Replying to LO24316 --
Dear Organlearners,
Dan Gunter <dangunter@mindspring.com> writes:
>Do we really "unlearn" anything. I don't believe so. Instead,
>we do one of two things:
>FORGET (a passive act), or
>MODIFY (the activity of learning a different habit or idea in
>order to overcome one which we think undesirable or incorrect.
Greetings Dan,
I do not want to go into it now, but this "forget" is far more complex for
me than simply being a "passive act". I can enumerate at least five
different reasons why I "forget".
I rather want to focus on on your formulas:
>We experience and, therefore, perceive ourselves through
>our eyes and the eyes of others. An incorrect or negative
>perception can only be overcome, in my experience, through
>modification. Unlearning, in my humble opinion, is a misnomer.
>We simply create new experiences and, if possible, work to
>control our perception of them. A formula to play with:
>
>EXPERIENCE + POSITIVE PERCEPTION ==> POSITIVE EXPERIENCE
>
>POSITIVE EXPERIENCES + POSITIVE PERCEPTION ==> SUCCESSFUL MODIFICATION
>
>Make sense to anyone other than me?
They do make some sense to me, but I am not sure if my sense and your
sense are similar. So let me describe what makes sense to me so that you
can compare it to your sense. That which makes sense to me will allow me
to formulate some pretty unnerving questions, illustrating the very point
which : "Eugene Taurman" <ilx@execpc.com> makes in the topic "Distributed
Technical Training LO24304".
I would reformulate your first formula as
E + CCC ==> TK
where
E = EXPERIENCE
PCC = CONCIOUSNESS OF CONSTRUCTIVE CREATIVITY
TK = TACIT KNOWLEDGE
The first C of the CCC, namely conciousness, involves perception,
apprehension and comprehension of the last two CC's, namely
Constructive Creativity. This CCC involves all the levels of my
personality. The second C tells me that I have to distinguish
between Constructive (positive) and Destructive (negative) outcomes.
The third C tells me that that I have to be aware of Creativity as
something very basic to my mental changes.
I would reformulate your second formula as
TK + CCC ==> EK
where
TK = TACIT KNOWLEDGE
CCC = CONSCIOUSNESS OF CONSTRUCTIVE CREATIVITY
EK = EXPRESSED KNOWLEDGE
I could have called the EK also formal, explicit or articulated
knowledge, but in view of your important comprehension
>This and the "Expressing human experience" discussions
>are both delving into similar effects.
I will rather call it Expressed Knowledge. A funny thing about the way in
which modern society thinks about Expressed Knowledge (EK) (or knowledge
applied recursively) is that it is the pinnacle of a person's and even an
organisation's successful modification -- CAS or Complex Adaptive Systems.
Should we combine these two formulas, we will arrive at
E + 2CCC ==> TK + CCC ==> EK
But should we have written these two formulas as
E + CCC ==> TK +CCC
and
TK + CCC ==> EK + CCC
then their combination will give
E + CCC ==> TK + CCC ==> EK + CCC
We can now employ a idiosyncratic, but very powerful mental
act of chemists -- do not write down those things in a reaction
which do not change themselves. The result will be
E ==> TK ==> EK
It tells how we express our experiences -- first by growing in
intuition (tacit knowledge) and then creating something by that
intuition. (Some call it innovation, but it is what artists have been
manifestion for eons) It also tells us that the CCC functions as a
catalyst, something which participates in the transformation, but
which do not become transformed itself.
Dan, my first question to you now is:- Will you keep on writing
EXPERIENCE + POSITIVE PERCEPTION ==> POSITIVE EXPERIENCE
after what I have written above, or will you not rather write it as
EXPERIENCE + POSITIVE PERCEPTION
==> POSITIVE EXPERIENCE + POSITIVE PERCEPTION
In the first case the POSITIVE PERCEPTION gets consumed,
but in the second case the POSITIVE PERCEPTION acts like a
catalyst so that it does not disappear!
My second question to you is:- What in this POSITIVE PERCEPTION makes it a
POSITIVE PERCEPTION and not merely a PERCEPTION? If it is merely one
thing in it, then we can say that it is the positive which makes it
positive. (I myself would not stop here, but try to find a synonym for the
positive.) But should there be more than one thing, then they all together
makes it positive.
My third question to you is:- Is it either one thing or many things which
make PERCEPTION positive -- the "exclusive or" of LEM, or is not perhaps
possible that both one thing AND many things make this PERCEPTION positive
-- the "inclusive and" which defies LEM. (LEM is the Law of the Excluded
Middle of logic.) Should the latter inclusive case rather than the former
exclusive case apply, how this be possible other than by emergences?
For those fellow learners who really want Zen whipping, as Sajeela M
Ramsey <sajeelacore@juno.com> wrote in "Desert wisdom LO24311"
>What a riot! You really had me going there for a second, til I read
>the donkey droppings bit. The artists' approach reminds me of three
>things:
>1) the Zen whip technique
(Sajeela, being a chemistry teacher gives one much more opportunity to
"bang the learner on the head" ;-) A small explosion here and a disgusting
smell there -- destructive pointers -- or a the slow growth of a crystal
here and the fragrance of a compound there -- constructive pointers -- can
do wonders to get hold of the learner's attention.)
Is the CCC really a catalyst in the sense of chemistry, or is it rather an
enzyme in the sense of biology? A catalyst in the sense of chemistry do
not get consumed by any reaction and will be exactly the same as a billion
years ago. An enzyme in the sense of biology is such that in the lifetime
of a particular specimen, it is merely a chemical catalyst. But in the
evolution of the species of that specimen, it did change gradually through
thousands of generations of specimens to become a perceptible change. Then
suddenly, through the course of a couple of dozen generations, it changes
dramatically to become altogether a new enzyme of a new species.
In other words, is the CCC (Consciousness of Constructive Creativity)
something which stays indefinitely the same, or is there a gradual change
in it requiring many years to become perceptable with occasionally a
dramatic change in it over a couple of months?
Or to use Dan's words, does your POSITIVE PERCEPTION remains indefinitely
the same, or does it become slightly more positive with once in a while a
dramatic surge in positiveness? Now what on earth or in heaven is
responsible for this strange rhythm in your POSITIVE PERCEPTION?
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 <Richard@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.