Replying to LO24654 --
Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
>I see resistance to proposed changes as follows:
>- I don't see the improvement
>- I see negative side effects (Yes, but...)
>- I see obstacles on the route of implementing the
>improvement (Other type of Yes but...)
>
>This is not 'resistance to change' in my eyes, but constructive
>criticism.
>Very valuable.
Greetings Winfried,
Thank you for bringing some complexity into the subject.
When we look at changes in nature, the "resistance to change" there is
very complex. Should we thus expect the resistance to change in human
culture to be less complex, I think we are on the wrong track.
The first thing to note about "resistance to change" in nature is that
there is a "implicate" or "content" resistance which is directly involved
with the "entropy production" during such change. Let us restrict our
examples to electrical energy. But let us bear in mind that we ought to
discuss all forms of energy to see how the ideas lifted out in our
electrical examples manifest themselves there too. As is the case in
electrical energy, every other form of energy may be represented by an
intensive factor multilplied by an extensive factor.
In electricity we have a relationship between the electrical potential
difference [V(2) - V(1)] and the electrical current /_\Q//_\t which is
known as the Ohmic resistance R. Here the [V(2) - V(1)], which is a
difference between two values of an intensive quantity, acts as an
entropic force. The flow /_\Q in electrical charge, which is a change
between two values of an extensive quantity, acts as an entropic flux. The
resistance R indicates how much entropy will be produced for a certain
change /_\Q in the electrcial charge. The value of R can be constant like
in most metal conductors so as to give rise to linear phenomena. But the
value of R can also change like in electrolytes (as in neurons) and
semiconductors (as in computers) for fantastic non-linear phenomena to
emerge like thinking (employing neurons) and computing (employing
transistors).
This "implicit" resistance is not only beneficial for "entropy production"
within the system, but also protects the surrounding systems (please note
the order) from changes in the system. Let me again offer an exquisite
example. Through some exquisite theoretical predictions, it become
possible to construct what is known "super conductors". They are used in
very powerful electro- magnets such as those used in NMR spectroscopy.
Should one try to tap to an external system the electrical free energy in
a superconducting magnet (which may happen as the reverse case when trying
to charge it), it will blow that external system into smithereens because
of immense "entropy production" in that external system. In other words,
"implicit" resistance are nature's way to share "entropy production" among
all systems rather than restrict them to a few systems which will then
immerge because of too rapid changes.
When we now shift back to human behaviour, is it not the case that many
facilitators who want to reduce "resistance to change", actually have
"super-conducting" conditions in mind? Is it possible to achieve
"super-conducting" conditions in human thinking? In the case of physical
conductors, the temperature has to be lowered below the so-called Curie
point (temperature) which has a value characterestic to the particular
conductor. Then the system, charged with massive amounts of "free energy"
have to be isolated as far as possible. (Reduce openness.) In human
thinking the analog would be to reduce feelings (the source of "temper")
below a certain value so that what remains is "cold-blooded" thinking.
This has to be followed up by a severe reduction of openness employing
secrecy and hyper-specialisation.
When thinking of modern warfare (nuclear, chemical, biological,
economical, psychological and even spiritual), I wonder why people
concerned about the future of humankind have not yet began to think about
the possibility of "super-conducting" thinking. Is the world not close
to, as we say in my mother tongue, a "tranedal" (valley of tears)? What do
we need to know so as to conduct to conduct "super-conducting" thinking?
How would someone who know how to conduct "super-conducting" thinking,
avoid it for the benefit of fellow learners? Is it not perhaps by showing
carefully feelings as well as thinking, harmonising the two into
temperament which makes possible emergence upon emergence up to caring
love?
Dear Winfried, the points which you have pondered in the quotation
above, has not so much to do with the "content" resistance as
with the "form" resistance. You make me very happy because
your sensitivity to the seven essentialities have helped you to point
out to us in the LO-dialogue this kind of resistance. I see in your
. "I don't see the improvement" an awareness to liveness
. "I see negative side effects" an awareness to some impaired
. essentialities
. "I see obstacles on the route of implementing" and awareness
. to wholeness and fruitfulness, i.e, difficulty in commuting.
I think that you are capable of pursuing these kind of resistances very
far. But perhaps the following advice will help you even more. You need
to prepare yourself mentally (in the Pasteurian sense) for the complexity
of culture. Thus you need to excercise your mind systematically.
Take the conduction of electricty in metals as an exemplar -- your
training in physics will be of a great help to you. Trace how each
essentiality effects the conduction of electricity in a network. Do not
forget to bring in semi-conductor technology because you will get
remarkable insights on fruitfulness by tracing the working of the p-n
junction. Then bring in the whole issue of electrochemistry so as to
broaden and deepen your insights of the effects of the seven
essentialities. I know that this will be more difficult because it will
now involve also chemistry, but the excercise will be all the trouble
worth while. As a test on your preparation, find yourself a good book on
the neurological system and trace the effects of the seven essentialities
again. By that time the connection between the material brain and abstract
mind will have become more real to you.
Take care not confuse Morty Lefkoe's challenge to the natural
resistance of people to change as a challenge to "implicate" or
"content" resistance or even "form" resistance. (Morty, if you want
to challenge even these two kinds of resistances depicted above,
you are free to do so.) I think that the following paragraph points to
what Morty has in mind:
. "People do not resist change. People act consistently with
. their beliefs. They think what they do is appropriate, natural,
. "right." If you want them to do something inconsistent with
. their beliefs, they experience what you want them to do as
. inappropriate, unnatural, and "wrong." People don't resist
. change as such, they resist doing what they think is wrong."
. (LO24640)
This is something most important which relatively few people are still
aware off. It is because of the digestor action of human culture's
increasing complexity on the evolution of human personality. In order to
combat this digestion, the essentialities are deliberately impaired (for
example, fragmentation rather than wholeness) so as to "resist the
digestion". However, this strategy is a shot in the feet because it makes
all of our creativity less constructive, including our ability to
innovate.
As I understand it and have explained it before, the act of believing
emerges from the act of learning. In other words, the level of faith is at
a higher order than the level of knowledge. In other words, faith is more
than knowledge -- faith is knowledge plus something else. (What is thise
something else?) Because of the very emergence of the one from the other,
an "ordinate feedback loop" is set up between the two levels. This loop
cannot exist without specific an emergence as the kind of relationship
between the two levels. Other kinds of relationships cannot form an
"ordinate feedback loop".
Unfortunately, we can have "rote believing" just as we can have "rote
learning" learning. Rote learning involves memorisation and regurgitation
of fragments of knowledge which were originally created by authentic
learners. Likewise "rote believing" involves memorisation and
regurgitation of fragments of faith which were the original outcomes of
authentic believing, emerging from authentic learning. Bits of knowledge
acquired by rote learning usually have a great inertia. Learners find it
very difficult to employ such information acquired by rote learning into
future learning changes. Likewise believers find it very difficult to
employ bits of faith aquired by rote believing into future believing
changes. The inertia here is orders more. But this is not the end!
What is even worse inertia by way of the "ordinate feedback loop" is the
resistance which rote believing have on authentic learning. Rote
believing leads to "assumed" fragments of faith just like rote learning
leads to "assumed" fragments of knowledge rather than authentic ("de
facto") knowledge. My studies of the advancement of science have shown me
clearly how authentic articles of faith guided authentic learning through
the powerful "back action" of the "ordinate feedback loop". For example,
Einstein believed so strongly in the wholeness of nature that it guided
him in creating his theories (special and general) of relativity, changing
his thinking in a way which never happened before. Whereas authentic
articles of faith have this powerful guidance on the change of thinking
and thus behaviour, fragments of faith aquired by rote believing are
usually alien to the particular "ordinate feedback loop" of a particular
person. They are massive obstacles which cause immense resistance to the
learning itself. They destroy the creativity of a person severest.
Finally, let us consider the following sentence:
. When the beliefs are gone (which takes a matter of
. minutes), a new change becomes natural and effortless.
What beliefs do we speak of here? Are they beliefs acquired through rote
believing or do they also involve beliefs which emerged through authentic
learning? Should they involve authentic, beliefs, it is easy to destroy
them -- impair merely one of the seven essentialities. But what price will
we have to pay? As I understand it, an irreversible loss lower down of
authentic learning and eventually constructive creativity as well as
higher up of caring love.
I myself will resist the removal of my authentic beliefs with all which I
can muster. As for beliefs acquired through rote learning (i.e. assumed
beliefs) a fellow learner merely has to point them out for me to make work
of them. Winfried, is this not a strange application for transistor
modeling -- the on(conductive)/off(isolative) switching? Get hold of the
input current to the base and you can control the larger flow of current
between the emittor and collector. Now think in terms of wholeness and the
associativity pattern in it. Can you see why so many people go for the
control of the mouthpiece?
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.