Devoted Free Will LO19925

AM de Lange (
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:43:16 +0200

Replying to LO19834 --

Dear Organlearners

This subject was "LO's in Higher Education"

Don Dwiggins < > writes:

>At, the following gave me a "shock of recognition" that
>made the hair on the back of my neck stand up:

Greetings Dwig,

Aha. Let us keep on with the hair raising:

You refered to my

>>(LO19557) ... learning team has to organise on the basis
>>of VOLUNTARY and COMMITED participation ..."

But Peter Senge write that the two "essences" on which the Learning
Team should focus, are "collective intelligence" and "alignment". How
on earth did I move from these two "essences" to "voluntary" and
"commited" participation. The apparent correspondences

collective intelligence => commited
alignment => voluntary

or, otherwise
collective intelligence => voluntary
alignment => commited
are just to thick for a dollar to make any sense.

I do hope that my change of "commited" to "devoted" (a synonym( and
"voluntary" to "free will" (a synonym) in the subject makes a little bit
more sense.

But bringing the two of them together as "devoted free will" and not
merely as "voluntary and commited participation", I hope to create a
massive Yin-Yang field (or "entropic force"). I know that for many people
"commited=devoted" is almost exactly opposite to "voluntary=free-will". In
other words, they act like dialectical duals. But they are to me
complementary duals. That means that both are needed to describe some
"thing". In this sense they are like "noun" and "verb" -- both are needed
to make a sentence. But what "thing" do they describe together?

It is definitely not one (or more or even all) of the "essences" of Senge.
I use "definitely not" to test your tacit knowledge. Try as you would, you
will not be able to connect this "thing" to the "essences". Does it mean
that there is not any connection? No, there is a most extraordinary
connection. But because of "academical apartheid" I am willing to wager a
bet that you will not be able to describe this connection.

The "thing" which the "devoted free will" decribe, belongs to something
which itself is complementary to the eleven essences. In other words, the
"thing" is a lesser complementary duality ("devoted free will") which
belongs to an even greater complementary duality. What is this greater
duality? To explain the lesser duality, I took an example from language,
namely "noun/verb". I will again use an example from language, namely
"grammer/meaning". Grammer is vital to meaning. The eleven essences of
Senge is necessary to set up the grammer of LOs. We then use this grammer
to find the meaning of LOs. The eleven essences are not the meaning of
LOs. Read again carefully what Senge writes about the essences: "... while
they are diffcult to express in words, they are vital to grasp fully the
meaning and purpose of each discipline..."

Let us give a name to this one dual of the greater complementary duality.
What will it be? Maybe I should not name it so that you yourself can
emerge to this taxonomic excercise. But I must go on. Thus I will call it
the "dynamics of learning". In other words, the "thing" which the "devoted
free will" decribe, belongs to the "dynamics of learning". The eleven
essences do not belong directly to the "dynamics of learning". (They
belong indirectly to it by virtue of the complementarity, but that I will
not explain now.)

Finally, I can now say the "thing" which the "devoted free will" decribe,
is the spontaneity of any activity, team learning included! We say that
an activity which is characterised by a "devoted free will", is a
SPONTANEOUS activity. It is the opposite of a non-sponatenous activity
which may be described by the phrase "whimsical coersion". The beliefs
which you have listed under your "quality initiative" has nothing to do
with "whimsical coersion", but everything with "devoted free will". (I
want to commend you on the powerful way in which you have formulated them.
It makes me desiring for becoming part of your initiative.)

Your hair in the neck raised because of a feedback loop which you
intuitively became aware of. In the one half of the loop you experienced
how your very "devoted free will" enabled you to articulate your "quality
initiative". This is an emergence into higher order entities which you
call "beliefs". But in the other half of the loop you experienced the
powerful backaction of these emergent entities on your "devoted free
will". To use another metaphor once again -- you experienced how your fuel
tank becomes full again. This is always a hair raising experience -- or
should I say "electrifying" experience?

I will not now explain this loop in the "dynamics of learning". In order
to do it, I need at least two concepts (the one relatively unknown to
you): "free energy F" and "work W". And to bring them together in one
picture, I need to use a third concept, namely "entropy production". So,
if you will excuse me, I will do that at a later time.

And how much I enjoyed the next:

>I'd be interested in discussing this effort, particularly
>the prospects for "catalyzing a movement". I believe
>I have enough high-level support to have a chance of
>succeeding, since the leaders of the company seem
>to be well aware of the problems attendant on growth.
>My sponsor has told me, in effect, that it's OK for me
>to try things and fail, but not to fail to try.

By using "catalyzing a movement", you have shown to me that you are very
close to one of the central features of irreversible self-organisation,
namely "autocatalysis". What you now can do, is to read Maturana on
"autopoiesis" as well as Prigogine on "autocatalysis". But read also any
other stuff which you can lay your hands on like "positive feedback loops"
in cybernetics.

Best wishes


At de Lange <> 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 <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>