Golden Rule and the 7 Es LO28167

From: Don Dwiggins (
Date: 04/07/02

Daan Joubert writes in LO28056 :

> We have been discussing what I believe to be a need for direction, in LO
> as in any other venture or process that we as people can undertake. I am
> suggesting that the Golden Rule (GR) as it finds expression in the normative
> directive (Decision maker, improve the worth of your system!) - which is
> quite contrary to current management practice and philosophy in the west -
> is a constant that can define such direction in an optimal manner.

> In this post I want to approach the GR from anonther direction - by
> applying just one of At's 7 E's. The one of liveness "becoming-being". A
> duality that has one aspect with the nature of process, or change, and
> another that refers to a condition, or state. [And I am aware of the fact
> that the 7 E's form a unity and that grabbing one in isolation is a near
> heresy (:-)), but i'll risk the censure]

As I think the smiley recognizes, it's no heresy -- it's the first step in
the "Steigerung" process. (I was going to suggest a Google search to find
LO messages on this term, but it seems Google is several months behind on
the learning-org site. Perhaps At or Rick can provide a few URLs.)
Also, as I think you'll find out, "grabbing one in isolation" is a near

> It will serve no learning purpose to simply use At's description of this
> E - rote learning, At? - so I am going to risk showing my lack of
> understanding in order that At and the rest of you can tell me where I
> erred. The focus will be the GR and what it means for people and
> organisations, so that the discussion does not stretch too wide into
> generalities.

Hey look, openness and spareness!

... snip ...

> One needs a reference space - defined for the individual and the
> organisation by the environment in which it exists and functions - in order
> to achieve the status of 'being' to have an own identity and to be fully
> aware of that identity. And to a certain degree - if not fully so - that
> identity is defined by the nature of the relationship with the environment,
> which, as discussed previously [One hand clapping] can range from predatory
> through to the silly altruistic.

Now you're into sureness!

> The above come across as statements, but they are more like questions in
> that I am searching for the proper place of both the individual and the
> organisation in its relationships with others. To me it is that aspect of
> life that contributes to 'being' and may even make it possible.

Fruitfulness and otherness; you're moving right along!

Speaking of otherness, you mentioned the formulation of the GR in other
religions. has excerpts
from several of them. One variation in particular caught my attention:
"Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their
tastes may not be the same." (George Bernard Shaw, 1903.) Expanding
"tastes" to include "needs", "desires", "dreams", etc., it seems to me
that there's a bit of variability in the GR constant, at least on the

How about this reformulation: "Do unto others as they would have you do
unto them". To follow this version, you need to be aware of the
differences between you and them (otherness and sureness), of the
consequences of your actions (liveness, fruitfulness, wholeness), of the
limitations of what you can do (spareness), and be able (spareness again)
and willing (openness) to take the needed action.

BTW, you might have an entirely different idea of how the 7Es apply (or if
they do); if so, I'd love to hear about it.

Best wshes,


Don Dwiggins "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Albert Einstein

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.