Replying to LO29655 --
(or another number)
Dear eyeless seers, dear At,
#blind to reality#,
Thank you for continuing the dialogue. I'm getting an idea of were we're
heading.
First of all: i do have an inner conviction that there is no requirement
for change but change itself. Everything IS ( = ) changing. Double loop,
triple loop. Secondly, i've convinced myself that changing is blind, but
it is not going into a blind alley. This universe travels (develops,
evolves) along a complex path. This is a path we cannot imagine, we lack
the senses and the vantage point. We're contained inside the picture.
The image that comes up with me is that of an (irregular) arabesk or of
the intricate structure of the Mandelbrot figure. The path, the route, the
"line" is limited by the restraints of the law of entropy production and
energy conservation and the law of the least work (or do the first two
imply the third, i'm not sure).
Thirdly, i assume that change - or better changing, change process - is
not interested in the results of changing. The ever increasing complexity
can be seen as a by-product of the laws controlling change or as the
desired result, the outcome, the destiny. Change doesn't care. We care. We
are aware of change in a different way, and that was - or is - an
interesting change. For the first time in history in the back waters of an
unimportant galaxy in this uninteresting part of the universe, change
stumbled on consciousness. Like hitting a light switch in a dark cellar.
Baugph! Flash! Blinded! (remark: in how many American movies and
television series are people walking with flash lights into dark rooms,
cellars, houses? "the truth is out there").
Fourthly, i think that the emergence of consciousness is and was and shall
be inevitable. This universe was prewired for getting to know itself.
We're just amazed, because THIS FEELING, this sense, is still very new. We
might be so blinded that we kill ourselves, but then in the near future,
it (It) will develop itself again, look around, notice the signs -
sometimes with two meanings - and reastablish itself. Perhaps, maybe It
will even make a monument for us, the first children of change. Because
consciousness is so new, it might appear to us that everything is
predestined, or that is how i translate the feeling of predestination,
synchronicity, deja-vue. On the other hand there seems to be only chaos,
randomness, trial and error. And that is also the case. This world is
paradoxical by nature, in essence, by default.
Fifthly: whether a change is for the better or the worse is up to you -
dear reader. Change is unaware of your - or mine - conviction. The paradox
is, that the conviction does matter. In two ways: you've changed the path
of change and you are creating your choice, your image, your vision.
Because when you judge a change for the better - or choose a change for
the worse, or you do not know, or you toss a dime ("alea iacta est"), you
change the path of change. You might feel that you have become responsible
for your choice. If that is the case, it might bear you down. The load is
so heavy upon you. I might even call this the primordeal* (pun intended)
sin. This might seem hard to swallow. So perhaps that is why we try all
kinds of reasoning to prove that we're not responsible, that we were
unaware, we didn't know, that it is the other who should make changes, who
should behave differently. Or that there was no other option...
The second way: creating or visioning your choice. we live in paradise
also, we're living in the best of worlds. We also live in hell. This is
the worst of worlds and this is the best of worlds. It depends on your own
choice. I get the image of a tourist tour: we're travelling on the road of
change (#we're on a road to nowhere# and every now and then we have to
sacrifice somebody to the pack of hungry wolves, grey hunters who are
running behind us). On your left hand side (my right hand) you see hell,
on your right hand side (my left hand) you see heaven. Look around you,
tell what you see and you tell yourself in what world you live. The eerie
thing is that this is true and not true. We have the marvellous - i think
it is marvellous - ability to create our vision. Reality acts like a
mirror: it reflects our thoughts by creating them. Not exactly like a
perfect mirror, that would have been too obvious. But like a laughing
mirror: contorted, changed, different. We adapt our ideas again. (Here
again is a paradoxical image: we're part of our own creation). Most of the
time we do not recognize that these were our own thoughts, feelings,
visions. They were but are not. Perhaps because we seem withheld by the
responsibility of it. We're talking here about blindness to wholeness, but
maybe we should have had a dialogue on "blind to reality" first!.
Sixtly: The easy way out was to attribute it all to a god, a supernatural
power, gods, destiny. We seemed to be destinies child's, Gods children. I
imagine myself, or think, feel, that the parts of ourselves we find hard
to deal with, we're partly anaware* of, we hate - or love - are projected
unto others. "Do not project on others what you yourself have not
accepted". Hmmmm . I sometimes feel that the sense of wholeness is the
same sense we use for feeling god-like. Our core longs to become one. Such
is life and it is getting sucher and sucher all the times.
Sevently: you're asking me why we have problems coping with this world and
teaching our children well? I do not know. To me, it is a new world.
Blindening. Dazed and confused we are. There might be no other cure than
to learn to love what is important to you: yourself, your wholiness. The
funny thing is that the other day i said that i'm not a professional, but
an amateur. In the classical sense: I love ("amare") the things i do.
Perhaps we're making two "errors": we assume too much and we assume that
we're professionals. And the reason we made these errors is because there
is no other way of learning. Groop into the darkness, stumble, fall, fall
again and again until: >O< enlightment >O<. Then it is more stumbling and
falling again. I do get the feeling we're falling upstairs.
Now i have to start making surprises and writing poems for Sinterklaas -
the Dutch friend of children -,
Regards, love
Jan Lelie
AM de Lange wrote:
>>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.
>>
>Did you write the above from inner conviction, or is it a provocative
>opinion in a DeBono style?
>
>>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?
>
>
>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.
--Drs J.C. Lelie (Jan, MSc MBA) facilitator mind@work
mind@work VOF - ondersteuning besluitvorming van groepen LOGISENS - bedrijfsverbetering
tel.: + 31 (0)70 3243475 mob.: + 31 (0)65 4685114 (auto) web.: http://www.mindatwork.nl/
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.