What light do we need? LO28233

From: AM de Lange (amdelange@postino.up.ac.za)
Date: 04/15/02

Replying to LO28197 --

Dear Organlearners,

"Sensaru" < Sensaru@aol.com > writes:

>information is neutral until put in a defined context
>and then it takes on a particular meaning. It is this
>meaning that is acted upon and refined further.

Greetings dear "Sensaru",

Your use of the word "neutral" made me wonder deeply. This word comes from
the Latin "neuter"=sexless. Neutral usually means belonging to neither of
two sides and not interfering with them. For example, in chemistry we
speak of acidic, basic and neutral solutions. In electricity we speak of
positively or negatively charged bodies or neutral bodies.

Assuming that you have indeed articulated your tacit knowing with exactly
the word "neutral", it means that two "mental sides" are involved. What
would they be? Can I learn from them what "neutral" means? I would like to
learn from your answer. Nevertheless, by trying to answer it self, I will
already have begun with my own learning. So allow me to try and answer it.

I have tried several such opposite "mental sides" to explore the further
meaning of "neutral information". Each time I ended up in a looped
reasoning. The following dialectical pair took me the longest to end up in
a looped reasoning.
 * Ignorance to any set of patterns as signifying information.
 * Awareness to any set of patterns as signifying information.

It was at this stage when fellow learner Alfred Rheeder arrived at my
office, inviting me for a coffee break in a cafe on our campus. We began
to talk on what this "neutral" means. Alfred warned me that he will try to
articulate his own tacit knowing so that I should not expect that the
words he uses are exactly the ones expressing what he thinks.

He began with making a distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.
As I began to respond to that he finally ended up by saying that
subjectivity means different people will create different meanings out of
one of the same information. I then suggested to him that "neutral" for
him means that he has to allow for otherness ("quality-diversity") to
create meaning out of such information. But he was so deep in thought that
he did not respond to my suggestion.

Thank you Alfred for that coffe break which eventually became a lunch
break. Your thinking helped me to break out of my own vicious circle of

Later that night I began to understand my own mistake. By using the
meaning of neutral, I allowed LEM (Law of Excluded Middle) to creep into
my own reasoning. What LEM did was to isolate my reason from the rest of
my mental faculties. My reason became a closed box. Meaning emerges not
merely from reason, but from all my mental faculties. My mind has to close
to allow for that emergence of meaning. This closing is better known as

Only after the kernel of meaning had emerged, I can open my mind again for
that meaning to grow by digestion. In this I extend the kernel of meaning
by adding other meanings to it through their relationshups with it.

Thus "neutral" for me means that I initially allow for openness
("paradigm-closed") to create meaning out of such information.
Mark Feenstra in LO28199 writes the following most striking
>What makes your question so real for me is that
>I usually have my EYES CLOSED.
So I suspect that for him he also begins with openness to create
meaning out of information. But it is for him to say what is the
case. Jan Lelie in LO28220 also seems to do the same because
he writes:
>I think we have two torches, at least, an
>emotional flash light and a rational light bulb.
>The emotional light creates awareness...
>The rational light bulb, creates form and content ...
Thank you Jan since you explain why I got so annoyed with
myself for falling into the trap of circular reasoning.

Alfred, on the other hand, seems to allow initially for otherness,
but it is for him to say whether it is the case. Rene Post writes in
>We need light that makes the darkness conscious.
I wonder what sort of light he thinks of. Is it one colour or does
it have several colours? What would these colours be?

Perhaps "Sensaru" is telling me that neutral is for him/her to "put
[information] in a defined context". If this is the case, it means that he
begins with the essentiality sureness ("identity-context") to create
meaning out of information. I think that Ray Harrel in LO28208 thinks it
is so because he elaborates on "Sensaru"'s reply with the important
distinction between denotation and connotation. I myself think of
"denotation-connotation" as another way to articulate sureness. But again
it is for Ray to tell.

Openness, otherness and sureness are three of the 7Es (seven
essentialities of creativity). The remaining four are liveness, wholeness,
fruitfulness and spareness. I wonder if there are any fellow learners who
would begin initially with anyone of them.

It seems to me that in the next step to create further meaning
"Sensaro" uses spareness ("quantity-limit") because he/she writes:
>also information as organised data is infinite, it
>requires context to delimit it so it can be used.
It also seems to me that he/she then also uses otherness since
he/she writes
>context is the particular frame of mind of the
>observer. each person thus sees what he wants
>to see.

My own next step is usually to employ fruitfulness. It means that I begin
to search for obvious handles in that information.

In my original contribution LO28184 I asked
>The question which I want to put to you, dear
>fellow learners, is what light do you use to find
>your way in the world of information?
It now seems that some fellow learners use some of the 7Es as
that light. For me the spiritual world begins with creativity, then
emerge into learning and after some more emergences ends in
love. The 7Es connect all these elevels of spirituality into one
since they are essential to each level. May I thus conclude that
this light is "creative learning"?

Mark Feenstra writes in LO28199 that this light for him is the Divine. I
personally agree with it in the sense of "what". But in the sense of "how"
I have to seek further. I have been several times to mental institutions
where most unfortunate, sub-normal people, are cared for because they are
not even aware of themselves. They cannot speak, except for making
non-intelligent noises. They cannot even be clothed because they sooner or
later hurt themselves trying to get rid of the clothes. Creative learning
is impossible for them so that they cannot become aware of the Divine.
However, the Divine calls upon the divine in us to care for them too.

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.