Values and feelings LO24653

From: AM de Lange (
Date: 05/22/00

Replying to LO24611 --

Dear Organlearners,

Philip Pogson <> writes:

>.....Kevin Cashman defines leadership as-
>"authentic self expression that creates value."
>I think leadership is more than this, but to me his definition
>does encapsulate a key part of leadership and learning. When
>we are operating from our authentic selves, we are creating
>"value" by this definition.

Greetings Philip,

Thank you for your fine response.

In the part which I have quoted, the concepts "authenticity" and
"creativity" seem to go together. Are they really inseparatable? Let us

The word "authentic" comes from the Greek word "authentos" meaning
"actual author". In those days there were few literate people who often
had to write and read for others. Thus literate people were more aware of
the difference between the literate self-writer "authentos" (even
dictating included) or a help-writer "boethegraphos" for illiterate
people. The illiterate person could not ensure that his/her thoughts were
represented correctly by the "boethegraphos", except by using afterwards
other "boethegraphos" for second/third/... opinions (which they seldom
could afford). Despite how many "boethegraphos" employed, the illiterate
person had to trust other people to articulate his/her thoughts correctly.

Dear Philip, you also write:

>The trick is to learn day by day to know ourselves better, to
>understand our context more deeply, and to constantly clarify
>what is important to us - - what we believe in.

I had to smile upon your using of the word "trick". It entails that
somebody who knows the "trick", may easily be judged as "clever" ;-)
Perhaps the word "art" would have served better here. But then, good
artists are often accused of being tricksters par excellence ;-)

Anyway, there is much value in what you have written. I will now sketch at
the level of "deep creativity" a context for it.

It seems that sureness comes as a result of self-creating. But actually
sureness is involved like liveness, wholeness and the other four
essentialities in the self-creating. So when, for example, sureness lacks
so as to create self, some of the self-creating has to be directed into
developing the sureness. Consequently, the seven essentialities may help
each of us to know the self better. In terms of "deep creativity" it is
not only humans who are creative, but is creativity the most important
property of environment of every person. Consequently, the seven
essentialities may help us also to know the context of each of us better.

As I understand it, believing emerges from learning and thus gives quality
to learning. Because it is an emergent activity, it also depends on the
seven essentialities. Consequently, the seven essentialities will even
help us also to know the value of our beliefs better. It is this value
which makes our beliefs so important to us. The highest value of all is
that of unconditional love -- the spark from God known as the human
divine. It is through authentic learning that we know to trust God who is

>When we are not operating from our authentic selves, we are
>probably engaging in the creation of management/leadership/..
>../intellectual hot air!

It almost seems as if the word "creation" above does not fit. But when we
are not operating authentically, what are we then doing? Do we not then
copy -- behave like a fax-machine -- data in, facsimile out? Well, to make
a fax-machine of quality also requires creativity. But it is a restricted
creativity which has to serve conformation rather than exploring the
essentiality otherness to its fullest. This has to be avoided when
exploring our creativity and learning based on it to its fullest. I wish
traditional education will become aware to this restricted creativity
which prevents so many learners to develop into leaders. Thus we can put
an end to this increasing need for authentic leaders because of a
diminishing supply.

Philip, what I did above was to stress the role of the seven
essentialities in authentic behaviour, nowadays also known as
self-organising behaviour or autopoiesis. By that I do not intend to
discredit at all what you have written, namely:

>How do we tell the difference? How do we recognise the authentic
>learner and/or the authentic leader? Perhaps by the results gained,
>by the sustainability of the efforts, by the congruence between
>"espoused theory" and "theory in use", by his/her quaity of
>character, by the capacity the person shows for reflection, self
>critique, and service of others.

It often happens that fellow learners perceive my comments at the level of
"deep creativity" on the contribution of fellow learners as a deeply
adversial confrontation, a clever manipulation of the thoughts of others,
a dishonest discredit of the achievements of other learners, an
insensitive evasion of contextual differences, an androcentric oppression
of personalities, an esoteric overemphasis of knowledge in communication,
an intimidating wisacre, etc. I cannot prevent fellow learners from
forming such perceptions, nor do I want to control them to think
otherwise, because then I would be meddling with their authentic learning
which is as dear to me as they are.

But I can offer an explanation why it happens so regularly as the coming
of the seasons. Rick has wisely allowed over the years the passionate
responses of some fellow learners (eg. S.E., J.Z., J.G., G.R. and S.M.R. )
who have such perceptions. When it happened the first time, Winfried
Dressler exclaimed at a certain stage of the dialogue (/discussion?) that
it was for him almost like Goethe's drama Faust repeating itself. It
happens whenever a learner looses focus on "deep creativity" in the
background involving "third order learning" so as to bring it into focus
with the first level of "double loop learning" in the foreground. I here
follow a suggestion made by Jan Lelie in LO24566 "Learning IT or Learning

        So either you're trying to cover-up something - unlikely- or you
        have a kind of third-order learning in mind that first trancends
        existing paradigms and then generates a new culture.

By bringing that in the distant background and that in the immediate
foreground into the same depth of perception, one of these levels has to
get out of focus. Our eyes work like this and even camera lenses operate
the same. I have made considerable effort to explain that this is not
merely an optical phenomenon, but that it even happens in what is known as
the Quantum Mechanical "measurement problem". It can be explained as the
advanced explication of the implicate wave packet, i.e. losing tacit
information when articulating some of it. The functioning of the
microtubelae in all our cells including the neurons depends on it. Can it
be different with our mind than with our brain? I even have invited a
LO-dialogue with the topic "Expressing experiences" so that we all can
learn more from it.

What more can I do? Winfried Dressler gave a magnificent answer which he
learned authentically himself -- one must keep quiet on some of the things
which one knows so as not to blur the concepts of others prematurely. Yes,
I can stop trotting like the lone ass in front. But as a result of my own
authentic learning so as to succeed in my mission as a teacher, there are
things (like "deep creativity" and "personal experiences") which I cannot
keep quiet on.

Whenever any teacher decides to help others who also want to learn
authentically what the teacher self already did learn authentically, the
teacher is in for much feelings like that depicted by Goethe in Faust --
the pain of hell and the joy of heaven. Should the teacher not learn how
to harmonise these feelings with thinking, the teacher will never endure
so as to emerge from level to level. All which remains is to pursue rote
learning, i.e "fax-machine learning -- data in, facsimile out". This is
the price to pay for fragmentation.

Philip, you notice that authentic learning leads to results made possible
by the "sustainability of the efforts". I agree. Here is again some "third
level" notes. Sustainablity or endurance comes from endeavouring for art
(harmony and rhythm) wherever two different facets of the personality
interacts. We also have to make an art of the interaction between feeling
and thinking so as to grow in endurance -- a renewable supply of "free
energy" -- an sustainable motivation.

You also notice that authentic learning requires the congruence between
"espoused theory" and "theory in use". Again I agree. It involves an
interplay between the seven essentialities. The liveness is depicted by
the "espoused theory" as being and the "theory in use" as becoming. To
become requires "free energy" for "entropy production" (increased
organisation) which itself is limited by otherness. To renew the "free
energy" for advanced purposes requires creative collapses by openness.
This is supplied by letting go of present organisations rooted in the past
so as to gain in sureness.

You also notice that authentic learning requires "the capacity the person
shows for reflection, self critique". How can I differ? What about some
"third level" notes? The capacity for reflection and self testing requires
an advanced evolution in the constructive creativity of the person. So
what makes creativity constructive other than the seven essentialities?
What will happen when these seven contingencies retrogress?

You finally notice that authentic learning manifests in "service of
others". Amen. In order to serve others, the server has to have valuable
things which can be served as well as a commitment to caring love. Both
requires a web of emergences through bifurcations from lower to higher
orders so as to become actual. Should one or more of the seven
essentialities not be sufficiently mature to guide these bifurcations into
constructive emergences, the alternative future is destructive
immergences. Nothing valuable to give and no caring.

>I saw aspects of many of the above in Dennis' post, and it shone
>out so much I wished to encourage him and, implicitly, hope he
>will continue to strive, as many of us do, to simultaneously grow
>both intellectually and in our wisdom.

Thank you for encouraging him. There are many fellow learners who in their
Personal Mastery needs such encouragment. I have done the same in response
to a previous contribution by Dennis in which I admired his bravery. He is
a wonderful example to millions wanting rectification. As the world become
more more complex, the less it will become possible for rectification
outside the nutritional niche of the LO.

Personal Mastery (PM) and Team Learning (TL) are two of the five
disciplines of a LO. Together they form a complementary dual which
somewhat reflects authentic learning. The push-pull action of TL is most
important. We can push by encouragement on the feeling side, but we have
to pull each other by pointing out possible guide lines on the thinking
side. My reply to Dennis was in a pulling sense, following up my previous

With care and best wishes


At de Lange <> 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 <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.