, selforganizing, open end, tacit
>dimension, full personality, sustainable, spontanous...
>
>Isn't this the, or at least one of the very fundamental tensions
>sustaining the evolution of this list?
Dear Winfried, take care -- experimenting with tensions requires careful
control of yourself (spontaneous case) or of fellow learners on the list
(non-spontaneous case). You know which case you will walk. Enjoy the
excitement and may you learn a lot.
With care and 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>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.