Replying to LO28146
Dear At and all LO'ers
At replied in two posts on a venture of mine in which I looked at the
Golden Rule in terms of one of the 7 E's (becoming-being) and then
rambled on to examine some of the implications.
At, it would be impossible for me to reply in detail to your posts -
there are just too many threads being drawn together and spun into a,
for me, still strange new cloth. It is taking time to get used to its
drape and it still feels unfamiliar, as if one is wearing a borrowed
garment. Through necessity I will pick out snippets here and there and
briefly comment.
I wrote of "At's 7 E's" and you commented.
> "Daan, if you perceive that the 7Es play an anchoring
> role, it is not because of my inferior articulations of them."
and continued to disown ownership on the grounds that others had
walked the path, or parts of it, well before your time.
This is perhaps like saying we cannot speak of Maxwell's Equations
because they could not have been framed without the work of an Ampére,
an Ohm, a Coulomb and all the other guys who may not have their names
attached to same part of the whole. So I will follow what I have seen
others do here at LO and refer to the 7 E's as At's and nobody elses!
At, you seemed not to enjoy my splitting "becoming-being" into its two
parts (like two sides of a coin - inescapably enjoined) viewing them
as 'process' state'. I know that you are happy when we articulate our
own views - which shows a deep generosity - but I would like to
explore what you wrote in this regard:
> I agree with all which you have written, except for the
> "constant"=being. As I understand it, that which leads
> to a richer life is in my opinion not a "being", but a
> "becoming-being" -- an EO (Elementary Organiser)..
The elements of change and stasis, process and state, as I understand
it, appear (are) entwined, but there has to be two kinds of elements.
And in most things the one changes the other - change leads to a new
state,' becoming' over time has a new 'being', both as result and as a
point of departure.
IMHO there are (might be) a few (??) things that are constants - not
absolutes, because they are likely to rely too much on one's basic
premises. If I may use the GR again to illustrate (and I am aware of
some more recent posts that elaborate on the complex nature of the
GR).
Proceeding from the premise that we live in a society where we have to
'choose' to position ourselves somewhere on the spectrum that one can
characterise as "from predator to altruist", the guiding rule for many
believers are found in a set of rules that can be condensed into the
Golden Rule.
I believe that rule - and perhaps others that do not readily come to
mind - are constants. The nature of the expression of that rule in
specific behaviour is more than likely to change over time, as
circumstances (and people!) change, and I may decide to relinquish the
rule and become a predator, or an altruist, but that does not
invalidate the GR as IMHO the most appropriate rule for a stable and
stressless community. And this does not prescribe that if I find
myself in a society of lawless people I necessarily have to join in
their lawlessness, but that I can opt to have as little contact with
others as I can manage.
The GR is intended for a society of like-minded people with much the
same values and norms, at least at the very basic level of human
co-existence, with others and with oneself. Perhaps in this respect my
perspective is just too limited to observe change in this constant.
Perhaps my understanding is too limited - as yet, I hope - to think on
a broader canvas rather than the restricted one I have been working on
till now. Time will tell.
On the matter of definitions, At, you had a bit to say, including"
> Definitions may become a barrier to this emergence
> from tacit knowing to formal knowing. Tacit knowledge
> is like underground water and formal knowledge like
> surface water. A definition ought to be like a fountain
> rather than a plug stopping its flow.
(I had to :-)) at your reference to underground and surface water!)
Yes, I can see that definitions too often act as blinkers that
prevents one from seeing the full scope of the world out there, and
thus inhibit us from making new discoveries, seeing new relationships.
First hand experience - albeit mostly subliminal, now by reflection -
with such stultifying definitions opens my eyes for their effect. Even
more so if we include the concept of 'stereotypes' as a way we use our
own personal definitions through life to make easy sense of the
complexities around us. And At, as a South African of more than a
certain age, you too will have experience of that!
But I do not view the GR as a definition - more as a guiding
principle. A way perhaps to decide when contemplating alternatives to
select the one that 'right' as opposed to 'wrong', or even as opposed
to 'a little less right'. (Here I am stepping away from the management
work, where I have introduced a definition of the function of a
manager. To me that is at the level of practicalities; with the theme
changing to the GR, we are dipping into the well of principle.)
At, you also wrote:
> "But when that collection of things is the 7Es, the problem
> is that the dog bites its own tail. This circularity can be
> broken by using openness. Take one of the 7Es and
> explore its relationship with any system other than the 7Es.
> Perhaps this is what you are now doing, but I would not
> articulate it with "isolation". However Daan, it is for you
> to tell what is actually the case.
and then:
> It is really impossible to speak or write about one
> of the 7Es, say liveness, and avoid using the other
> six 7Es. We can avoid refering to them explicitly and
> calling their names, but their patterns occur implicitly
> in whatever we say or write.
Yes, that I can understand. I had that experience creeping up on me
when I was writing the "GR and the 7 E's' post!!
This is perhaps enough for one go. It is turning light outside and the
start of a new day.
Much to do and even more to ponder as I re-arrange a lot of thoughts
and conclusions of the past many years.
At, you will know what I mean when I say, "Hamba gahle!"
With great appreciation, to you and others here who show a way.
daan
Daan Joubert
With too little time to really indulge!
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.