Replying to LO29000 --
Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to all of you.
The following is my own thoughts on the dialogue. It is intended to help
activate your own thoughts on the topic. The problem which Jim Marshall's
board members have made me decide to finish this essay and link it to
LO29000. I have been toiling with it for a couple of months.
This essay is a monologue and not a dialogue. But I do hope it will
initiate a dialogue on the dialogue. Often I wanted to scrap the whole
essay and replace it with one sentence:- "Let us have a dialogue on the
dialogue."
We don't know in what manner and how much other kinds of animals think.
But what we do know is that humans are extraordinarily thinking animals.
We also know that this thinking in humans is indissolubly intertwined with
communication between them through language.
The most profound form of communication between humans is the dialogue.
The central feature of the dialogue is the exchange of thoughts between
humans with no external restrictions on it. The dialogue differs from a
conversation, discussion and debate in the sense that they have externally
imposed restrictions.
Assume that in a dialogue I have articulated a thought which is
judgemental, for example, "What you have said is wrong". This can be
interpreted by you in at least two ways.
Firstly, you may interpret that what you have said should not have been
said in the first place. This interpretation leads to a restriction on the
dialogue which must not happen. I cannot command you not to make such an
interpretation because then I would have restricted your interpretations.
Thus I have to avoid self a judgemental saying like "What you have said is
wrong". This is also a restriction, but an internal one which I impose on
myself.
Secondly, you may interpret that my judgement is wrong in the sense that I
should have said "What you have said is right". In other words, it leads
to another restriction that we must agree mutually. Again, since it is I
who have initiated the judgement, it is I who caused the dialogue to
become restricted. Thus, like before, it is I who have to avoid a
judgemental saying.
The two interpretations above remind us of our experiences in dialogues.
We differ on some thoughts, we agree on other thoughts and we are
indifferent to the rest. It is these differences and similarities in
thoughts which makes the dialogue such a powerful sustainer of creativity.
What is human creativity? After many years of contemplation I have
concluded that it is a profound result of entropy production in the human
mind. Allow me to explain it from this viewpoint.
If I have a certain thought which differs from yours and I maintain this
thought despite all your thoughts to convince me to think the same as you,
the difference between your thought and mine is an entropic force while
all your other thoughts to convince me is the entropic flux. This force
and flux together is an entropic force-flux pair which produce entropy.
This entropy is manifested as modifications to our past thoughts. These
modified houghts are usually in the manner of questions such as "What do
you mean by this word or phrase?", "How can you make such a conclusion?"
and "Why cannot you follow the trail of my thoughts?" They reflect a
"diversity of becoming" which is better known as chaos.
This chaos may increase until the dialogue reach a bifurcation point. Two
outcomes are possible, namely a constructive emergence into a higher order
or a destructive immergence towards a lower order.
In the case of the emergence you or I or preferably both of us perceive
suddenly how our primary different thoughts may be matched together
despite their difference. As a result of this matching many other loose
thoughts begin to fit orderly into this matching. Questions become
answered. The body of ordered thoughts become so large that the difference
in the two primary thoughts seems to have become insignificantly small.
Your body of ordered thoughts overlaps in so many cases mine that we begin
to perceive far more similarities than differences.
In the case of the immergence you or I or both of us perceive suddenly how
our primary different thoughts may never become reconciled. One of us, if
not both, begin to dismember the other's body of thoughts in which the
primary different thought is embedded. This may then isolate that primary
thought so that its existence becomes insignificant. The order of mind in
at least one of us becomes worse than before the dialogue commenced.
How can we constructively advance the dialogue as a sustainer of
creativity? I think that the 7Es (seven essentialities of creativity) play
a powerful way here. They are liveness, sureness, wholeness, fruitfulness,
spareness, otherness and openness. Allow me to explain shortly how each of
them does it.
Liveness ("becoming-being") tells us that the organisation of my thoughts,
as probably for your thoughts also, consists of many structures and many
processes. When I am afraid or incapable of processing my own thoughts
into new structures, the structures in them become rigid. Thus I expect
from others in the dialogue to restructure their thoughts excessively so
that their structures can match mine. Some might do it to side with me,
but for reasons which I then will not know and which afterwards could be
detrimental to me. Some might resist it, but again I will not learn why
since my thought structures stay rigid. But when I process the structures
of my thoughts as others are doing it, we will gain understanding in how
each other accomplishes it.
Sureness ("identity-context") tells us that the organisation of my
thoughts, as probably for your thoughts also, does not have an absolute
identity, but that it is relative your's. When I recognise some of my own
thoughts in your's, you have given these thoughts of mine more sureness
than I could do self. I can then use them trying to understand your other
thoughts disclosed to me. I can also use them to articulate my other
thoughts in such a manner that you may understand them better.
Understanding one another never implies that your and my thoughts are
duplicates of each other. It rather means that we can follow each other's
thinking.
Wholeness ("unity-associativity") tells us that as the organisation of
my thoughts is a whole (like probably for your thoughts also) the
organisation of both your and my thoughts ought to become a whole
too. The majority X of my thoughts is not known to you like your's Z
is not known to me. It is these unknown majorities X and Z which
we have to connect in the associative pattern
X * Y * Z
of wholeness. The Y here is nothing else than those thoughts which
we have shared in the dialogue, some of which are mine and the
remainder your's. By sharing respectfully these thoughts we set up
a unity among them which will function as the "umlomo" (mouthpiece,
commuter) Y. I begin to get some idea of your Z and you get some
idea of my X. Thus we can function together as one bigger whole
which is more than the sum of us.
Fruitfulness ("connect-beget") tells us that the organisation of my
thoughts, as for probably your thoughts also, consists of reactive centres
imbedded in a relatively non-reactive background. When we want to connect
our thoughts, it has to be done between a reactive centre of mine and one
of your's. These two reactive centres are of a complementary nature. One
possible case for complementary duals is that each of us has an
uncompleted thought which upon connection becomes completed. (For example,
when we solve a problem together with a solution unknown to both of us)
The other possible case for complementary duals is that although one of us
has a more complete thought than the other, it finds application in the
less complete thought of the other one so that both become fully
completed. (For example, when we solve a problem together in which an
earlier solution of mine is adapted to fit your problem too.)
Spareness ("quantity-limit") tells us that the organisation of my
thoughts, as for probably your thoughts also, is not infinite, but keeps
on increasing to a limit determined by my mental models and paradigms.
When, through your thoughts, I become aware of a restricting mental model
in my thoughts and then reshape it until I am not aware of it anymore or
it even ceases to exists, a new flood of thoughts proceeds within me. The
limit of my thinking becomes displaced beyond that of the past. Likewise,
when I make a new discovery by experiencing it or even obtaining by
purpose empirical evidence for it, its effect is also to produce a flood
of new thoughts as the discovery interacts with my past body of thoughts.
By accepting that the same is possible with you, we can explore together
new limits in our thinking.
Otherness ("quality-variety") tells us that the organisation of my
thoughts, as for probably your thoughts also, proceeds along thoughts of
quality. Many other thoughts get connected to these quality thoughts,
making them gradually intenser, but not more in quantity. In this
intensification lies the difference between a quality thought and a mental
model. No two quality thoughts are alike, neither in me, nor perhaps in
you also. But between us we may find some similar thoughts of quality.
For example, we may both think that observation is essential to science.
Nevertheless, my quality thoughts have a diversity among them which
overlaps only partially with the diversity among your quality thoughts.
Openness ("paradigm-shift") tells us that the organisation of my thoughts,
as for probably your thoughts also, depends on thoughts that we share as
well as thoughts that we withhold from each other. If I suspect that your
thinking is biased to some hidden agenda, I will not tell you so because I
only suspect it. My suspicions may be wrong and you should not be burdened
by it. But even when you tell me of your agenda and I do not like it, who
am I to try changing it? The only thing which I can do, is to seek for a
thought in myself which will act as a butterfly, initiating a storm of
thoughts created by you. Obviously, you may do the same.
The dialogue allows us to create thoughts. It is by this very process that
we learn since to learn is to create. However, not only can we learn by
means of the dialogue, but also should we learn about the dialogue itself.
Far too many people believe that when participating in any dialogue, they
will compromise their character or even will have to throw it over board.
Other people avoid stepping into a dialogue, fearing a character
assassination. Such assassinations may happen in an immature dialogue, but
disappear in the mature dialogue. Thus, whenever they happen, we have to
step in, put a stop to them in a civilised manner and heal the wounds
which they have caused.
Many people have been trained in their professions to such an extent that
when a "client wants a second opinion", it points to a failure in not
having given the best opinion self. Hence, when such professional people
participate in a dialogue, all other opinions are less worth than a second
opinion. Each cling to his/her own opinion for life and death.
It is very difficult for introverts to participate in any dialogue.
However, few introverts are naturally so. They learned to become
introverts to protect them because of having been abused mentally in the
past. The dialogue offers healing to them should they begin to participate
in it. It is because of such introverts that those who participate easily,
should continuously avoid any abuse self.
Many languages are used on Internet. We may al share in its benefits.
Since the dialogue involves language, participants with different mother
tongues than the language in which the dialogue is conducted, may
experience particular strain in the dialogue. When their thinking patterns
follow their own mother tongue, their articulations in the language of the
dialogue will seldom be colloquial. They may have a limited vocabulary and
may follow grammatical rules more likely to their own mother tongue. Thus
they will articulate themselves not as clear as they could have done in
their mother tongue. Thus extreme patience have to be exerted towards
speakers of mother tongues different to the language in which the dialogue
is held.
The Learning Organisation is not restricted to particular kinds of
organisations. We may all share in its benefits. We live in an era in
which specialisation has become the norm. Thus, when different specialists
participate in a dialogue, the lack of common ground may make it difficult
for them to communicate. It may seem as if each participant wants to claim
a piece of ground. This can be avoided by replacing own dedicated
terminology as far as possible with metaphors known to other participants
when communicating something to them. Of special importance is to unite
once again science and art, philosophy and craft, leadership and
followership as well as body and mind.
When the dialogue is used to promote learning, caution should be taken
that it never gets debased into a monologue. Whoever has the major
knowledge in a dialogue (teachers, mentors or consultants), should
disseminate such knowledge, when possible, in terms of the course which
the dialogue takes. The dialogue determines its own agenda as it develops.
The dialogue cannot have a predetermined agenda to which it should adhere
because this would impose an external restriction on it. Obviously, a
dialogue should have a topic. But should participants change this topic
into others, it is part and parcel of the dialogue. It happens as a result
of "Steigerung", the fractal path of emergences.
A grave danger to the dialogue is that it may become all talk and no walk.
To avoid this danger, we should talk much on what we do and how we do it.
This sharing of practices should be encouraged in the dialogue. Such
practices need not to be backed up by theories. Consequently the dialogue
may promote communities of practice and ultimately the Learning
Organisation.
The dialogue is the foremost means for leaders to know their followers
better. However, leaders make far too little use of the dialogue. When
they do make use of it, they often exhibit a clumsiness in it. The main
reason is their lack of learning -- why a dialogue is important, what is
essential to it and how to participate in it. It is shocking how little
attention is given formally to the dialogue in courses on leadership. This
worsens when the dialogue is seldom employed during such courses on
leadership.
After all, the dialogue is a delightful harmony between individual
learning and organisational learning. As for individual learning, we share
our experiences and try to articulate our tacit knowing. When we succeed,
others may recognise in our articulations their own tacit knowing. Slowly
we begin to respect each other's creativity. This respect is the principle
of wisdom.
As for organisational learning, we share all sorts of information. We
scrutinise such information for patterns in it from which we try to derive
meaning in terms of our own context. We know that such information which
exists outside us and knowledge which lives within us are not the same.
Thus information communicated in the dialogue is never intended to
displace the knowledge of each of us. It is merely food upon which the
knowledge of each of us digests for growth.
The dialogue, unlike a debate, teaches us how to manage duals as
complementary rather than dialectical to each other. For example, we learn
to listen (read) carefully so that we can speak (write) more carefully. We
learn how to ask questions so that they can become answered by answering
questions put to us. We learn how to blend our emotions with logic so that
neither emotions alone nor logic alone strangle the dialogue. We learn
when either to lead or to follow in thought by respecting each other's
passions. We learn how to tolerate each other by sharing opposite
viewpoints so that peace can prevail.
The dialogue not only sustains our creativity, but also sustains every
other higher emergent level of our spirituality. As such the dialogue may
even help us to discover the divine in one another. Perhaps the dialogue
itself is divine because it makes possible the communication between God
and human. It is a frequently used communication mode in many texts of
many different religions. To think that God Creator and creatures share a
common mode of communication defies the imagination, not to speak of
rationalising it. For me the book Job in the Bible is a powerful example
of what a dialogue can do to a person, for better or worse. It can lead us
into the pits of despair, but it can also free us to appreciate the
divine.
Show me an organisation in which there is profound and profuse dialogue
and I will show you a Learning Organisation.
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.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.