Replying to LO26789 --
Dear Organlearners,
Fred Nickols <nickols@att.net> writes:
>My immediate thought was to share with this list
>the definition of genius once offered me by a friend
>and colleague. He said, "A genius is someone who
>can see the obvious." A[r]t has pointed to the obvious:
>visions are expressed in declaratives (statements)
>and missions are expressed in imperatives (commands).
> My second reaction was to say to myself, "Yep, At is
>a genius."
Greetings dear Fred,
Allow me to share with you what Niels Bohr (together with Max Planck the
"grandfathers" of quantum mechanics) said. "A genius is somebody who made
all the errors in a shorter time than everybody else."
I am still making a lot of errors and I still need much more time to do
it. Hence I cannot be a genius nor do I want to be one.
Bohr was famous for the immense stress which he placed on the
Correspondence Principle, leading to the so called Copenhagen School of
quantum mechanics. The similarities between Goethe's Uhrphaenomen, Bohr's
Correspondence Principle and Polanyi's "intensification of a certain group
of features" in all evolution (see p50, part II Emergence of The Tacit
Dimension) is so striking that it still surpises me that nobody else has
questioned this adjunction. As I understand it self, they all are aware of
some definite patterns pervading all the stratifications of the universe
(or levels of complexity) -- the "archetypes" which are also
"eschatotypes". The Greek words "arche"=extreme_past and
"eschato"=extreme_future.
[But the Greek word "tupos" is most interesting of them all. It had many
meanings: figure, pattern, form, vinger-print, example, fashion, manner,
template, forced and wound. Add one "h" as "tuphos" and it becomes smoke,
stupor and an animal's tail! Add one "l" as "tuphlos" and it becomes
blind.]
>At goes on to point out a relationship between the two,
>namely, that "...the logic of commands encompass the
>logic of statements rather than the other way around."
>In so doing, he also points out that "...a mission will
>always encompass a vision. That is why the management
>team of an Ordinary Organisation (OO) has to be so
>careful in formulating a vision. The commands which they
>may subsequently issue, may easily disrupt the vision."
>
>To my impoverished way of thinking, At has pointed to
>something we refer to in other terms (e.g., "words" and
>"deeds" and "walking the talk").
No, your thinking is not impoverished, but rather well tempered like that
of Polanyi. I think I understand what you are saying. So let me articulate
it from my point of view. And please bear in mind what a huge barrier
English is to me. I am never at ease writing in English.
I cannot articulate the past and even the present in terms of commands. I
can only do it in statements. There is an increasing complexification from
the past to the future in the entire universe. When I myself have to
articulate the future, I can do it in commands or statements. When I do it
in commands, these commands are indeed more encompassing than the present
statements from which they flow.
[I must stress that this is how I understand it now. But soon after I
discovered the logic of commands, I was just completely amazed that
imperative logic encompasses declartive logic. I did not expect it in my
wildest dreams. Thus my formulation of imperative logic may be completely
wrong, even though with it I succeeded to formulate dozens of laws and
rules of teaching (never learning!!!) in symbolic expressions. Teaching is
a commanding job, but authentic learning in individuals and organisations
ought to be a blissful, endless exploration. That is why..... ...it is
fatal to command an organisation into a LO.]
However, when I make statements about the future, I have to follow one and
only one command, namely "imagine the future". In this sense my statements
are all one whole imagination of the future. As I have explained before,
this imagination is necessary for my mental prepartion to at least observe
and even participate in future emergences. [That is why I still question
the validity of the imperative logic as I formulated it.] I can indeed
imagine more complex statements than what I can presently command. But
since many of these statements may never become actualised, my whole
imagination in terms of statements is still contained within what I can
command.
As for me, the mission should consist of only actual ("real"?) and no
imaginary commands. It is for me foolish to have commands in my mission
which cannot be actualised by those to whom the mission is applicable. As
you have said, these commands have to be "deeds" with which we will (not
ought to) "walk the talk". However, I self distinguish between my talk
concerning the present and my talk concerning the future. The latter talk
(using statements) is all the way imagination. Thus my vision is
imaginative, for better or worse, as my deeds will ultimately tell me.
This actualization of the missionary commands is often perceived with the
strategic ("skilled") character of the mission. Some thinkers view
Strategy as something separate just as the Mission and the Vision.
However, I am self aware of also something else what I at best could
describe with the (perhaps too much perverted) term "didactic" character
of the mission. Allow me to explain it as follows.
The word "strategic" comes from the Greek word "strategos"=general.
Soldiers assure me (because I was never in military service to experience
it self) that only the most skilled soldiers become generals. But let us
think of the other Greek word "didaskalos"=teacher to which the word
"didactic" refers. I can assure you I am not a skilled teacher and even
less a skilled learner. The reason is precisely in the very character of
authentic learning. I think that a skilled teacher is scarcer than steak
in a dog kennel.
Often I have to learn by way of emergences. Because of the assymetric and
transitive nature of emergences (simpler said "they are novel") past
skills fail me because skills relate to my symmetric and reflexisive
behaviours. It is impossible for me to have skills in emergences -- not
even when taking into account my knowledge of "entropy production" and the
7Es. It is only possible for me to have vast experiences in emergences.
They enable me to act as midwife for noble thoughts to become borne in the
minds of fellow learners.
Thus a good mission for me has to have both this "strategic" and
"didactic" characters. They need not be spelled out and often when they do
get spelled out, they get perverted soon afterwards. Perhaps it is tacit
knowledge, at least for our dispensation, which cannot be told. That is
why my own mission is short:
. Help others freeing themselves with authentic learning.
Here is an example of a good mission, formulated by A N Whitehead,
perhaps the greatest among all university rectors ever:
. The task of our university is to create
. the future in a civilised manner.
I recognise with it in my own tacit knowledge the incredible "strategic"
and "didactic" character it will require from me and yet I cannot identify
this character in what has been told.
>A simple, obvious fact of categorization or classification
>is at the same time deeply profound. I have been in this
>business (whatever you choose to call it) since Hector
>was a pup (pardon the phrasing) and I have NEVER
>heard anyone point out the obvious qualities that At did
>in his reply to Felicia. Nor have I EVER heard anyone
>point to the relationship between the two. Those two bits
>of information will provide me with considerable food for
>thought (pardon the cliche) for quite some time to come.
Here you express a mental feeling very similar to the one which I had
after discovering that declarative logic could be derived from imperative
logic, but not the other way around. I was just, to say it simply,
completely amazed.
Afterwards, as some "food for thought", I began to wonder why. In
declarative (statement) logic the categorisation is dual, namely
. true@false".
But in the imperative (command) logic I used the triadic categorization
. process@porcessing_structure@structure
Thus we get three kinds of commands which have as outcome processes,
processing_structures and structures. An example of a processing-structure
command is one leading to other commands. In other words, a mission for me
ought to be a processing_structure. Its structure is determined by all the
qualities of character (good, true, right, lovely, strategic and didactic
among others).
I began to "see" how our languages lack "becoming" in their statements,
perhaps of the judgemental nature built into our languages. We can easily
say "statement XYZ is true", but it is most difficult to articulate
"statement XYZ becomes true". We "see" true as a "being" in our
statements, but we seem to be blind="tuphlos" to true as a "becoming" in
our statements. I myself live for that future in which we will not be
blind any more to the becoming of character.
>Hmm. Maybe I'll go back into consulting. (If I do, At, I'll
>send you 10% of my billings off this little gem.)
I will not remember this one, since my memory is not what it used to be.
However, you may care to remember Rick and his expenses as host of our
LO-dialogue!
Anyway, I think that we will all learn much more when we try to question
the relationship between commands and statements. Are they disjunct, are
they connected, is the one entailed by the other or how do they relate to
the arrow of time? This why this topic Mission vs Vision had been so
exciting to me. Kaboom and we are right in the middle of a typhoon.
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.