pow-wa-ha LO25062

From: AM de Lange (amdelange@gold.up.ac.za)
Date: 07/12/00

Replying to LO25048 --

Dear Organlearners,

Ray Harrell <mcore@idt.net> writes:

>I would also point out that wherever traditional native
>peoples have worked in the Western context they have
>done just fine. When Sequoia brought out the Cherokee
>83 symbol syllabury within two years everyone in the
>Cherokee nation could read and they had a newspaper.
>Try teaching the far simpler English reading to non-literate
>Americans these days in two years.


>It has not been an issue of native people's learning
>English, French or anything else but the reverse. Very
>few non-natives speak or understand our cultures and that
>problem extends to American diplomacy in foreign nations
>with diplomats often not speaking the language very well.

Greetings Ray,

As I self understand the problem of a declining society with a specific
culture, it has very little to do with the physical makeup of the people
belonging to that society. As you have pointed out, there are sufficient
examples of people from one society who have excelled in the culture of
another society.

Should we bear in mind that the actual difference between the genetical
makeup of various peoples with different cultures all over the world is
less than 0.0001%, we will have to come up with an extraordinary
explanation why this 0.0001% difference in genes is responsible for the
decline in one society while the other society with a different physical
makeup excells. Perhaps we can postulate something like the "butterfly
effect" calling it the "one gene difference", but even that would turn out
to be a fallacy. Why? Because a society which formerly was excelling
could decline drastically within a few generations without even a 0.0001%
change in its own genes! History has innumerous examples of this

So, if it is not the physical makeup of a society which is responsible for
its declining, is it the spiritual makeup? It is exactly here where LEM
(Law of Excluded Middle) have disastrous consequences. Should we apply
LEM, we have no other option than to accept the spiritual makeup as the
cause for the decline.

Let me argue that LEM invoking "physical vs spiritual" has no role to play
here. Let us think of the following examples. If I take a fish from the
river and put it on the soil of my graden to live, it will certainly
decline. If I take a succulent plant out of the desert and replant it in a
wetland, it will certainly decline. If I take an eagle chick, rear it
among humans and then release it in the wilds again, it will certainly
decline. In each of these cases the organism as the system SY excelled in
its natural environment or surroundings SU(B). The tag (B) refers to
"before". Then the SY gets displaced to an alien environment SU(A) where
the tag (A) refers to "after". Soon afterwards the organism begins to
decline by immergences.

What we have here may be summarised symbolically by
        SY&SU(B) <==> excells
        SY&SU(A) <==> declines
Here the symbol "&" indicates the interaction between the system
SY and its surrounding system SU(B) or SU(A). The other symbol
"<==>" represents the phrase "corresponds with the observation".

I make use of symbolics here to stress the vital pattern that we
ought to become aware of. Let us look again at the symbolic
        SY&SU(B) <==> excells
        SY&SU(A) <==> declines

What strikes me first that in each of the patterns the "SY&SU" occurs. In
other words, we have to think about the system SY and its surrounding
system SU in terms of their interactions "&". The SY and SU are beings
while the "&" symbolises all becomings. It means that we have to think
holistic and lively. To seek in either SY or SU(-) the cause of the excell
or decline, but not in both, is foolish and even fatal.

What strikes me secondly is that we have two patterns because
of the parts
        (B) <==> excells
        (A) <==> declines
Here the tag (B) refer to a surrounding system SU "before" the
decline begins whereas (A) refers to a different surrounding
system SU "after" the decline has begun. So if we want to
proceed the the third stage of healing (using the tag (H) for it),
it concerns the whole system consisting of both SY and SU(A).
We may symbolise this whole by introducing the brackets [ ]
as [SY&SU(A)]. Hence the two patterns
        SY&SU(B) <==> excells
        SY&SU(A) <==> declines
will evolve into
        SY&SU(B) <==> excells
        SY&SU(A) <==> declines
        [SY&SU(A)](H) <==> excells

This third stage may also be written as
        SY(H)&SU(A,H) <==> excells
by distributing the tag (H) over the SY and the SU(A). This
expression is most important. It tells us that the healing (H)
cannot be made subject to LEM. It is not either the SY or the
surroundings SU(A) which have to heal, but both of them. The
healing (H) is but a change, eventhough most extraordinary.

The question now is. Where should the change of healing be INITIATED?
Either in the system SY, or in the surroundings SU(A), or in both? Should
we avoid LEM here too, we will have to conclude that it has to be
initiated in both. This will then result into the "diplomacy of
compromises". It is certainly common to many a diplomatic initiative.

Perhaps the correct answer is that the healing has to be INITIATED in
both. But with my own insight into irreversible self-organisation, I have
to stress that the healing has to be INITIATED in the surrounding system
SU(A) in such a manner that the healing thereafter can proceed in both SY
and SU(A). I am aware that I may be wrong with this answer, but I cannot
argue the "both SY and SU(A)" answer with the same consistency and
coherence as the "only SU(A)" answer.

Ray, what does it say for you? I think you have said it with "Very few
non-natives speak or understand our cultures". You have said that SU(A)
is unaware of SY. You say that the "&" between SY and SU(A) has been
seriously impaired. You also say "that problem extends". In other words,
you think of it as a "problem". I see it as the very problem of where the
healing has to be initiated!

But there is a deeper problem here. What should SU(A) KNOW so as to make
the initial change leading to healing. Well, the KNOW requires that they
will have to LEARN "something". Furthermore, this "something" will have to
be closely related to the common "SY&SU" pattern refered to above. What
will this "something" be? I do not want to "push" you, but seek for
something in which both SY and SU have a role to play, something about
which I have written not so long ago.

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.