At's and Sajeela's Ways of Learning LO24723

From: AM de Lange (
Date: 05/31/00

Replying to LO24702 --

Dear Organlearners,

Sajeela M Ramsey <> writes (>):
(in reply to my >>)
>> We must take care to promote the imagination of kids.
>Again, (picky picky Sajeela) if you say "we must" At, can you
>imagine that I might take offense to this because it feels like you
>are spaekingAT me instead of with me? If you said this instead:
>"I believe that it is so important to promote the imagination of
>then I experience your staement very differently At. I experience
>that you are talking to me from your center, and not that you are
>telling me how I and all the rest should think. When you say
>"we must" it fells so much like an assumption to me, or an order
>you are giving me, rather then an invitation to see if I want to go
>there with you.

Greetings Sajeela,

I am not replying only to you, but since I have to link to what you have
said, I have to pay courtesy to you too. If you perhaps are going to
interpret this contribution as an attack on you or on woman in general, I
would kindly suggest that you read not further. On the other hand,
"Sajeela, you might really enjoy reading ...." the rest.

Many have complained about the "deep thinking" in some of the
contributions on this list. This one will go very, very deep so that I
kindly suggest that you ought to tap the ESC key or click the CLOSE

I have written perhaps the most of all on this list. Should we count how
many times I used the word "must", I wonder if it will ever be a double
digit number? In other words, I have used this word less than 0.0001%. Is
it because this word ("moet" in my mother tongue) and its usage is unknown
to me?

One of the ways in which people were forced into uphelding the ideology
and policy of apartheid was through an excessive use of the word "must".
My own awareness to it came some thirty years ago when I listen to a
speach on an important day by an important man beginning with: "Whether
the goverment is right or wrong is not the issue, but what is important is
that you must trust the government."

The issue here is the "must" and not the "trust". I have written on that
"trust" in other contributions, but not yet on the "must". It is now time
for that too.

The far majority of languages all over the world have three kinds of
sentences: statements, questions and commands. Technically they are called
declarative, interrogative and imperative sentences. Metaphorically
speaking they make a person a priest/ess, prophet/ess and king/queen.

One of the most profound discoveries in the study of logic (99.99% of all
the studies went into declarative logic) is that it cannot resolve on its
own its paradoxes. It eventually triggered perhaps the most famous theorem
ever proved called the Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Goedel. Its
counterpart in quantum mechanics is known as the Measurement Problem.

To command "We must not use the word MUST" will be a paradox of imperative
logic. To resolve this paradox we will have to get out of the "domain of
all logic" into the whole. Now what is this "domain of all logic"? The
answer is subtile, but hopefully it will make tangible sense to fellow
learners: "anything symbolised, including languages and all artifacts of
art". It entails that "experential knowledge" and "tacit knowledge" are
outside the "domain of all logic", something which few who like to argue
on experience and intuition are aware of. Thus many mathematicians who are
often masters of logic try to say as little on experience and intuition --
except for one brave Lutzen Brouwer.

What do we get when we leave the "domain of all logic" and not even
restrict ourselves beyond it to experience and intuition? The paradox
which Wittgenstein was so intensely aware of is that as soon as we name
it, it collapses back into the "domain of all logic". Names an other
artifacts are like "black holes". My personal resolution of this paradox
is to talk on it and AT SOME STAGES introduce a "creative collapse" on my
talk so as to connect it effectively by meditation to what I cannot talk.
The subsequent harmonisation then takes me out of the "black hole".

This AT SOME STAGES makes me aware that time has an arrow. Now, if time
has an arrow, then there is a must in MUST. But since so few know anything
more than merely "time has an arrow" I know that I must use the must in
MUST as little as possible. (Jan, note the three levels of must.) On the
other hand, if time does not have an arrow, does it mean conversely that
there is no must in MUST? I wish it was as simple as this dialectic
because imagination stands in the way! We all can imagine the "arrow of
time" away just as a few of us can imagine "entropy production" into the
"arrow of time". From this I conclude that there is a profound
relationship between "must" and "imagination".

Sajeela's response to my calculated risk of using the "must" vindicated
it too (as this sentence may also do for something else ;-)

When do I use the word "must"? Some Science Fiction (SF) writers
distinguish the "primary directives" of robots (machines performing human
tasks). Fellow learners who know me better, know my aversion to the
paradigm of the machine from which even rote mental behaviour (Latin:
"rota"=wheel) sprung forth. Thus, although the SF writers may give us an
important clue, once again we have to question this clue deeply from all
other angles too.

The questioning of Sajeela is one of these possible angles.

Another possible angle is questioning by means of Imperative Logics (IL).
But how many logicians have ever formulated the symbolics of IL? Some
tried, but gave up because it was too complex. I tried also, but from the
viewpoint of complexity itself. I did succeed in formulating symbolical
patterns for IL, but fortunately for all those who hate all formulae, it
is impossible to do it by text alone ;-) I myself had to "hammer" the
equation editor of WordPerfect to its limits to get a "printable" result.
Any way, according to this IL there "must" be a MINIMUM number of "primary
directives". (Please note the minimum in contrast to maximum.)

The smallest non-empty (=with content) number is ONE. So, if the MINIMUM
number of "primary directives" is equal to ONE, what will that primary
directive be? I believe it must be "I must love unconditionally". A
"primary directive" is a command. What about statements? I now have to
face the most profound "primitive fixation" of them all -- the "arrow of
time" results into a "one-to-many-mapping". So I can allow more than one
"primary directives" provided I uproot them wherever possible so that only
the authentic trees of humaneness remain.

It is in this sense that I have written
"We must take care to promote the imagination of kids."

I have not said it in any negative sense. In other words, I did not say NO
to YES. Whoever tries to read a negative sense in it to arrive at some NO
may fell from that moment into the destructive mode of creativity.

How can we get out of this destructive mode? I believe it must be "I must
love unconditionally". But did I not answer here a question, even if
concerns faith rather than knowledge? Yes. We have had a look at "primary
directives" (command) and "primary fixations" (statement), but not yet at
"primary inquiries" (question). So what are the "primary inquiries" which
makes us human?

I wrote:
>>Socrates did not teach any systemic outcome. He merely
>>tried to learn others how to question all things so as to
>>become wise. He taught a systemic way -- the becoming --
>>and found joy in the outcome -- the being --.

Sajeela answer it as follows

>At, this is merely your opinion. You are giving us your opinion,
>and stating it as if it is a fact when it isn't. It is a fact for you
>perhaps, in your own conceptual bubble, bit it isn't in mine,
>and I would prefer if you are speaking to me that you aknowledge
>where your thoughts are coming from and ask my permission
>about taking me there with you, because I just might not want
>to go the journey.

Now (note the question) why (?) did I follow it up with what I have
written as follows

>>Questing-answering is a profound way of problem-solving.
>>Problem-solving is but one of five elementary sustainers for
>>our creativity. That is why too much problem-solving alone
>>cannot sustain creativity.

It is to warn fellow learners once again that much questioning went into
uncovering the "five elementary sustainers of creativity". I have written
in the past on this questioning too. As one fellow learner long ago
created the word "AT-ism", the phrase "five elementary sustainers of
creativity" is a "AT-ism". But if anybody uses this phrase on my authority
rather in terms of his/her won authentic learning, I will gently (using
Winfried's euphemism) "kick that learner in the butt". (Dear Andrew, do
you hear it?) Although my own authentic learning is most important to me,
all its outcomes are at most my opinions which I stress should rather be
burned than authorised. They may be valuable to the digestive phase of
learning, but they are definitely worthless for "rote learning".

Note that Sajeela writes "I would prefer if you are speaking to me that
you aknowledge where your thoughts are coming from". Even though put
softly ("would prefer"), is it a command, a statement or a question? If it
is a command, what would the "primary directive" behind it? Are we
allowed to search for that "primary directive"?

I have written too many times to count how firmly I believe in authentic
learning. My thoughts are coming from the "world-in-me", shaped by the
"world-outside-me", including the thoughts of too many other humans to
count. I can give citations to many of my thoughts, but I don't because of
the following reason. It would indirectly encourage "rote learning" from
the "tyranny of the experts" as a result of the intimidation of
complexity by way of digestor action. I will least of all cite myself --
except to give pointers so as to sustain DIGESTIVE learning following upon
EMERGENT learning.

Note also that Sajeela writes "ask my permission about taking me there
with you, because I just might not want to go the journey." What would
the "primary directive" be behind it? I have written many times on how we
ought to resist from deluging a system with entropy produced from the
outside. I have explained "entropy production" and explained how
destructive creativity most likely will happen within the system when the
chaos comes from without. I know that these explanations sounds like a
fool's paradise.

So let me follow it up with something else. Many ancient religious books
and narratives where books did not exist recall the "Great Deluge". This
contibution is not a learned argument, otherwise I would "deluge" you
fellow learners on this issue with information coming from all continents.
So let it be a "story" so as to sidestep all these complications.

The book Genesis in the Bible has this "story" too which involves
Noah and the Ark. It tells that God has complete control over nature
unlike humankind. Thus God could have stopped the Great Deluge.
The "story" also tells how afterwards God gives Noah a sign that
"never again will nature subject the world to such a deluge of
(my paraphrasing). The sign?
        Gen 9:13~~ "I set My bow in the cloud ...." (otherness)
Should we read even more carefully we will know that God made
a promise to God self and gave the following as a sign:
        Gen 8:22~~ "While the earth remains,
        seedtime and harvest,
        and cold and heat
        and summer and winter
        and day and night
        shall not cease."

Does this mean that all catastrophies of a scale like the Great
Deluge will never happen to the world? Yes, I believe all those
which God have direct control over. But what about all those which
humankind can create -- are they included too? Well, I belive this
answer depends on how each of us view the following three-fold:
        God # control # humankind
(Please remember that this is the associativity sub-pattern of
wholeness with "control" now as the "umlomo" -- mouthpiece.)

I do believe that God has handed incredible control over to humankind in
terms of "human creativity" provided it follows the road of "authentic
learning" and beyond. Obviously, following "authentic learning"
(consisting of digestive and emergent learning) is also "rote learning"
which first copied the digestive phase taking many millenia and which is
now copying the emergent phase too, but much faster. Whereas "authentic
learning" by virtue of its seventh-fold form leads to ultimately
unconditional love, what will "rote learning" lead to? Was the tragic
incidents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki only accidents and not precedents of
much greater catastropic accidents which may come? I believe NO -- on one
condition, as long as there are evil intent in the hearts of humans. My
experiences tell me that this condition is true and my experiences tell me
that some humans can ban evil from their hearts.

The problem with religions is that they have taken a fundamentalistic
stance on this condition -- that only a specific religion has the power to
ban evil from the heart. As I understand it, this stance is a direct
consequence of "rote learning", but not of "authenctic learning". This
fundamentalism is growing by the day, not only in religions, but also in
other walks of life like politics, economics, "sociotics", etc... In
fact, it is so dangerous that even Sajeela have all the right in the world
to accuse/perceive/question me of it with respect to "androgogics" (the
rhyming word in the former list for "learning" ;-).

I believe that every human can, but not necessarily will, ban this evil
from the heart. Thus we need the knowledge how to do it. This good
knowledge will come, if it not already has came, through "authentic
learning" so that information on it soon will be copied by "rote
learning". That will be fatal because one person's must is not another
person's must. When I claim "Humankind itself MUST prevent the next
catastrophe of a scale at least that of the Great Deluge", others will
claim other musts. In the mean while, by the very "arrow of time" some
humans are unleashing forces never experienced before. Some hundred and
fifty years ago it was the force in the pole of a magnet. Some hundred
years ago it was the force in the kernels of a molecule. Some fifty years
ago it was the force inside the nucleus of an atom. Now it is close to the
force inside the nucleus of an eukaryotic cell.

Why, does not some leaders proclaim war for the sake of peace? Is this
proclamation the outcome of authentic learning?

Who still believes the "story" of Adam and Eve in paradise? Slowly
humankind is driving the paradise out of this world. Tears will dry up so
that only the ocean will remain.

Do any fellow learner want to know how the next catastrophy
will come which will destroy humankind and most other living
organisms? I believe it will not come through God, but through
humankind when it knows exactly what the following refer to
and then use it for whatever evil lurks in the heart:
        Gen 8:22~~ "While the earth remains,
        seedtime and harvest,
        and cold and heat
        and summer and winter
        and day and night
        shall not cease."

I talk, work and pray that we all shall seek good in the heart.

Why? To avert the next Great Catastrophe? No, because that will lead to
evil in the heart. To seek unconditional love -- agape. Thanks Rick for
sending back the contribution "Biting the hand which feeds". That was a
most powerful learning message to me.

Thanks Sajeela for showing exactly where YES becomes NO.

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.