Replying to LO29623 --
Dear Organlearners,
Jan Lelie <janlelie@wxs.nl> writes:
>There are no conditions for change. Everything changes.
>Even the requirement for enough free energy is illusive.
>(If there is not enough of it now, nature will transform,
>develop using smaller steps, until there is a situation that
>contains the required complexity and the opportunity of
>the required free energy to transform.
Greetings dear Jan,
Did you write the above from inner conviction, or is it a provocative
opinion in a DeBono style? Think of the wheat kernels found in some 3000
years old sealed off tomb in Egypt. Try to let a torch light shine of
which the battery has gone flat (lost its free energy).
>We do not need a sense for wholeness to be able to
>change, improve, transform. For me it is just as you said:
>i, you, we have always known it, it has been there, it is
>both waiting for me, you, us and we, you're, i am
>waiting for it. Like speaking prose we all doing it.
I wonder. My sense for wholeness often made for me in a desert the
difference between life and death. I agree that it is possible to change
with a lack (in the sense) of wholeness. But what is the outcome of such a
change? Is it for better or for worse?
>It was also so painful - ignorance is bliss - being driven out
>of paradise. Humanity, and the whole planet has had a very
>hard time to coping with this. We're still fighting about it. Why
>are we here? Who are we? How are we to live?
Dear Jan, the way in which you formulated it, made me see the following.
Can a person remain living in paradise when having lost the sense of
wholeness? Of Adam and Eve i will not write because i was not there. But
of deserts i can write because i have explored them. Every desert is a
paradise in its own right. But as i wrote earlier, a sense of wholeness is
needed to stay living in these paradises.
>We're still fighting the idea, because everything might
>have only one purpose and reason: to speed up evolution,
>developing more wholeness, creating more complexity.
>And we've been hard wired to believe that this conflicts
>with our own, personal existence. In my opinion it doesn't,
>but, as you also mentioned, i've never been able to think
>otherwise.
I wonder how many fellow learners are aware that evolution is indeed
speeding up. Or should they not believe in evolution, then the development
of human culture the past 6 000 years had been speeding up.
It is interesting that you mention that many people believe it is in
conflict with their personal existence. Is it not that many of them have
experienced the stress of too fast development, were not ready to cope
with it, failed to develop and hence developed an aversion to development?
When i was a teacher, the worst cases of learning disabilities were
exactly those pupils who had been forced too much to learn too fast. One
or both their parents usually practised a profession. In those days i
thought that their parents were disconnected shockingly from them. But
while writing to you, thinking it over again, i realise that their parents
were senseless to wholeness.
Is it the profession of the parents who made them senseless to wholeness?
Perhaps it may be a cause, but i know many parents who practise a
profession and who are sensitive to wholeness.
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.