Dear Organlearners,
David Guinn <dig@eastman.com> writes at some place:
> Your name could also mean "writes of length", and that is what
> intimidates me.
Peace David,
Yes, I know. I do not have the gift of the poet.
Painting reality complex -- that is me. It is intimidating because
complexity intimidates. But I am not trying to intimidate you, I am rather
trying to help you to overcome this intimidation because I know how it
works.
> I love to read what you write.
Thank you for your kind words. It makes me happy.
But again I have to create a rich picture. I beg you not to become
intimidated by it.
Your words of appreciation also make me worried. Why? It all has to
do with my focus on "becoming" in a world which pays tribute to
"being". Allow me to explain.
In 1970 I managed to organise the complex properties of soils in
terms of "entropy production". In 1971 I became aware of my calling:
to help people to learn in a complex world.
In 1972 I shocked all my academical colleagues by becoming a high
school teacher. In less than a year I became acutely aware of three
things:
1 The majority of kids in all grades could learn only feebly.
2 Despite my own training as a teacher the previous year and my
extensive reading of books on education, I was not able to
fulfill my calling
3 The complexity of learning is (was) orders higher than my wildest
guesses, even given my experience in the complexity of soils.
My calling concerns the "becoming" learning and not the learned
"being". In other words, I do not want people to learn about the
outcomes ("being") of my own learning ("becoming"). Unfortunately,
"becoming-being" is an essentiality of also learning (as an emergent
of creativity). Hence I cannot work with only the "becoming" -- I
also have to take the "being" into consideration. It means that,
although I focus on learning as"becoming", I also have to keep in
view the learned outcomes as "being". Even worse, although my calling
concerns the "becoming-being" of other learners, I have to set an
example to make my calling authentic and veracious.
My worry is that those who I want to lead, will focus on the "being"
rather than the "BECOMING" of learning. Why? Furthermore, that they
will focus on "becoming-being" of my learning rather than of their
OWN learning. Why? I will try to answer these "why"s in the next
paragraph. But back to my leadership. It is a wierd one. I want
to lead people how to lead themselves through their own learning.
This makes it an ironic leadership. I do not want them to follow me,
but to lead themselves. I also must be honest. I follow Jesus who is
the Christ (Saviour). But I had to struggle with many people who
wanted me to follow them as saviours in terms of their modern idols
(economy, technology, politics, knowledge), even those whose idols
are their own theology (rendering of Jesus Christ). The greed and
judgement with which they do it, is sometimes so hurting that it
makes me sick in body and soul. Were it not for the Holy Spirit who
gave me strength "to lead myself as a follower" of Jesus Christ, I
would have succumbed to their hurt. This last phrase in quotation
marks seems to make my leadership mystic. But I simply mean the
following: Leadership cannot serve itself.
Why do our focus become mesmerised on "being" and on the learned
creations of others? I have searched through many libraries in books
on every possible subject such as history, anthropology, philosophy
and religion for an answer. I tried not to skip a time span or a
place. As far as these books go, I became astounded how much most of
humankind are possesed with "being" and "learned creations of others"
rather than harmonisingg "becoming-being" and the "creations" of
themselves and others.
In the end I could not come up with a more plausible answer than the
one which the Bible gives me. We cling to the letter rather than the
Spirit and idolize some creation rather than worshipping the Creator.
We put our living thoughts into script, not realising that these
inscriptions are only "being". What should we have realised? God
ordered Moses to put the WRITTEN copy of His commandments away in the
ark of the covenant and to CONCEAL the ark in the most holy place of
the tabernacle where only the high priest could see it once a year.
God ordered it because of His covenant. What is this covenant? It is
very rich. One facet of it is that He wants to transform our hearts
of rock into "becoming" (warm, living and moving) hearts full of His
Spirit. It is as if He says "Do not fix the focus on the inscription,
but on the grand thought symbolised by it". What can we learn from
it? Literacy cannot serve itself.
(Have you noted? Literacy cannot serve itself. Leadership cannot
serve itself. In other contributions I have written similar
sentences. Truth cannot serve itself. Morality cannot serve itself. I
once tried to explain it by the asymmetric and transitive nature of
all emergences at the edge of chaos due to "entropy production".
I know of no other systematical explanation. But I know many striking
examples. The best one is about Jesus. The Lord who serves the
servants.)
If literacy cannot serve itself, what should it serve? Maybe the
articulated thoughts of others so that we can become possesed by it
just as we have become possesed by "being"? No. In the Bible it
serves to document God's intervention with humans. But outside the
Bible it serves to ariculate the tacit knowledge of each of us. Each
one of us has a unique tacit knowledge. The tacit knowledge of a
person is that knowledge which that person has never expressed before
by means of any object. The primary object of expression is the
SPOKEN language. But it is not the only object of expression. All our
other creations like literature, music, profession and even
technology are also objects of expression.
(If a learner thinks that literacy has to serve itself, then he/she
would be an Oedipus figure, engrossed by his/her own learned
articulation or others closely resembling it. I see it often happen
in the academy - the inbreeding of a group of peers.)
It is most important that each of us should express our own tacit
knowledge self. If another person express his/her tacit knowledge,
some part of it will correspond to my tacit knowledge. This part I
will recognise, understand and even love in what that person is
expressing. But my tacit knowledge remains tacit until I have
expressed it myself. Only then it becomes formal knowledge. The rest
of the tacit knowledge which that person has expressed, I will
probably not even recognise. And if I do become aware of it, I will
not understand it because I do not have the corresponding tacit
knowledge. And if I do assume it without understanding, I will
definitely not love it because there is no counterpart in myself to
love.
> I would love even more to listen to you face to face. That way
> I could stop you and ask questions when you go somewhere I
> do not understand. I could also help you move me to
> other unknowns (for me) when I do understand.
David, feel free to ask me any question. I will try to answer them as
best as possible, if I can. But please, give me an indication of the
context in which you prefer the answer. I need that context to
prepare an answer. An answer without a context has little use.
I think you would have been disappointed to meet me face to face. The
main reason is that I (hopefully) would not have fallen into the trap
of confusing a monologue with a dialogue. I would probably ask you
more questions than you would ask me. I would rather allow you to
explore reality to observe the unknowns I have not yet reached. I am
much Socratic in my spoken dialogues.
Am I trying to be witty? No, I am absolutely serious. Allow me to
explain. I grew up in a society which gave me the notion that the
Bible is God's monologue. Today I understand better. The Bible
documents the dialogue between Him and His followers. I also got the
notion that I had to accept His commands blindly. Today I understand
better. He invites me and even begs me to question Him as much as I
can in whatever I do. Sometimes I already have the tacit knowledge to
recognise, understand and love the answers given in the Bible. But
often I lack the experiences and tacit knowledge which emerge from
it. To rectify this takes time so that I cannot get the answers to my
questions immediately. More than often I forget that I have asked
questions which had no answers. But God is faithful. When I have
gained the necessary tacit knowledge, He reminds me of these
questions.
David, your four lines which I have quoted above, summarise my
intense struggle with the preachers of our church. They and I
consider the sermon (God's message) to be the most important part of
the lithurgy of the Sunday services. But on the how we differ. These
preachers try to deliver the sermon as a monologue. I beg them to do
it as teachers / pastors by way of dialogue. For example, to allow
any member of the congregation to ask a question as soon as that
question has become burning to that member.
I did manage to convince over a period of eight years three preachers
(one permanent, two temporary because they were still studying) to
try it out. The results were as follow. The preachers were very
nervous. The parish members were very uncomfortable. But the
atmosphere in the service became electrifying and the attention of
all was gripped because a LO was emerging. Unfortunately, all three
preachers sooned moved away. In their new parishes they did not have
the guts to try it again. And in our own parish tradition again has
taken control.
It is only in our Bible study group (roughly 16 members on Thursday
evenings) where a LO has sustained itself for three years now. We
question God, the Bible, learned commentaries and each other
unceasingly until we have found the answer or have reached consensus
that we will have to wait for the answer. On some evenings we advance
only one verse, but we cover an immense rich picture of the gospel.
Sadly, our preacher has never been with us despite our many
invitations. He is aware that our dialoque work, but he cannot avoid
monologues because he "deems" so easily.
> Your knowledge is so much greater than mine, and your insight
> brings me to other worlds with such force, I stand amazed.
It is my opinion (not judgement) that it is merely an illusion. Once
you are able to understand my system thinking, i.e how "entropy
production", creativity and learning connect, how chaos develop into
order in nature and culture, and how the seven essentialities add
value to your creativity by channeling it into constructive events,
it will not be amazing any more. I think that any system thinking
concerned with "complexity" will do it. My own definition of
complexity is rather complex. Complexity is the perception of reality
of all humans through all the ages.
My knowledge has been heavily shaped by "entropy production" since
1969. From 1969 to roughly 1983 it all happened on the tacit level of
my knowledge. Since 1984 it happend also on the fomal (explicit)
level of my knowledge. Consider the seven essentialities. After I
discovered them , I was surprised to see that they occur even in the
hideous mathematical equation which describes "entropy production" to
its fullest. Thus since 1969 these essentialities influenced my
knowledge.
Take the essentiality wholeness for example. What value does
knowledge have if it is not whole (integrated)? Interdisciplinary
work has become the catch word, but few people seem to make it. See
Tom Abeles <tabeles@tmn.com> Subject: Learning Industries? LO19202.
But what about "interfaculty work" which is more integrated than
interdisciplinary work? It is not yet a catch word so that very few
people even think of it. Yet I consider it essential to the wholeness
of knowledge. Thus you will find me working among all racks in all
five levels of our library. At first I spent much time learning the
terminology of each subject. It still frustrates me, but I know that
I have to do it to bridge the fragmentations which we have brought
about in academy.
> I could take the word "deman" and change it to be "demean", and that is
> what I fear. That is why I "lurk". I would love to dialogue, but am
> afraid someone else will see my stupidity. You have proven time and again
> you do not judge, but is this true for everyone? You are a teacher, I am
> a student, a learner. I look for your name in the list of notes I receive
> from this server, to read you first. Is that wrong? Am I being too hard
> on myself? Am I correct? Ultimately, I must answer those questions for
> myself. To my satisfaction. Thank you for listening.
In the "deemster" problem I focussed on dialogue and how judgement
stops it, causing "lurking". However "lurking" is much more complex
than that. By introducing the word "demean", you have focussed on
another issue, namely the essentiality openness. Selective openness
(or in other words, controled closure) is very important to creative
systems. Let me explain.
The verb "demean" has two quite different meanings: (1) to behave
reflexisively and (2) to degrade. Maybe you meant both.
(1) In order to behave reflexsively, there must be a closure of some
kind. (It all has to do with setting up an "strange" attractor.) Thus
the "lurking" is of necessity, provided the closure is temporal. If
the closure becomes permanent, it leads to a deadly equilbrium.
(2) In order to degrade, one or more of the seven essentialities have
to be impaired. At the edge of chaos the degrading will be an
immergence, either explosive or ablative. Closer to equilbrium the
degrading will be a consumption -- something else doing the "eating".
Thus the "lurking" is again necessary, provided there is gowth in the
seven essentialities.
Stupidity? Every time, just before I post a contribution, I go
through it once again, asking myself who will I be hurting through my
own stupidity. But it helps little because I have only so much
experiences to make use of. I have to grow in experiences. It only
happens through the reaction of others, making me aware of
stupidities I was ignorant to. It is definitely not a nice to
experience someone else pointing out a stupidity of mine, but it is
necessary. Since so many people are pointing out stupidities, I find
no point in pointing out them myself. I rather use their pointing to
examine myself, even is it was addressed to someone else.
I am a teacher by virtue of learning. In other words, when I stop
learning, I do not qualify as teacher anymore. Thus, if I am honest
in my teaching, I am a learner just as you. The success of my
teaching is when I am not needed as a teacher any more.
It is not wrong to read my notes first. In fact, I admire your
tenacity in going through them despite their complexity and thus
length. It shows that you are definitely learning about learning. The
day when you exclaim that you need not to read my notes at all
because you have learned how to learn will be the happiest day of my
life.
I do not think you are hard on yourself. One of the keys to
irreversible self-organisation is that the "entropy production" must
come from within. Entropy is produced by force-flux pairs. Being hard
on yourself is to step up the existing forces (which can be quite
dangerous) or allow new forces to emerge (which is better in my
opinion). This is one of the reasons why I paint a complex pcture --
to set up many forces. Some have complained to me in private that
when they reread one of my long, complex contributions, the picture
becomes more plasmodial (blurred) at each reading. It is nothing to
be afraid of. It is nothing else than these forces beginning to
produce entropy and thus its first manifestation as chaos.(Osborne
called it brain storming.) By stepping up the production, the
bifurcation will be reached and thus the chaos will become order.
Are you correct? I will never know for sure. But I am reasonably sure
that you are heading in the right direction.
Yes, you will have to ask these questions and ultimately answer them
yourself. It may take many years to get to some answers . Some of
my answers took me more than thirty years to create and some are
still far from finished.
Creativity is the most astounding emergent of "entropy production".
Learning is a first order emergent of creating. Believing is a first
order emergent of learning and thus a second order emergent of
creating. The object of believing is the articles of faith. For the
majority of humans the articles of faith inludes one or many deities.
(Did you know that more than 25 000 deities in the history of
humankind have been documented?) By questioning these deities, an
extraordinary back action (feedback loop) is set up which involves
the lower orders like learning, creativity and even "entropy
production".
Here is an example.
One day my granddaughter Jessica noted that I ask some of her
questions also to God. Then she hit me right between the eyes by
asking "What does God think of my question?" I could think of only
one answer: "God smiles. He loves to hear you asking Him. He will let
you know when you have found the correct answer." She immediately
began to sing a song of praise, composing it on the spur of the
moment. I had difficulty to keep my truck on the road because of the
tears in my eyes. She asked me why I was crying. I replied that I
have seen God smiling. She broke out in laughter of delight and gave
me a tissue to wipe off my eyes. Can we have more precious
experiences?
Thank you David (and all you other) for listening to me. I love to
listen to you.
> "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will
> arise from another place, but you will perish. And who knows but that you
> have come to this position for such a time as this?"
> Esther 4:14 (my version)
Yes, David. Every prophet of the Bible articulated this knowledge.
One of my articles of faith is that every believer in the God of the
Bible has a three-fold mission -- to act as king, priest and prophet.
(Melchisedek). One exceptional prophet was the unwilling Jonah. He
deliberately made use of a monologue which lasted only a couple of
minutes, hoping that the citizins of Nineveh would not take heed.
Well, it worked, so much so that many years later Koresh acted
according to it, sending the Judeans back to Jerusalem.
My question now is - if we use only short monologues (communiques)
once in a while in our organisations, are we really sure that they
will have effect?
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>