Replying to LO28162 --
Dear Organlearners,
Fred Nickols <nickols@att.net> writes:
>As is often the case, you drove me to my own
>dictionary. Actually, you drove me to four of
>them; you see, I find that different dictionaries
>present different definitions -- and, sometimes,
>they present different etymologies.
Greetings dear Fred,
I wonder whether I am the driver. In my own case it is langauges which
drive me to their dictionaries. In the case of English I often have to
look up if the word which I want to use really express what I mean.
>So, Issue # 1 - Does your dictionary really show
>magister as equaling "boss" or is that your translation?
No, they all say "magister"=master. Now going back to the etymology of
master and finding "magister"=master is circular reasoning for me. My one
dictionary (Funk and Wagnals) gives 22 synonyms for it. I took the first
one in this list which is "boss=master.
>Issue # 2 - the logic of your argument.
(snip)
>Having confessed my ignorance on that score,
>allow me to question the flow of logic in your
>comments above. Somehow you got from
>magister to magis to magos, all in Latin. From
>there you leaped to "magikos" in Greek and
>concluded that "mastery is magic." My Latin is
>very limited but it seems to me that your conclusion
>-- although a nice play with words -- is a non
>sequitur (i.e., it does not follow from the preceding
>argument). (My dictionaries tie "magister" to "magnus,"
>not "magis" and none make a connection to "magikos.")
Fred, please see my explanation to Ray. He is jsut as puzzeld as you. And
I am the cause of that puzzle for trying to understand how a common
earlier language having a word "mag" (the "g" said in a fricative way like
the Scots would do) evolved into "magicos"=magic and
"magister=boss+...+master+...+teacher (22 possibilities).
>Issue # 3 - my somewhat cryptic (or is it
>enigmatic?) response to Sensaru's question.
>
>When I first read Sensaru's question, I thought
>it a bit cryptic and was inclined to pass it by.
>Then, for some unknown reason, I decided to
>respond in kind. Allow me to "unpack" my
>response.
Is it a coincidence that I felt the same way? I still wanted to
reply with
mastery="teach yourself"
and leave it at that when I saw first Ray's and then your own
"hitting the bull's eye" replies.
(snip)
>I was further tempted to add, "So, if you want to
>know the definition of mastery, ask a master." But,
>I didn't. Why? Because, in addition to having to
>face up to the fact that the master probably cannot
>articulate all of what constitutes mastery and that
>perhaps that which the master cannot articulate
>contains the really important knowledge, you'd also
>have to ask beforehand, "Mastery of what?"
You have something very beautifull with "that which the master cannot
articulate contains the really important knowledge". Allow me as a silly
old fool to try and articulate that "really important knowledge" for
myself.. Tacit knowing lives within me. Once I succeed in articulating
some of that tacit knowing, the artifact exists outside me. The artifact
may be a description in a language or even may be an adjustment which I
make in any of the projects which I have like cultivating a rare succulent
or breeding a rare fish. Once it exists outside me, it can become sheared
from my tacit knowing. As soon as this happens, the wholeness with which I
managed to articulate this artifact becomes fragmented. This wholeness is
"really important knowledge" for me. I can speak about it and admit that I
cannot do it good, especially not in English and also not alone. But what
I cannot do, is to tell how "really important knowledge" it is for me. For
some it will appear as a "selling" of wholeness and for others as an
"infatuation". There are many possible reasons what people may wonder when
I speak of wholeness as "really important knowledge" , but I doubt whether
"really important knowledge" is one of them.
>Finally, whatever mastery means, to you, me,
>a neophyte or a master, it is not the same from
>person to person. No two master pianists play
>the same piece identically ....
(snip)
As much as I hate to use the phrase (because it can be so easily
interpreted as condoning rote learning), "I agree." It is impossible for
me to differ, except for giving my reason why I agree with you. That
reason might appear very strange to you. I recognise both as great masters
by the way in which they employ the 7Es, even though on a tacit level for
them. In their playing on the paino these tacit 7Es become tangible for
me.
>The definitions above are from my dictionaries.
>Here are some thoughts of my own:
Thank you. Your thoughts gave me delight. I would have loved to respond to
them, but I want to haste myself to your last profound sentence.
>Actually, I'd settle for mastering language.
I will do the same. But for me its is something of which I will never
reach the end.
We here in South Africa who have other mother tongues than English are in
deep trouble, as in many other parts of the world. Increasing numbers of
those people want them to be taught in English and not their mother
tongue. They think that the power (whether business, religion or politics)
is in when they can join the English speaking world.
I think, and I write it with great sadness in my heart and a depressing
responsibility in my mind, that these people have been caught up in the
mud of rote learning. In authentic learning they need to articulate that
of their tacit knowing which at that time is possible. (A number of
complexity "laws", foremost the LRC - Law of Requisite Complexity --,
makes me add the clause "which at that time is possible".) This, for most
people and for many years, has to happen with their mother tongue! Their
mother tongue is the very vehicle by which the have to learn expressing
their tacit knowing beautifully and illustriously.
Yesterday my wife and I had a long dialogue over lunch on our language
Afrikaans. The day before an in-depth article appeared in one of our news
papers, written by an old and grand master of the Afrikaans language. In
that article, among other things, he traced how most of the great past
masters of Afrikaans themselves had earlier past masters as their mentors.
He lamented the fact that very few, if any, new young masters (i.e younger
than forty years) are active in Afrikaans. He also lamented the fact that
very few students in Afrikaans still seek up the few old remaining grand
masters as their mentors.
Is he lonely? Is he trying to justify his life? No, he is writing a
profound truth here. One of the most shocking diagrams I know of is on
p132 of John Ziman's book "The Power of Knowledge". In this diagram he
traces the "master-apprentice" connections during the 19th century for
natural science (physics, chemistry and biology). Most of the great
scientists occur in this "mental lineage" diagram.
Then this old and great master of Afrikaans mentioned a curious thing
which his mentor advised him on. He should avoid using too much diminutive
words in his own writings. He does not give any reason why his mentor gave
him this advice.
Trying to find the reason, again my wife and I discovered together one of
profound depths of Afrikaans. We can make a diminutive out of ANY noun by
simply adding the suffix "-tjie". (Sometimes the spelling or
pronounciation have to change.) This suffix sounds like the English
"key".
When one use this diminutive in Afrikaans sparingly (spareness) at the
right place (sureness), it can express any specific emotion out of the
many possible (otherness). For example, rather writing "dear Fred", I can
write "Fredtjie" which then ought to be spelled as "Freddie" and
pronounciated as in the English Freddy. Another example. You are a
consultant. Should I want to speak sarcastically of you, I will do it by
using the diminutive "konsultantjie" at the right place where its effect
is greatest. A last example:- should I want to express my awe for your
superior use of English as an Englishman, I will refer to you as
"Engelsmantjie" in the right kind of sentence at the right place.
This "one-to-many-mapping" of emotions by the "-tjie" is truely a wonder
to be shared among the speakers of Afrikaans. Should I try to do something
similar on our LO-dialogue and even warn in advance I will be doing it,
you learnertjies would not know what I meant with it because you have had
no previous experience to it.
But what happens today among most of our young people, including even the
English speaking? They use a swear word (like f**k or s**t) in almost
every sentence they speak because of not having learned how to express
their minds carefully.
I think that mastery begins and ends with the language and specifically
the mother tongue. This is for me the gateway to do it in any other
language too. To hear or read a master of Afrikaans is sheer magic. To be
able to articulate one's own mind with one's own mother tongue is the
greatest personal "mag"=power possible. Please see in my reply to Ray my
speculations on this "mag", the root of "magister" and "magikos".
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.