Replying to LO24364 --
Dear Organlearners,
John H. Dicus <jdicus@ourfuture.com> writes:
>I wanted to share one way I have used the word "unlearning."
>I was looking for a way to frame a concept and remembered
>hearing, at one time in the past, the word "unbelief." As I recall,
>the word implied a slightly different meaning for me than disbelief,
>or simply not believing.
Greetings John,
Wow, I almost had another fright. My mother tongue Afrikaans have many
similarities with English. It is because modern English has evolved from
Old English, a Germanic language. Afrikaans has also evolved from a
number of old Germanic languages.
Because of these similarities, I often assume that some Germanic prefixes
in English have the same meaning as in Afrikaans. I do it because I do not
have time to check up every English word which I use. It also had been the
case with the prefix "un-" (English) or "on-" (Afrikaans).
This assumption of syntactical similarities between English and Afrikaans
works well, but in a few cases it leads led to errors. A similar
assumption between English and the more than 1000 Banthu languages in
Southern Africa will soon lead to innumerous, gross errors. As you have
said so eloquently:
>But remember, a word, no matter how powerful its ability to
>shape meaning, is in the end just a word. My thought is that
>it's important that we ask and say what is meant by any word.
Reading your paragraph which I quoted in the beginning made me look up
what "un-" in English really means. In Afrikaans the "on-" before a verb
indicate the reverse action of the verb. But the "on-" before a verb with
a negative meaning intensify that negative meaning. The "on-" before a
noun or predicate (adjective or adverb) indicate the opposite (not) of
that noun or predicate. It is the same as in English! Thus my momentary
fright had no substance.
When I saw you comparing "unlearning" with "unbelief", I suddenly realised
that you may be using "learning" as a noun (having "knowledge as as a
synonym) since "belief" is a noun. Thus when you speak of the "unlearning"
of "something", you mean the undoing or destroying of the knowledge of
that "something" rather than the "learning" which rtaher has to be
extended. Perhaps other learners who have supported the idea of
"unlearning" did it too.
But what about "unlearning" where the "learning" is a verb! In this case
it means a reversing of the action in learning. This brings us to a very,
very fundamental question: Is learning a reversible or an irreversible
act? It is here where each of us has distinguish what is making sense to
us. For me it is motivation which makes learning intrinsically
irreversible. The less the motivation, the more reversible the learning
becomes.
Something like "rote learning" (learning which happens like in a machine)
is for me reversible learning. Its like putting a car into reverse gear.
However, when I am motivated to learn by experiences whereby such
experiences emerge into tacit knowledge can only be irreversible. In terms
of the car -- even though the car can be put in reverse gear so that it
will move backwards, its engine still turns irreversibly in the same
direction because it relies on the combustion of fuel which is an
irreversible chemical reaction. The germination of a seed kernel into a
seedling is a prefect example of the irreversibility of an emergence. The
seedling cannot ever reverse back into a seed kernel. It can only become a
seed again by a cyclic chain of emergent and digestive events, all of them
irreversible, when it finally produces as a mature plant seed once again.
Likewise that learning which let tacit knowledge emerge into explicit
knowledge is also irreversible. All these "irreversible steppings" in
learning together I then call by the collective name "authentic learning".
The second hot question now is: Will we accomplish the "unlearning" (noun)
with "reversible" or "irreversible" learning? Should we try to accomplish
"unlearning" (noun) with "reversible" learning, then we need no
motivation to do so! On the other hand, should we try to accomplish
"unlearning" (noun) with "irreversible" learning, it will only happen
when we have sufficient motivation to do so.
John, you conclude your explanation of "unlearning" with:
>So, I used "unlearning" to describe the situation where people
>in dynamically complex environments lose hold of previous
>leanings that would have continued to serve them. They went
>"backwards," so to speak. They moved away from the path
>they really wanted to be on because time dependency (variable
>delay) and the complexity of the environment was confusing them
>into incorrectly associating cause and effect. They could not
>make good sense of what was happening.
Your last sentence "They could not make good sense of what was happening."
indicates to me that "making good sense" is a strong motivation. Thus I
myself would look for some irreversible learning. The phrase "They moved
away from the path they really wanted to be on" indicates by virtue of the
"want" to me that this path which they wanted to be on can only be covered
by irrversible learning. So how did they "move away" from it -- by a
reversible or an irreversible act?
I have studied your contribution over and over again, trying to get
an idea which case you prefer. I could not get a clear indication.
The
>....people in dynamically complex environments lose hold of
>previous leanings that would have continued to serve them. They
>went "backwards," so to speak."
indicates that you favour a reversible act. So does also the next
paragraph:
>The MM's became less enabling. In this context, the people
>ceased to believe in things that had served them well and would
>have continued to serve them well had they not chosen to loose
>faith in them.
However, the "ceased to believe" points to a "reversible" act of
believing! Once again we have to ask ourselves: Is "believing" a
reversible or an "irreversible" act as we have asked ourselves also with
respect to "learning"? Just as we get "rote learning", we can also get
"rote believing" which is also reversible. In terms of my own
understanding I am sure that the reason why the MM's became "less
enabling" is because they were based on "rote believing"! MM's based on
irreversible believing keep on enabling the person to make sense out of
learning. It happens by way of the "back action" which completes the
feedback loop between knowledge and faith.
>In my case, I had introduced a time delay into the learning
>feedback of an experiential learning exercise. No other
>changes were made other than to add a delay that was
>significant enough to confuse what earlier had been
>near-instantaneous feedback. It's not possible to print the
>names I have been called in the spirit of learning, or depict
>the gestures that have been evoked when cause and effect
>are delayed (and appear to be uncoupled). People in these
>situations seem to let go of many things they've held dear
>and began searching for new "laws" to guide them. (not
>to mention a bit of blaming) Hence my choice of the word
>"unlearning."
Dear John, I resonate very much with this. In my case I make the learner
aware of the greater complexity involved ("paint rich picture"). The more
complex any creation, the longer its creation time. Thus, introducing
complexity of higher orders involved (like faith and love) brings about a
time delay. Yes, people often react vicious when the "spirit of learning"
comes into play. But what exactly is this "spirit of learning"? How would
I like a LO-dialogue on it. For me "creativity", "motivation",
"irreversibility" and "higher order feedbacks" are indissoluble facets of
this "spirit of learning".
Thus I am sure that I have amazed you once again since you wrote:
>As an aside to this context above... I've been amazed at
>how many extraordinarily complex explanations,
>composition/connection-wise, people can come up with to
>explain what's going on but hardly ever expect something
>as simple as behavior-over-time, or delays in learning loop
>feedback. They imagine all sorts of complexity as pertains
>to pieces-parts and how they're wired together (so to speak),
>but don't seem to have much experience as to how these
>pieces-parts influence one another over time (as the system
>goes into motion). Have we become freeze-frame analysts?
Perhaps I am still too much a "freeze-frame analyst" despite all my
musings on the "becoming-being" pattern ;-)
Any way, I have answered your seemingly simple observation that "simple as
behavior-over-time, or delays in learning loop feedback" can be
accomplished by introducing the very "all sorts of complexity" which you
seem to dismiss! It may seem to be amazing to you, but it is very relevant
to me.
As for the "but don't seem to have much experience as to how these
pieces-parts influence one another over time", I love it because somehow
you admit that experiences in learning are important ;-) Any way, if any
of you fellow learners want more than enough experiences how students
interpret ordinary facts of observation into surrealistic conclusions,
begin teaching chemistry as soon as possible. I often think of chemistry
(and not, for example philosophy or theology) as the principal subject for
uncovering our strange ways of thinking.
Telling a student in chemistry that a conclusion which he/she made is
surrealistic even though the observation on which it was based, is as
sound as can be, is enough to discourage that student from all further
learning in chemistry. What the lecturer rather should do, is to ask the
student by a series of questions how he/she came to that conclusion so
that the student becomes aware how the conclusion was reached by "these
pieces-parts influence[ing] one another over time". Once the lecturer
begins to do this, he/she is in for a great surprise! (Obviously, one of
the greates barriers to be overcome, is that the student to not suspect
something sinister from such a series of questions or becomes intimidated
by them.) Here is the surprise:
Very, very few students base their conclusions on using only the "pure
chemistry" which they already have "learned authentically". Should they
do this, they will quickly discover "immense holes" in what they have not
yet learned authentically. What most of the students actually do, is to
use a fact from another domain of their knowledge or even religion,
generalise it and then apply that to the "hole" which they are tacitly
aware of to "cover the hole up". This is the main way how a "sound
observation" and an "unsound generalisation" can lead to a "surrealistic
conclusion". (Please note that I am not claiming that all generalisations
are unsound!)
The fact that students "take a fact from another domain of knowledge or
religion, generalises it and then apply it to cover up the hole" is itself
a very important observation. Why do they do it? Is it the result of some
worthless "rote learning" and "rote believing" which they have been
subjected to, or does it point to something other than brain
washing/programming? Perhaps they have learned authentically by all their
experiences in all the realms of life that there are some patterns
pervading life everywhere. If this is the case, should they not be guided
how to articulate these extremely important "all pervading patterns"? Do
these "all pervading patterns" not point to a basic complexity in life, a
complexity which we cannot deny any more?
What I have learned by guiding thousands of learners and students, is that
one has to go with each of them through the WEB of "these pieces-parts
influence[ing] one another over time" so as to help the student to think
each influence carefully over, SEEKING CREATIVE EXPLANATIONS AT THE
SLIGHTEST INDICATION OF DOUBT. This places an incredible load on the time
of the teacher. Few teachers are motivated to make such time available to
students. Many teachers rather use the system of "rote learning" or
"research responsibilities" as an excuse for not making such time
available.
>Warm regards,
Thank you John for making me aware that some will think of "unlearning" as
a noun (being) while others will think of it as a verb (becoming).
May I point to a curious and widespread (90%+) belief among first year
chemistry students here in South Africa. I have taught a representative
section of them. (Some papers in international Journals of Chemical
Education point to the same thing in other countries too. But since few
lecturers have become aware of the importance of "irreversible"
self-organisation (Prigogine) or autopoeiesis (Maturana), few have
investigated this belief per se and the vast misconceptions it gives rise
to.) Students believe that the chemical reaction is reversible.
The chemical reaction is intrinsically irreversible. It takes me many
moons to afford students so many experiences to this fact that they begin
to question their belief to the contrary. Only then are they in a position
to correct the innumerous misconceptions which they based on this belief
of reversibility. Speak of a time-delay ;-) I wish it was possible to
show them within one day how unsubstantiated this belief is because then
they would have infered far less misconceptions. I do not expect it to be
much different for the belief that learning (verb) is reversible ;-)
The sad thing about it all is that once they began to accept
the fact that a chemical reaction is indeed absolutely irreversible,
based on innumerous, undeniable experiences, they have to learn
that the "irreversibility" of the reaction does not imply that it is
impossible for the reverse reaction to happen! Yes, let me repeat
it again -- the "irreversibility" of any "becoming" does not imply the
"imposssibility" of reversing that very "becoming"!!! I know that
it sounds illogical -- even crazy, come to think of it. But perhaps
one day we might have a LO-dialogue on this crazy topic. The
following will be a catching title for this LO-dialogue:
How to reverse irreversible changes.
Perhaps it may help us to understand more that incredible
thing which we do in our Germanic derived languages: adding the
prefix "un-" to a verb to indicate the reverse act. It is
syntactically
so simple to do -- just fix it to the verb. But semantically it has
complex ramifications. To repeat once more your wise words:
My thought is that it's important that we ask
and say what is meant by any word.
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.