Replying to LO24669 --
Warning: I have done again, that I have tried to avoid for quite a while.
This will appear to be somewhat insider-talk for those who don't enjoy
At's writing as I am doing.
>It is strange way you have said it, namely that the goal of fear is not to
this is closely linked to anyother question which I wrote about: What is
the authentic learning of a seed in dry sand? Dry sand is not for all
sorts of seed a destructive environment. For most seeds the digestive
system of a bird when picked up is a destructive environment, but again
not for all. The question when to start translates for the seed into when
to germinate. In this situation, fear tells: Not yet. My use of the word
fear was meant within that context. I didn't intend to give a
comprehensive definition of such a complex pattern like fear in general.
>Here are three questions which you can ponder over in your own learning.
>What is the relationship between fear and destructive creativity coming
>from the environment? Can the system sustain itself against this
>destructive creativity and thus overcome its own fear by responding self
>with destructive creativity coming from within? What will happen to the
>system when it does not make a distinction between destructive and
I can imagine that you have formed these questions while I was writing my
second mail to Sajeela on domination and partnership. Now that you ask the
questions I can see that I've responded to them. But if you'd have asked
them before, I wouldn't have been able to answer them the way I did. Isn't
For the present context, I realized from Ian Saunders response, how easy
it is to assume a destructive environment from the formulation 'kick in
the ass'. I hope I could make clear in my reply to him that the task of
the stages before is nothing but to make sure that the environment is in
fact constructive, so that your questions, important as they are ought not
to apply to the situation I thought of.
On the question why there may be some 'irrational fear' left after
overcoming the rational fear - no, I must say: after utilizing the
legitimate reservations - I am very grateful for the clues you gave on
inertia stemming from rote knowledge and rote belief.
My understanding of Mortys Decision Maker process in your terminology
(trying to be fruitful) is following:
Somewhen, due to overwhelming evidence by an intense flow of experiences
some knowledge arise from it which condense into a belief. This belief
Later, due to destructive influences destroying the learning abilities of
the person, the belief becomes disconnected from the flow of experiences
and knowledge. The price is that new experiences and knowledge do not
shape and grow the persons faith as a unique whole anymore. The ordinate
feedback loop is broken.
But the backaction is still active. This leads to the dynamic that
fragmented beliefs start to shape knowledge and finally experiences. The
belief has crowned itself king and by making any experience consistent to
the belief the feedback loop is closed again. This is a very, very good
thing and must be acknowledged as such.
It is a kind of immune reaction to destructive events. It is like stopping
to breathe and shut the mouth while diving. But like in diving one loses
ones consciousness when it takes too long, the ordinate feedback loop gets
closed up when the destructive events endure. This is when the fragmented
beliefs in their honest and important attempt to save the person, grow in
inertia. The experience when those beliefs are touched and challenged is
that of life threat, the reactions are accordingly. Morty gives compelling
examples in his book.
What the Decision Maker process basically does in my understanding now is
that those fragmented beliefs are identified in an appreciative manner
(the lever is caring love!) and suspended into a greater whole. When this
happens, new experiences can serve again as the source of the ordinate
Dear At, thank you for cautioning me not to confuse content- und
form-resistance with Mortys challenge. I think I don't. I see the unique
additional contribution which he makes. It is not sufficient to deal with
the establishment of the seven essentialities alone, it is not sufficient
to deal with entropic forces and fluxes as if one could design a brandnew
system from nothing. One also has to deal with those lonely wholes,
created authentically in the past, became fragmented over time but which
are still trying to do their best. In the prozess of establishing the
essentialities, they will speak up. Then it is good to have the choice to
thank them for their service and suspend them into the greater whole.
At, how sure are you that there is such a thing like rote learning or rote
believing? This is a serious question, perhaps the most serious one I have
ever asked you.
"Winfried Dressler" <email@example.com>
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.