Replying to LO29838 --
Live on dear reader, live and learn, dear At,
Perhaps i should make it clear that i do not believe in an after life:
every becoming should be done here and now. Perhaps i already did. Also i
think that a KoH and a LO is not a situation or a process that will ever
exist. I treat both as metaphores, symbols, concepts, constructions,
notions, ideas, myths. I do think however that something that is not real
or cannot become real may have real implications. Perhaps one of the
problems we have "is" that these imaginal ideas do lead to real
implications. For instance people fly to a believe, a religion, a church -
like a herd that's afraid of the lightning bolt - real - supposing that
there is a thorny god - imagination - and conclude that - since they are
saved this time - that there is something real in this believe. Because we
have the ability to learn and must learn to survive families, it only
became natural to learn that there is safety in numbers. And we do have
the ability to see what we want to see and to hear what we want to hear.
And not to learn what we do not want to learn. As always, i write this
reply just out of curiosity to my own thoughts.
>>First of all, i must say that i do consider us to be still
>>rather primitive animals (to avoid the word "creatures",
>>is there a word for entities that can develop themselves
>>in large parts? "enactors"?). We are born into to this
>>world to live a life full of confusion.
>You can write that last sentence over and over again. Why all this
>confusion? It has to do with the fact that we are thinking animals.
>But what in our thinking is/are the cause of this confusion? A lack
>of learning? A lack of systems thinking? A lack of LOs (Learning
>Organisations)? A lack of unconditional love?
There is no need for a "why"-question, because this is not a question
about purpose or cause or reason. This is a life full of confusion because
that's the way i perceive it. And i assume that animals live an even more
confused life. And i pity inanimate objects, i pity them all. I also
suppose that our thinking only added to confusion in this part of the
universe. Emotions and thoughts didn't make things better - at first they
may have served a purpose, like an early warning system - but later on in
evolution it got out of hand. The paradox "is" that this confusion, this
fusion of thoughts, feelings, emotions and acts is being - or is becoming
- ordered. Into philosophies and ethics. There "is" only becoming (or
"will" or "power") and i'm trying to make something out of it (a
>I am now convinded for the past few years that it has to do with
>how we map the "world-outside-me" into the "world-inside-me".
>Perhaps i will think differently in a few years from now, but at
>present i do not even suspect anything else. The worst in this
>mapping is the "one-into-many" as a "many-into-one" (i.e,
>reductionistic, linear and authoritative thinking.)
There it is again: you're also a confusianist: making maps.
>>Who am I? Why is this? What is happening? How do i
>>do this? These blanks have to be filled with what i here
>>call a faith, some preliminary choices, a personality. And
>>we're doing this still in a primitive way.
>Your comment reminds me of what is happening the past few months
>here in South Africa in almost all communication media. It is a
>discussion or debate, but seldom a dialogue, on the fundamental
>question "How can I know God". I will not go into the details. But two
>things strike me
>(1) the lack of making a distinction between knowledge and information
>(2) the inability to held a dialogue, free of judgements.
That's because the question itself is not a very smart one, nor a
fundamental one. It was probably posed to create a lot of discussions in
the first place and end the confusion by stating a belief. Turn it around:
"how can i know Myself?".
>>It has always stricken me that most religious leaders and founders
>>of churches are men.
>It is the same in business, academia, etc. Sexual equity in all walks of
>life is still an ideal rather than a fact.
It might also indicate that men and women have - or had - different
>>Most religions - at least those with a God - are too simple
>>to be true. That isn't wrong - as i told you we're simple
>>enactors -. We need simple stories, miracles, rituals, a list
>>of do's and don'ts to make sense of a complex world fast.
>I think we are reaching the end of an era here. For example, it is said
>in business that to sell something effectively, it has to be done in simple
>sentences using common words.
>The world is complex and more people are beginning to appreciate it.
>>Now, my suspicion tells me that this faculty (or even a need:
>>we need a back ground, a set of rules and values, a faith in
>>order to be able to think and act) of adapting to a religion is
>>used - or perhaps even kidnapped (please notice the word
>>kid) - for another purpose: to create and sustain membership
>>to a group.
>I do not think so. Individuals and organisations live by rules. But i do
>agree that some individuals are bent on setting up rules for everything.
>I know several people who, whenever speaking in a meeting, is trying
>to set up a new rule.
So you do. And i do not. Rules are part of the game, home made rules.
And so are roles, the personalities we take on, home grown masks. And the
stakes, also part of the game, including the illusive after life. All for
the greater good of the group.
>>We do notice the intergroup dynamics, however. It leads
>>to the devastations we can see, hear and smell around us.
>>Most of the times the other groups are seen as having an
>>interesting "otherness", a list of attributions, a set of peculiarities.
>>We even need this otherness, because it helps us in defining
>>who we are. That's why we're so fond of travelling.
>This "otherness" is one of the 7Es (seven essentialities of creativity).
>I think that we need all the 7Es to know ourselves. Knowledge is the
>outcome of learning. Learning with one or more of the 7Es seriously
>impaired leads to little knowledge.
>>Now, I assume that our poorly developed ability to learn
>>who we are, shows itself in our projections on the outer
>>world and our organisations.
>You can write this again and again! I think it is wisdom rather than an
>assumption. Observing oneself and change what is not satisfying is one
>of the most difficult things to accomplish. One thing struck me when
>studying the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin -- his immense ability
>to steer his personal development.
Here we agree - but it is also very satisfying too.
>>What i find missing in every religion (explicitly, not implicitly,
>>because it is inevitable) - even the religions based on theories
>>of organizing, like the Learning Organization - is an account,
>>a set of stories, rules and rituals for intergroup dynamics based
>>on personal spiritual development.
>I would not say "every religion" because although i have studied many
>religions, i have little practical experience of most of them. But i do
>agree with you in the sense that external information is often used to
>suppress personal knowledge and spiritual development. Franklin
>was quite frank in his autobiography when writing that he did not
>attend sermons regularly because the pastor wanted to make him a
>good presbiterian rather than a person with good virtues.
Living a virtous life without expecting a reward.
>>I suppose that the KoH - lacking intergroup dynamics - will
>>be a dull situation, but only for a short while. Human beings
>>will mess up every paradise. The LO is not a heaven, and even
>>the KoH will not be a heaven. Heaven is, like hell, the others.
>Yes, many humans are inclined to mess up things. But coming back
>to Franklin, one of his goals in life was not to mess up things. He gives
>many examples how he avoided messing up something. The strange
>thing is that his autobiography ends abruptly, not telling anything
>about the last thirty compelling years of his life. But in the last dozen
>or so pages he describe several times how others tried to mess up
>his own life. I think he just got fed up with it all. Perhaps in his last
>thirty years during which he accomplished so many things, there were
>too many people trying to mess his life up.
I didn't mean messing up lifes. I tried to use a short cut: there is only
me and the others and death. Live life, learn from each other and make an
>There is no hell like people messing things up in one's life. But on the
>other hand, there is no heaven like caring, considerate people making
>things better in one's life. I think that the crux of the matter is
>We can create destructively or we can create constructively. It is up
>to us to decide and learn which of these two Janus faces of creativity
>we will wear.
Both. Creation is both constructive and destructive.
>With care and best wishes
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.