Replying to LO29704 --
Leo Minnigh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>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.
Greetings dear Leo,
The word goal comes from the Saxon word "gaelan"=hinder. They also named
the winning-post at the end of a race with the word "gole". In this sense
you are right -- nature does not hinder its evolution and nature is not in
a race to finish something.
Perhaps it is the "higher reason" of humans which are at error here,
indicating its predeliction to fragment what is essentially continuous
into separate stretches -- perhaps because of a lack of wholeness?
>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.
>No, it is not the cause of existence, but the result
>of it: only those things that reproduce will exist/survive.
I think you are right that survival is not the whole story. Only those
organisms which could reproduce would have the need for survival! Thus we
have to think of both "emergence" and "survival" when considering our
>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?
My observation concerns what goes on here in South Africa. Perhaps there
are countries in the world in which LO's are abundant. I would like to be
informed about them.
I do not think that LOs are in the evolution of organisations a
"vulnarable, weak and infertile" species. A rare species of plants or
animals is usually rare because it has found a way to optimise its
propagation. For example, a Clarius catfish female which scatters her
eggs, lays thousands of eggs in the open. But an Ancistrus catfish female
lays only some hundred eggs in a protected hole since the male will care
for them until they have hatched and the fry have become free swimming.
Clarius catfish species are usually abundant and an important source of
food. Ancistrus catfish species are usually rare and anyway too tiny to
I wish the analogy (Clarius = OO, Ancistrus = LO) could be taken further.
Most Clarius catfish species can live in foul water. But Ancistrus catfish
species prefer clear, well oxygenated water. Some Clarius catfish species
can grow over one meter in length, but the maximum length for Ancistrus
species are about fifteen centimeter. Clarius catfish species are
carnivores and scanvengers to provide them with protein for such a high
body mass. Ancistrus catfish species are rather herbivores, eating algae
and occasionally an insect also living on the algae. In many rivers where
alien Clarius catfish species have been introduced as a source of food,
the indigenous fish species became extinct because of the Clarius'
predacious nature. But it is impossible for Ancistrus catfish species to
do this because their mouths have developed for scraping off algae and not
to predate on other fishes, how tiny they may be.
Fellow learners might want to look at pictures of the Clarius and
Ancistrus catfishes. Go to
< http://www.planetcatfish.com/core/index.htm >
and click on the arrow next to "Cat-elog". Then, when this page
appears, turn down the window on the left side until the family
Clariidae appears. There are six Clarius species listed. Turn
further down until the family Loricariidae appears. There are some
three dozen Ancistrus species listed. Click on a species name and
thumbnail bitmaps of it will appear in the right window.
>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 fish.
I think you have made a very important statement here. I wonder what these
dangers might be? Let us explore them in our future LO-dialogue. I myself
want to point out one danger which i think concerns all LOs. It is to
think that to become a LO is like reaching a goal post. It is not. Once an
OO (Ordinary Organisation) has emerged into a LO, it has to go further in
maturing itself and help other OOs to emerge into LOs too. In other words,
it is not in a race with a finishing post, but is rather in a never ending
journey exploring the deeper spirituality of learning together.
>I hope that this message will not disturb your Christmas feelings.
No, it did not. It helped me to think of Christmas and how the LO fits
with it. A few days before Christmas i experienced the urge to answer the
question "Is the Kingdom of Heaven a LO?" I began studying the Bible to
answer this question and made a discovery which surprised. me.
Unfortunately, my computer screen at home broke and i still have to
replace it before i can make a copy of my study and report it to fellow
With care and best wishes,
At de Lange <email@example.com> 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.