Replying to LO24812 --
Dear Organlearners,
Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com> writes:
>At,
>
>I get very frustrated at your writing, and I get frustrated with
>my frustration. And I'm glad you contributed this.
>
>Several years ago, I used to read your material eagerly.
>When you started into the seven essentialities, I started
>following but rapidly got behind. I don't think it was lack of
>fundamentals (I had enjoyed reading some of Prigiogine);
>rather, I had to choose between following this list and
>keeping up with my willing commitments to work, family,
>and (other parts of) self. Your postings were challenging,
>both because of their length and because of the investment
>they required to internalize the concepts and to understand
>their application. I chose to skip your postings, partially to
>regain some control on my time, and partially (honestly)
>because I couldn't be sure of their benefit.
Greetings Bill,
In "digestive learning" the authentic learner takes in what the learner is
hungry for. But in "rote learning" the learner has to gobble up whatever
is presented, thus leading to frustration (as you have experienced self
;-), then regurgitation (which you did not mention ;-) and finally
"spiritual anorexia" (which has become a deadly syndrome in our time like
physical anorexia is becoming fast too ;^)
[I have just created the composite sign ;^) to indicate a becrying. Is
there already such a sign in practice?]
I was most happy when reading your phrase "partially (honestly) because I
couldn't be sure of their benefit". It signals truely authentic learning
within you. How could you benefit by feeding on my musings on (five of)
the seven essentialities should a "seed crystal" on each of them not have
appeared within you by way of emergent learning? It is what has emerged
within you (autopoiesis) and not what have come from the outside (the
Greek for it would be "epipoiesis") which makes whatever you care to read
beneficial.
>Have you read Geoffrey Moore's _Crossing the Chasm_?
No. Thank you for the pointer. I will try to get hold of it. South Africa
is not exactly on the "information highway" ;-)
>My challenge is learning to cross that chasm well. How can
>we use all these important ideas with the idea pragmatists
>of the world? I don't think I'll be successful persuading them
>to become innovators, no matter how attractive that might
>seem to me. But some of these ideas are hard to package
>into elevator speeches. (I think his book has key lessons for
>concept innovators, too. I've tried them with some success.)
Especially since the eighties of the last century there has been a drive
to teach people (especially leaders) how to become innovators on any
front. The devious part of such teaching in the far majority of cases is
that it is expected from the "would be innovators" to respond with rote
learning to such teaching ;^)
There is something to say for imitating some "role models" for some time,
but because of the very "singularity of complexity" it has to be
discontinued sooner or later. For example, when I listen to the earlier
compositions of Beethoven, I can clearly detect his teachers Mozart and
Hayden in them. But I can also "hear" the authentic Beethoven in them,
just waiting to erupt like a volcanoe. Poor old Brahms -- almost everybody
(and definitely anybody who was not aware of this "singularity of
complexity") expected him to follow Beethoven as role model and take the
evolution of Beethoven one step further ;^) Listen to his own compositions
how he becries this dilemma -- which incidently makes him brilliantly
singular and complex too ;-)
Try to listen to one of the later and long piano sonatas of Beethoven in
an elevator ;-) It is only possible when the electrical power supply gets
interrupted for as long as it takes to perform such a masterpiece. Perhaps
the pragmatists need some "power failure" in their "praxis" to get them
listening ;-) But more seriously, can anyone of us afford such a "power
failure" in the "praxis" of the world or even merely one's country?
Here in South Africa some organisations are developing the culture of a
"bosberaad" (bush dialogue) -- a deliberate "power failure" in its praxis
The "whole" organisation reserve a few days for gathering in a remote
region where it cannot be reached. (The "whole" means that only the barest
of skeleton staff stays behind to run the mimimum vitals of that
organisation. The next year the skeletone staff will be other members.)
>There's another piece I may express another time, having
>to do with balance in the conversation: whether it's possible
>in a group of (how many are we, Rick?), and to what extent
>it's desirable.
>
>Comments welcome, as always.
Dear Bill, please do express your thoughts!
Others have already suggested a sort of division or parallelism (the
beginning of a hirarchy) among LO-topics. You are welcome to do it too. As
for myself, I wonder if I ever will be able to scratch all the "free
energy" to participate in the "LO-dialogue" after such a "parallelism" has
been introduced? It may work for rote learning, but will it work for
authentic learning? What about wholeness? Can I cut my body in two halves
at, say the waist, and then expect the two halves to still function as one
whole? "Hard core science" has cut itself in so many pieces, each with a
wel defined name, that few are able to make Humpty Dumpty whole again ;^)
Rick writes:
>[Host's Note: Roughly 1800 readers here. ..Rick]
Rick, does that not make the use of the ESC key one of the "primary
directives" for this list? What about "Do not let Humpty Dumpty fall from
the wall" too? Senge writes that wholeness is essential to the LO. For me
he could simply have written "The LO is a Humpty Dumpty".
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.