Poor Dead Kitty-cat and Reality? LO26392

From: Sajeela M ramsey (sajeelacore@juno.com)
Date: 03/19/01


Replying to LO26364 --

Dear Alfred and Co-LO discoverers,

On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:22:44 +0200 Alfred Rheeder writes:

> I belief that tacit and explicit awareness of certain patterns and
>trends is >key to understand the whole of reality and I'm of the opinion
>that a strict >articulated definition of reality will inevitably lead to
>exclusive thinking - >to the detriment of a better understanding of the
>reality of reality.

Yes, Alfred, I agree emphatically, and will say more why below. You asked
a number of questions which remind me of the Heisenberg principle (which
you mentioned along with other similar concepts) namely that the observer
always influences that which is observed, and therefore no measurement or
experiment is accurate really. As per your questions:

> 1.. Does reality exists (will reality be a reality?) independently
> from observation or not? For e.g. will gravity be a reality if it could

> not be observed and/or experienced?
> 2.. Is an understanding (complete or incomplete) of the phenomena
> that exist also a property of reality? In other words does the how and
> why of the phenomena form part of reality?
> 3.. Does reality include quantitative and/or qualitative
> properties of a system/sub systems etc.
> 4.. Does reality encompass the physical and abstract phenomena?
> 5.. Is reality itself subject to evolution?

(snip) I hate to snip but can't adress every little detail, so here's the
next piece that I am drawn to:

>Reality and Market Research Thought Experiment
> Adapted from Wheelers explanation of the "participatory universe"
(snip)
> The purpose/goal of the game is for the questioner to determine the
> object through questioning. In our case the object is consumer
> behaviour
> and how consumer paradigms, lifestyles etc. relate to the consumer
> behaviour. Are we not creating the object (consumer behaviour) through
> our questioning and probing?
(snip)
> What are the consequences of not being able to extrapolate out of
> the research context? Would this render the results meaningless?

Well Alfred, all these questions ought to keep us busy for a while ----
where did you say you got that brain of yours Alfred? Was it the Einstein
catalogue? I'd like to order one of those for myself. And speaking of
capitalitic consumerism (as you were above when you referred to the
marketing quandry), I enclose a post from the complexity list-serve I
recently wrote to, perhaps because I am asking/attempting to answer some
of your questions in another way:

From: Sajeela M ramsey <sajeelacore@JUNO.COM>
To: COMPLEX-M@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:58:31 -0500
Subject: Re: [COMPLEX-M] Aeshtetics

When we cease to experience the actuality of an experience, and we begin
to believe that the abstraction of that moment is more real then the
moment itself, have we lost the beauty of the moment and therefore cease
to accurately predict/measure/value that moment? Conventional wisdom would
have us believe that the abstraction is more accurate, which is like Truth
with a capital T --- it excludes all other truths and therefore is a
distortion of reality.

Tertiary Wisdom (Ramsey 1996,1997). [ allows for more accurately gauging
the emergent nature of organizations and occurs long before the moment one
is recognizing and absorbing meaning; is intuited. Learning in this way
may allow for dramatic changes in awareness beyond that of double loop or
second order knowledge] as I know it is actually not capturable --- or
once captured, it ceases to be what it is, and is instead an "image"
formed by the perceiver. So I would say this: Tertiary Wisdom can be
observed, known, felt, experienced, but probably not contained.

It's a bit like this:
The world is an active, transforming solution in which one can observe
and otherwise sense that things are happening by the presence of or in
relation to other things, in an exact and iconic way ---- becoming a
common resevoir of metaphor and allusion called "language". We appraoch a
constant kaleidescopic flux of paradox ---- that which seems patternless
becomes a rarer pattern of disorder --- and we then attempt to give it
order through the frozen will of words and other technological
extensions. This is at best inaccurate.

As Grossinger says (1981), "learning does not release the mystery, nor is
Hermes quite contained in the stacks of the library." Thought itself is
so fluid, the flow of images on the eye and how these enter the brain,
that these can hardly be held, for even as one clings to a thought, it is
already gone. Yes, we have many many extensions/technologies that
capture moments well, including language. But of what good are these to
the human condition? This is the crux or issue of Value. If we focus on
capturing the moment and harnessing this to predict drivers of future
business wealth, how are we shaping the future? In whose interests, and
why? With what longterm impacts on which stakeholders?

I am always seeking to understand "real business value" in new ways. So I
am wondering Roger about who gets to define what is valuable, and what
may get left out as a result of a given process being frozen by
conventional wisdom. I feel an urgency to grounding that which aesthetic
process as I understand it can bring to the world of business, and yet I
am constantly pushing the envelope so as not to reify that which
continues to force Beauty to the margins of life as we know it.

Evening shadows settling across the landscape,
and Carpe Me--Um!
Sajeela

Sajeela Moskowitz Ramsey: President, Core Consulting
Center for Organizational Renewal and Effectiveness
Senior OD Consultant/Culture Generalist
2432 Villanova Drive/Vienna, VA. 22180
703 573 7050/ SajeelaCore @Juno.com

-- 

Sajeela M ramsey <sajeelacore@juno.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.