It Hurts! Embassy Bombings LO19013

Mnr AM de Lange (
Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:37:03 GMT+2

Replying to LO19001 --

Dear Organlearners,

Charlie Saur <> writes:

> This is again an incredible dialogue, and I am so happy to participate in
> such important stuff...

Greetings Charlie,

I am also happy despite the name of the subject. But why are you
happy? I am happy because we are grwoing in wholeness. Slowly, but
surely, we are beginning to deal with the fragmentations of our

Incidently, the exploding of a bomb is a study in wholeness vs
fragmentations in itself. What if people begin to use devices
(ignoring the Geneva convention) based on other essentialities?
I can think of many devices, but will not even mention one.

> I think of systems thinking as an inclusive process where the possibility
> of fragmentation or categoricity only becomes part of the system. For
> example, can the feedback received from the obvious or not-so-obvious
> "missing fragments" become part of the system?

Yes, but only if we do not "think away" these feedbacks. Husserl's
method of eidetic reduction (thinking away parts of the phenomenon to
discover its essentials -- the phenomenon immerge when an essential
part is thought away) seems to be very difficult for people to
understand. Yet most of us do it tacitly almost every day by putting
on blinkers.

> You seem to have chosen some pretty big hitters as examples, At, but is
> this really a situation of a fragmented systems-thinking picture of the
> universal system, or something else? It seems that excluding God, life
> and creativity from our "universal system" leaves us with something
> less...and I wasn't aware that, by nature of the shared meaning of
> "systems-thinking" that it could be fragmented.

For me there is the "reality inside me" and the "reality outside me".
God, life and creativity is in the "reality outside me". If they were
not, then even the words "God", "life" and "creativity" would not
have existed. Some people would argue that the existence of these
words point to only one thing, namely that they only exist in the
"reality inside a person". Well, to me all other persons except I are
part of the "reality outside me". I try to harmonise the "reality
outside me" with the "reality inside me". In this harmonising I
discover that other persons are the other part of me. This cautions
me not to follow either individualism or collectivism.

Your wording
>... by nature of the shared meaning of "systems-thinking"
is most interesting.

As I understand it, every human has something which we may call
an "elementARY systems-thinking", although few humans are aware that
they have such a thing and that it is unique. Once they enter into a
dialogue on this "elementary systems-thinking", they discover that
they each have one, that there are correspondences and differences,
etc. The seven essentialities play an immense role in these
discoveries. The feedback of these discoveries on their own
"elementARY systems-thinking" transforms each by EMERGENCES into an
"elementAL systems-thinking". It think it these "elementAL
systems-thinking" which you have refered to.

The problem which you refered to, saying that "you were not aware" is
that the transformation from "elementARY systems-thinking" to
"elementAL systems-thinking" is not automatically a constructive
emergence. It can very well also be a destructive immergence. In
fact, a constructive emergence is much more complex than a
destructive immergence so that the latter happens much easier. The
difference between the two are the seven essentialities.

What we have to become aware of, is the back-action of the "elementAL
systems-thinking" on the "elementARY systems-thinking". The
back-action of emergences is to cause bliss because it sustains and
promotes the "elementARY systems-thinking". But the back-action of
immergences cause hurt because it endangers and impairs the
"elementARY systems-thinking".

I believe that to indicate to any person by words or deeds that God,
life and creativity is of little or no importance, is extremely

> My perception is that the process of systems thinking was a "becoming"
> process and not a "being" state. Please share your thoughts?

Charlie, for me systems thinking is a "being-becoming" and neither a
"being" or a "becoming". It is very much like this Universe (God's
Creation) which is also a "being-becoming". (I will someday again
write on it in terms of energy and entropy.) Even God revealed
Himself in the Bible as "Being-Becoming". In the Hebrew it is
possible using only four consonants JHWH -- His personal name. In the
New Testament a long description in Greek is used "He who is, was and
will become" (See for example Relevations.)

In my "systems thinking" the universe (Creation) is a "thinking
system". Thus systems thinking is for me the light of God shining
within each of us. It is part of God's common grace to all people.
The fact that this light shines, is more important than with what
colours (creeds) or luminescence (passion) it shines. As I see it,
when this light becomes extinguished among the majority of humans we
will be close to the days of Armagedon. St Paul tells us that
something prevent the coming of these days, but he does not tell us
what it is.

Others may not believe in God. But we all have to ask ourselves
what will become of this world if system thinking (even tacitly)
disappears in the majority of humans? Try to depict a scenario!
Remember to leave out any manifestation of the LO, even in families
or between couples.

Best wishes


At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email:

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>