Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to you all.
Humans learn much faster than any other animal species. Because of this
fast learning humankind changes the earth more than all other living
species together. Humans also communicate their learning much more than
any other animal species. Because of this vast communication humankind
alone has become aware of a world which increases daily in complexity. It
is in this fast changing and complexifying World of Humankind (WoH) that
humans have to make a living.
There is globally an increasing awareness that in any organisation,
whatever its kind, the continuous learning of all its members has to be
promoted so that the organisation can sustain itself in this dynamic WoH.
To hire workers skilled in the past with (1) "knowledge of a field" and
(2) "knowledge of learning" is not enough any more. (In some Knowledge
Management schools the "knowledge of a field" is called an ontology while
the "knowledge of learning" is called epistemology.)
The fields change rapidly so that the worker's "knowledge of a field" has
to keep pace during employment with these changes. Furthermore, it has
become clear that the "knowledge of learning" (epistemology) is frequently
inadequate to keep the pace with "knowledge of a field" (ontology). The
reason is that past trainers of these skilled workers used an outdated
"knowledge of learning" themselves. The workers simply copied this
outdated "knowledge of learning".
So many models of learning are being offered on the market to improve or
rectify this outdated "knowledge of learning" that it becomes difficult to
know what to buy and what to leave out. Think of choosing among Knowledge
Management, Information Technology, Community of Practice, Performance
Valued Development, Open Spaces, Double Loop Learning, Outcome Based
Education, Experiential Learning and Learning Organisation to mention a
few. Some models are advertised as a necessity for certain conditions.
Others are advertised as sufficient for all conditions.
It is like the flooded pill market -- a "unique-pill" for each ailment as
well as the "multi-pill" for almost all ailments. The latter has become
increasingly popular. So what has become of a healthy lifestyle in the
first place which will diminish the dependency on so many pills of both
kinds? In other words, what has become of a healthy "knowledge of
learning" which will diminish the dependency on so many models of
learning? What has become of this "knowledge of learning" with which it
can be decided what model of learning must be used temporally to regain
its health? What has become of this "knowledge of learning" which will
sustain every "knowledge of a field" keeping pace with the dynamic WoH
(World of Humankind)?
It seems to me far too many people believe that this healthy "knowledge of
learning" has become outdated finally. Also far too many people believe
that nobody will escape the future use of an armada of learning models,
each administered by its own experts. Lastly far too many people believe
that knowledge-out-there, manufactured by some mysterious higher
intelligence, has to cloned into the memory by rote learning. As a
consequence of this massive inefficiency humankind spend more money on
improving learning in an "pill-like" (ad hoc) manner than on any other
human activity, including food, clothing, housing and transportation.
I think of "authentic learning" in the sense of a healthy "knowledge of
learning" rather than as the one "multi-pill" to correct all learning
disabilities. The reason is that in "authentic learning" all the 7Es
(seven essentialities of creativity) have to be taken objectively into
consideration. But in a one "multi-pill" model of learning only some
(usually one) of the 7Es are incorporated. It fails exactly in those 7Es
of which it is indifferent to.
Please be aware of the future proliferation of such "multi-pill" or
complex models of learning. It is possible to have up to 6x5x4x3x2x1=720
different kinds of them, each one lacking in at least one of the 7Es. But,
as crazy as it seems to be, please also take caution that "authentic
learning" itself may manifest itself in 7x6x5x4x3x2x1= 5040 different
styles! It all depends on the sequence of the 7Es to which the learner
gives attention to.
That is why I stress that nobody should copy my authentic learning. For
example, authentic learners who prefer to begin with, say wholeness
(unity), have 720 different ways to follow up with each of the other six
7Es. Likewise, authentic learners who prefer to begin with say otherness
(diversity) have also 720 different ways to follow up with each of the
other six 7Es.
I myself often work with the 7Es in the sequence liveness, sureness,
wholeness, fruitfulness, spareness, otherness and openness. It is the
sequence in which I have discovered them. Yet this is not my learning
style. My learning style is to begin with wholeness, trying to increase
it. I was tacitly aware of wholeness long before I discovered that it
together with six other patterns constitute the 7Es. Before 1985, I did
not actually knew how to increase my wholeness systematically. I did it
intuitively and trial by error. But after having discovered the 7Es, I
learned how to use the other six to increase in wholeness systematically.
I think of the combination of the other six 7Es into wholeness as "deep
wholeness". If some fellow learners have a predisposition towards, say,
liveness ("becoming-being") and then combine the remaining six 7Es into
liveness to enrich it, they will seek "deep liveness". It often strikes me
that certain professionals have a predisposition to a "deep essentiality".
For example, many biologists often seek for deep otherness, many engineers
seek for deep spareness while many mathematicians seek for deep sureness.
Only you will know how it is for yourself.
How do I use systematically the other six 7Es to increase in wholeness?
The following is a short summary.
(1) Openness is required to proceed from a smaller whole to a bigger
encompassing whole. Wholes have natural borders, but we often turn
mentally those borders into isolations.
(2) Fruitfulness is required to connect two or more wholes into a bigger
whole. Wholes have handles in them, but we often turn a blind eye to
how these handles react with each other.
(3) Otherness is required to bring different wholes into a bigger whole.
Bigger wholes are more diverse, but we often avoid differences as if
they will bring conflict.
(4) Spareness tells that the border of one whole must be crossed to
enter another whole. Borders have to be crossed to emerge into a
bigger whole, but we often limit ourselves into one whole as if it can
sustain all emergences.
(5) Sureness entails that the identity of a whole becomes clear in
terms of the bigger whole containing it. Wholes harmonise in terms
of their bigger whole, but we often conform to the smaller whole as
the anchor.
(6) Liveness allows smaller wholes to act into a bigger whole. The
becoming between smaller wholes is necessary, but we often avoid
this interaction so that the bigger whole does not emerge.
When I see a list like Knowledge Management, Information Technology,
Community of Practice, Performance Valued Development, Open Spaces, Double
Loop Learning, Outcome Based Education, Experiential Learning and Learning
Organisation, wholeness make me immediately ask myself "How do they all
fit together?", "What thing do they become when fitted together?", "What
else can be fitted together with them?"
A subject like chemistry has dozens of definitions. Most students memorize
these definitions by heart. They expect to know much more chemistry by
doing so, but find out that they still know far too little. They never ask
themselves questions like the three above on these definitions. When I
advise them to comprehend the whole picture, they usually first become
afraid and then aggressive. It is as if they experience in wholeness a foe
rather than a friend. It requires patience and compassion to lead them
along the path of increasing wholeness.
What actually happens is that they begin to think about the inadequacies
of their own "knowledge of learning". They feel hurt that nobody has
pointed out before these inadequacies. Once they begin to focus on
learning how to learn authentically, they begin to experience how the
training system often works against their authentic learning. They will
begin to seek wholeness whereas the system works fragmentarily because it
is convenient. I know very well by experience how they feel.
In my younger days I would become very annoyed at someone else "trying"
(as I perceived it in those days) to prevent me from following the path of
increasing deep wholeness. It was so worse that at the end of my fifth
year at university I actually hated the university for obstructing this
path. But fortunately, teaching pupils at school, corrected this wrong
perception. I became aware of what I now can articulate as the LRC (Law of
Requisite Complexity). I will come back to this issue.
Here is example of seeking wholeness in my own learning. I may shop for a
book on fish diseases. There may be two books available while I have money
for only one. The one book may list the diseases from A to Z, describing
symptoms and remedies for each. The book is even more practical by
supplying in the beginning a map to go from symptom to possible diseases.
The other book may discuss the same diseases, but in terms of the
aquarium's ecology like water chemistry, plant and fish interaction, etc.
The only practical way to find a disease by its symptoms is to use the
book's index. I will without hesitation buy this second book.
Here is another example. A person will come to me seeking help with
learning some or other topic. I will not begin with "What do you not
understand?", but will rather focus on what the person does understand. I
want to learn what the person knows. So I will trace with questions the
entire "map from side to side", finding out what the person (1) knows
well, (2) knows a little and (3) knows nothing. Meanwhile I will search
for learning disabilities and mental models too. I will also try to fathom
the person's learning style and dislikes. At some stage the person will
often say "Now I know why could not understand this or that." My searching
for the whole picture helped the person to see the empty holes in the
picture self.
A last example. I may be exploring some desert when I suddenly find a
species of succulent plants not expected to grow even close to that place.
My first question will be "How did these plants manage to bridge the gap
from the known localities to this place?" I will then begin to search for
topographical, geographical, climatic and plant-sociological similarities
between the known and the new localities. I will search in my memory for
similar places within the gap as if the plants "stepped" on such places to
bridge the gap. I will even try to visit such "stepping places" and make
sure that I have not over looked the species at them.
I often wondered what made me aware of wholeness in the first place. It is
much like not knowing self the place where one has been born. One's
parents may point the place out, but self one has no recollection of it.
But I do remember some outstanding events along the road.
For example, as a student some forty years ago I remember how in chemistry
the periodic table of the elements attracted me. Chemical and physical
relationships within groups, periods and diagonals were a source of
constant wonder for me. But even much earlier in primary school, I would
read geography atlases like other kids would read story books. I would try
to find other countries with similar statistics on agriculture, mining and
industry as my own country. Then I would try to find books on those
countries, exploring them by picture and verse.
My awareness to increasing wholeness made me aware of something else just
like Goethe, something which he called "Steigerung". The closest
translation into English would be "staggering". It means a stringing of
successive wholes, the next whole always more complex than the previous
ones because they are contained within it. I shall never forget how in my
second year at university I became aware of this "staggering" in both
mathematics and chemistry.
In mathematics it happens in the extension of natural numbers to whole
numbers, then rational numbers, real numbers and finally complex numbers.
In chemistry it happens in the extension of entropy calculations to
calculations on free energy, then equilibrium constants and eventually
stoichiometry (the amounts of reagents consumed and products delivered).
My biggest surprise was to become aware of it when doing research on soils
after my five years at university. Within a soil there is a staggering of
its horizons, usually labelled from top to bottom A (A1, A2, ...), B (B1,
B2, ...) and C. Then there is also a staggering of different kinds of
soils in a region, depending on its geology, topography and climate. Soils
usually became problematic when this staggering was destroyed by farming
practices. Since then I began to perceive this "staggering" in every walk
of life.
It is most revealing to explore this "staggering" in an ESC (Elementary
Sustainer of Creativity). Obviously, increasing a "deep essentiality"
(like deep wholeness) is prerequisite to it. One of the five ESCs is
problem-solving. Staggering happens when the solution of one problem
furnish data to identify and solve a next problem. Eventually a string of
problems with solutions is obtained, the former solutions imbedded in the
latter solutions.
The same "staggering also happens in the dialogue (thought-exchanging) as
another ESC. It happens on a topic as soon as there is an endeavour to
increasing wholeness. One fellow learner introduces a topic, the next
learner introduces a new facet to the topic, etc. Eventually the topic has
become complex with many facets, almost as if the name of the topic do not
want to fit the dialogue any more.
Let us now look at how teaching pupils at school corrected my wrong
perception that the system obstructs my path to increasing deep wholeness.
Pupils taught me what I now can articulate as the LRC (Law of Requisite
Complexity). A pupil who has not taken each "staggered step" in the path
of complexity, gets stuck at the step(s) which he/she tries to skip. Soon
the learning of the whole class slows down. I began to make use of Team
Learning to prevent this slowing down. I grouped pupils who got stuck at a
step with pupils knowing such a step best, using them as "teachers". Thus
the requisite level of complexity was reached much sooner.
My first experience with a "learning organisation" in 1973 (long before
Senge articulated the concept) was when the 7B class emerged into a LO as
a result of such team learning and seeking deep wholeness. The
"staggering" of this class through the next three years at school was
astounding. Not only did they learn subjects much faster than other
classes, but also their social abalities became outstanding. They would
care for each other. They would spontaneously organise projects for the
benefit of the whole school. They were always a fountain of sensible ideas
which no one thought of before.
Today I will propose that an awareness to increasing deep wholeness and an
awareness to "staggering" go hand in hand. The one without the other is
impossible. If you fellow learners have experienced this "staggering" in
your own learning, try to see how increasing deep wholeness accompanied
it. On the other hand, if you have not yet experienced this "staggering",
try to increase deep wholeness in your learning. Perhaps you have become
the victim of a fragmented system. In that case you will have to overcome
these fragmentations one by one. Hopefully you will not become angry by
them as I once did and sometimes still do.
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.