Constructive Creativity and Leadership. Part 7. LO27847

From: AM de Lange (
Date: 02/15/02

Replying to LO27831 --

Dear Organlearners,

Fred Nickols <> writes:

>Responding to Leo Minnigh in LO27820 --
>Leo writes (in part):
>>However, I realise fully that wholeness is one
>>of the seven. So could wholeness - if it is really
>>wholeness - includes itself?
>Hmm. I'm no great thinker and I don't pretend for
>a minute to grasp the seven Es .......(snip)

Greetings dear Fred,

I am determined not to argue, not even when you say you are no great
thinker ;-) But for the sake of "increasing wholeness", I want to say that
you often impress me as a very realistic thinker.

As for grasping the 7Es, the only thing which I can say about "grasping"
them was the couple of months in 1985 when I discovered them looking for
corresponding patterns between the system abstract mathematics and the
system concrete chemistry. The "grasping" was in the sense that for the
first time ever I could "hold them in my mental hands".

But as for "understanding" them, I did not and still not understand them,
although I am learning more of them daily and intend to do so endlessly. I
still remember that after having discovered them, I was not even in a
position of giving anyone a name so little I knew of them! I knew enough
of mathematics and chemistry that I could have named them with the
dedicated term for each, either from mathematics or from chemistry. But
that was the last thing I wanted to do. As I saw them togther the first
time in my mind, I was deeply struck by how much tacit knowledge I
acquired on them through my experiences in other walks of life. The only
problem was how to articulate this tacit knowledge. That was an imensely
huge problem.

>.... but I don't think their own "wholeness" could be
>one of them, although the more general notion of
>wholeness certainly might. To my way of thinking,
>wholeness of anything consists of the parts AND
>their relationships. The parts are members of one
>class of things and their relationships are members
>of another.

To my way of thinking you are looking at wholeness from liveness
("becoming-being"). The parts are the "beings" and the relationships are
the "becomings". In other words, you have stepped from wholeness to the
realm of "deep wholeness" where we may look at wholeness form each of the
other six 7Es. Thus I begin to suspect that you are a person for correct
action. As soon as the action fails or becomes incorrect, you may easily
get heated up because of your sensitivity to liveness and what happens
when it is impaired -- trouble running all over the place.

>Thus, the Es are members of one class and the
>relationships between and among them belong
>to another. The wholeness of the Es would consist
>of the Es and the set of relationships between and
>among them. That set is a separate concept or
>construct, to be sure, but it is not of the same class
>as the Es and so cannot be added to them as another
>element of the same kind.
>On the other hand, "wholeness" could itself be a
>member of class to which the other Es could also
>belong. This, I believe, is the case; wholeness being
>one of the seven Es or essentialities of creativity.

Thanks for telling us how you understand it. For the first few years I
thought that each of the 7Es acted independently from the other six. This
was a grave mistake. It was a Mental Model (MM) which I carried over from
my training in the basic sciences such as mathematic, physics and
chemistry. It took me much effort to get rid of this MM. Only then I began
to realise how much this training (as forced rote learning) screwed up my
own sureness.

>In this case, the E that is wholeness does not
>apply to the seven Es or to itself, although it
>could well apply to any one of the other six.
>Does this make sense or am I muddying the
>waters? I'm sure At will clear things up for us all.

I do not think you are muddying the waters at all, but I do think that you
are stepping up the rate of entropy production ;-) Perhaps this is also a
muddying of some kind, but then I am glad to participate in it. I will try
to step it up even more, or to fill up the wine glass even further. (You
will soon see why ;-)

Secret and subversive societies often make use of the pentagram. It is a
five pointed star enclosed in a circle. Use a search engine with the
keyword pentagram and you will be surprised at what jumps up. Try using
the keyword hexagram ("hexa"=six) and see what comes up next. Try using
heptagram ("hepta"=seven) and try forming an opinion. Follow it up with
octagram (eight), enneagram (nine) and decagram (ten).

(After a couple of hours ;-) I did it an I can only say one thing.
What a crazy (or creative ;-) bunch of people have not entered
cyberspace. One crazy person more would not break the camel's
back. So I have decided to draw up a heptagram for the 7Es
in figure 1. You will find it at the URL:

Yes, wholeness is there with the other six, but together as all seven they
seem to lead to a new kind of wholeness. This is for me the entry into
"deep wholness".

Otherness ("quality-diversity") is also there. But now see if you can do
mentally the following. Look at the seven names. Each one is different
from the rest. Thus as all seven they trigger a new kind of otherness.
Again this is for me the entry into "deep otherness".

Liveness ("becoming-being") is also there. But each of the seven points
("beings" or elements) are connected with lines ("becomings" or
relationships) going to the other six.points. Is this not the entry into
new kind of liveness which I would describe as "deep liveness"?

Each of the remaining four 7Es can be pulled inside/outside too. Try to
see if your mind can do it. Actually, it is a very important excercise
because it resembles the relationship between a leader and the followers
for me.

A leader is not superior to the any of the followers, but is just one of
them were it not for the leading. So when that leader, nothing but a
follower self, begin to act as leader, he/she has to look at his/her
leadership from his/her own viewpoint as well as from the viewpoint of
every other follower. In other words, the leadership is not exclusively
for the leader, but inclusive of all followers. I have seen many an
organisation gets stuck in the mud of little progress because their
leaders think exclusively rather than inclusively.

The most recent case was last Monday. It would have been hillarious, were
it not so tragic. With one CEO and four SMs (Senior Managers) it was
decided to "distribute" the leadership among 22 groups, each having a GM
(Group Manager). The meeting was among the 4 SMs and 22 GMs, all as equals
and quite concerned on making the leadership of the CEO as effective as
possible. But sadly, each of the 22 GMs acted as if on their own, not
including (by refering to) even one of their group members in their
meeting. Since the CEO gave his approval to this distributing of the
leadership, should he had been in person at the meeting, I wonder what he
would have said. Since I was a visitor invited to observe how "good" they
are, I did not want to say any thing. But eventually I wanted to shout out
"why go only half the way with what the CEO approved for all the way".

This "distribution" of leadership is nothing but to include as many
followers as possible when deciding what should be done. This is the very
kernel on which democracy is based. But for all the followers to be
present at a meeting of the democracy can quickly become impossible.
Therefor representatives have to be elected. However, under no
circumstances should they fall into the trap of representing only
themselves. Just as "deep wholeness" represents wholeness as well as all
the other six 7Es, "deep leaders" represent themselves as well as all
their followers! This is "one-to-many-mapping" of leadership.

Now back to the heptagram. I seldom think in terms of a heptagram. The
reason is that the 7Es themselves, even together, have no independent
meaning. They have only a meaning in terms of their relationship to
something else. In other words, the heptagram as depicted in figure 1 is
meaningless to me. That is why I often visualise in my imagination the the
7Es as a wine glass. Please look at figure 2 with URL

Should we look at the wineglass vertical downwards, we will see only the
heptagram as its top. But should we look at it with an angle from the
vertical, we will see the top and the side. This top and side together
helps us to find the relationship we seek to give meaning to the 7Es.

Each of the 7Es has its own sector on the side of the glass from the
bottom to the top. In figure 2 I have indicated the sector for liveness by
the medium grey in the lower part and the light grey in the upper part.
There are two parts in this sector as in each of the other six because
some "wine" is gradually filling the glass.

Each of the 7Es has to increase. For example, "increasing wholeness" is
called holism. Likewise we might call "increasing otherness" by the name
"varism" (by deriving it from "variety".) Likewise each of the sectors on
the wine glass has to grow in width to keep in touch with the sectors
neighbouring it. Thus the "wine" will stay in the glass as it is filling

But let us assume that at some stage one of the 7Es does not
increase anymore. It means that it cannot keep in touch with
the neighbouring two 7Es. What will now happen? In figure 3

I have illustrated it for liveness. The "wine" cannot reach the same level
as depicted in figure 2, but begins to pour out of the holes (shown in
black) bordering liveness where it became constrained. Big black drops of
this "wine" is now shown to be falling to the bottom.

So what is this "wine" which increases endlessly? It is nothing else than
the the constant energy of LEC (Law of Energy Conservation) and the
increasing entropy of LEP (Law of Entropy Production) taken together as
one thing. But unlike ordinary wine, this "wine" is extremely corrosive
like sulphuric acid. Only within the wine glass is it safe. Outside the
wine glass it destroys wherever it flows. The horrific and tragic 9/11
events are an example of what this "wine" can do when it is not given
increasing form by all the increasing 7Es to contain it.

Dear Fred, to let this "wine" running loose because of a lack of structure
and action (lack of liveness) in the thinking of people is something to
get very angry, frustrated and disappointed about. It is the same for each
of the other 7Es we are sensitive to.

I wish I could illustrate the patterns of each of the 7Es on its sector in
the wine glass. But you will have to imagine this yourself. In the ancient
days the rich people had wine beakers with elaborate figures sculptured on
its surface. Now think of an artistic glass blower doing the same to each
sector of the wine glass so that its inner surface is not regular anymore.
For each sector the glass blower will have to invent a different pattern,
not only indicative for that 7E, but also increasing in complexity as the
7E has to increase.

With care and best wishes


At de Lange <> 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 <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.