LO is an idea or goal? LO29704

From: leo minnigh (minnigh@dds.nl)
Date: 12/16/02

Replying to LO29535 --

Dear LO'ers,

While looking for something else in my mailbox, I came to a still unread
contribution of At de Lange of some time ago (LO29535, November 20th).

After an insightful overview of the '(re)birth of the Renaissance' (is
that possible??; if a re-naissance is possible anyhow), At wrote the

> Our modern civilisation is heading towards a self-made catastrophe.
> Individual learning cannot cope anymore with the overwhelming amount of
> fragmented information. Organisational learning fostered in the Sengian
> Learning Organisation is required. When i considered the number of LOs
> which i know compared to the number of OOs (Ordinary Organisations), they
> are so few that the LO can be seen as an ideal rather than a goal. But in
> terms of the changes which organisations world wide soon will have to
> make, a Second Renaissance (the rediscovery of learning once again) is
> needed.

Since nature has no goal - it is just there, no higher reason - one can
question if the longing or the search for a goal is reasonable. I realise
that these worrds are somewhat provocative.

If we consider nature, and particularly the evolution of nature (the many
successive renaissances, on this list sometimes called a 'Steigerung', or
emergence), a goal in the human sense of this word, is not present. The
fact that present life forms exist, is a matter of survival. Apparently,
only those organisms that could survive exist. But what counts for nature,
counts for everything. It counts for food, ideas, constructions, etc. A
hamburger exists, because it apparantly is tasteful and fills a niche. The
commerce of poisoness and untasty food, will never survive (and does not
exist). "But is the goal of life not to reproduce?", could be the
objective question. No, it is not the cause of existence, but the result
of it: only those things that reproduce will exist/survive.

But what to do with the observation of At - only very few LO's exist, most
are OO's (Ordinary Organisations). Does this mean that a LO is in the
evolution of organisations doomed to die? If a LO is too vulnarable, weak
and infertile, why shall we discuss and hope for existence and survival?
If preditors and danger are everywhere, and if the conditions for survival
(the 'climate') are too harsh, a LO will not exist in this world.
Possibly, we could find an isolated LO somewhere on top of a high
mountain, on the bottom of the ocean, or on an other planet.

If LO's will have a change for existence, the LO must know what the
dangers are and how to protect against these dangers. Mimicry, or an
armour (passive protection); or poisoness weapons, like the weak jelly

I hope that this message will not disturb your Christmas feelings.

Leo Minnigh


leo minnigh <minnigh@dds.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.