In LO28147 At de Lange continued his response to my attempted
exposition of the Golden Rule (GR) in terms of the "becoming-being" E.
Dear At and all other Learners
You gave the second part of your response the subtitle "Knowing
ourselves further" [that is after the first was subtitled "Exploring
tacit knowing again"]
Your dissertation on how a system has to alternate between being open
and closed makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
In it you mention that
> "Now, should our LO-dialogue be in the bifurcation
> phase of creativity, the isolation is OK. The system SY
> rejuvenates itself as if becoming a universe on its own.
> Then it opens up again to digest with the new emergent
> order. But when our LO-dialogue is in the digestive phase
> of creativity, such an isolation will starve it to death.
> The system SY needs to eat on its surroundings SU.
> In other words, it all depends on what we want. If we
> want in this LO-dialogue to become the world's first cyber
> LO, then we will have to focus inwards, stop eating and
> begin producing what we want. Hence, Daan, what you
> observe as a new comer, is what we want to become with
> the LO-list -- either a cyber organisation for learning or
> a cyber Learning Organisation. Neither me nor you or any
> other individual can decide the future. All involved have
> to decide collectively by knowing what each wants. .
A few questions come to mind in response to this.
I have no idea how large the membership of this list is and am sure it
stretches well beyond the - how many? - 20-30 people who post here
somewhat regularly. When you say with reference to what the LO list is
becoming (or should be becoming?) that "All involved have to decide
collectively by knowing what each wants?", are you referring only to
the active participants or the whole list? Or all of them - even the
silent ones, who then presumably vote through their continued presence
that they are in agreement with the way the LO is developing and not
merely remain here through idle curiosity - or having forgotten to
remove themselves off the list.
Secondly, I have the impression that you believe the LO should become
a cyber LO organisation, rather than the cyber organisation for
learning. Would that then imply that the current [consensus?]
bifurcation of this list is something along ". . .should our
LO-dialogue be in the bifurcation phase of creativity, the isolation
is OK. The system SY rejuvenates itself as if becoming a universe on
its own." and thus that the LO dialogue voluntarily reduces
interaction with all of Creation 'out there' in order to learn about
learning?
[Would a universe isolated on its own not be perceived as a rather
sterile entity by the rest of Creation??]
If so, my question would now be "How does one then measure progress
and what is the ideal end state, or goal?" Even if this happens to be
ethereal and never to be achieved in the reality of our world.
How does one even know that one is on the right road to whatever is
the desired end? And even more so when perhaps a large majority of
members have not spoken up to lucidly or tangentially provide insight
into their own views?
My apologies if I seem to be scratching away all the time. And it is
not that I believe I have answers to these questions - but getting
feedback would bring the LO list more clearly into focus and thereby
help me to see myself in better perspective as well.
May I mention that when I first came to this list my impression from
the first few posts I read was that here was a good number of
practitioners of organisational change - both consulting and as
managers - who were dealing with the superficial as well as the more
deeply seated problems of the LO concept, firstly to better their own
understanding of the principles and secondly to better equip
themselves to deal with the practical problems of their vocations. An
enrichment process across different dimensions.
That impression has faded a little. And this might be due to the fact
that there is another current taking some (all?) of the members along
in the direction you referred to above - growing as an LO in itself
and of itself. And then also for itself. Question: has this mater ever
been articulated and discussed here before?
Lastly, At, you also wrote:
> The concept of a creative collapse (or whatever we
> may call it like deconstruction or re-engineering)
> is not that new.
I would like to juxtapose this with what Andrew wrote in a more recent
post (LO28168):
> One aspect of 'creative collapse' is to become open
> of one's inner-private self. This can be terrifying.
Is that what the pupa goes through in the transition from worm to
butterfly?
- to return to the analogy you used to explain the contrasts within
the E of openness.
If so, it seems the pupal stage is not restricted to real worms.
With kind regards and best wishes all
daan
Daan Joubert
Curious to see if there will be wings
Roodepoort
South Africa
daanj@kingsley.co.za
--Daan Joubert <daanj@kingsley.co.za>
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.