Dear Organlearners,
John Gunkler <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> writes:
>I understand that my viewpoint may not be popular.
(snip)
>People "get changed" by other people without permission
>(and, often, without knowing it) all the time! That's how
>terrible things like Nazi Germany and South African apartheid
>happen! That's how "mob rule" can take over people at times
>and result in individuals doing things that are counter even to
>their most deeply held moral values.
Greetings John,
What you write about apartheid is so true. An interesting reaction in the
New South Africa is the insistence by black people that any proposed
change must be "transparent". By this they mean that the people involved
in a change have the right to know why and how they will be involved in
the change.
You also write:
>I learned a lot about human behavior, and how to change
>it, from behavioral psychology experiments -- but the
>strongest lesson is that it is, indeed, possible for someone
>to change another person without their permission. This
>is exactly why we must have ethical standards about this
>kind of thing, and why we must remain vigilant.
I agree. But I want to stress something just as important. A Systems
Thinking (ST) should give a coherent and consistent account why one person
should not change another person without "permission based on a sound
knowledge". If the ST cannot give such an account, then using such a ST
will change another person without "permission based on a sound
knowledge".
It is possible to give such a coherent and consistent account of ALL
POSSIBLE CHANGES in terms of irreversible self-organisation. Let us assume
such an account exists. Let us then trace what will become of the account.
When A person gives person B "permission based on a sound knowledge" to
change person A, then person A allows person B to become part of his/her
irreversible self-organisation. However, no irreversible change happens
ever in isolation. Every action leads to a reaction. (When action equal
reaction, the change becomes reversible.) Thus A will also change B while
B is permitted to change A. Consequently B must also allow A to become
part of his/her own irreversible self-organisation. As soon as there is
mutual permission, the irreversibly self-organising individuals are ready
to emerge into a irreversible self-organising organisation. If the
self-organising is specifically the activity learning, then a Leaning
Organisation will emerge among the Learning Individuals.
It is one thing TO ASSUME that the ST has a coherent and consistent
account of "permission based on a sound knowledge" in terms of
"irreversible self-organisation". But it is a another thing TO CREATE such
an account so that it eventually exist, something which I have been
involved with for many years. Furthermore, it is a third thing for any
particular individual TO LEARN such an account. Basically, we have to
types of learning, namely reversible learning and irreversible learning.
What does it mean?
Route learning (memorisation and regurgitation) is the primary mode of
reversible learning. How much irreversible self-organisation is involved
when such an account is learned by route learning? Very little, if
anything. What does it entail? Consider a modern computer which is much
better at reversible route learning than any human being. Can we conclude
that a computer will give much better permission than the human itself? I
shiver even when contemplating such an Orwellian scenario. I believe that
permission based on route learning is not a permission at all, but a
submission in ignorance.
By merely seeking irreversible learning rather than reversible learning,
we have not yet solved our problem completely. Because of the equilibrated
nature of reversible learning, spontaneity is not even an issue. But once
we enter the realm of irreversible learning, spontaneity becomes
critically important. It is exactly here where this thread and the thread
"What is culture" join into one complex thread.
Culture and nature form a complementary dual, the second most encompassing
dual I can think of. The distinction between nature and culture is because
of the human mind. Any change in which any human mind participates,
influences culture directly and nature indirectly, thus defining the
complementarity nature+culture. This distinction seems to be so flimsy
that we could easily have scrapped it, were it not for spontaneity. What
does it mean?
Look at the computer (technology) in front of you. It is made up of
certain raw materials in certain proportions. Now let us put all the raw
materials themselves in the correct proportions next to your computer.
Look at this bunch of raw materials. Will this disorganised bunch ever
become a computer without the intervention of a human or any of the other
technologies of humankind? No, it has never happened in the past and it
will not ever happen up to the end of this dispensation. In other words,
nature (including all nonliving and living enitites, but excluding the
human species) cannot ever produce a computer or any other technology for
the same reason. This fact is formalised by saying that the development of
all technologies such as the computer is non-spontaneous. In other words,
the change of the bunch of raw materials to the computer in front of you
is a non-spontaneous change.
Now take a look at nature around you. The beauty is the innumerous
spontaneous changes taking place. I have taken a walk outside and saw a
lily flowering, heard a bird calling and touched a worm crawling. They
are all spontaneous events which do not require a human mind to happen.
Does this mean that the big difference between nature and culture is that
whereas all changes in nature are spontaneous while all changes in culture
are non-spontaneous? No, no. Only some changes in human culture are
non-spontaneous. My thinking is spontaneous and my formulating of them in
English as well as my typing of them into the computer to make up this
contribution is spontaneous. When you eventually read this contribution,
it also happens spontaneously. Yet, elsewhere in nature such a
contribution will never come into existence. So this contribution must be
non-sponatneous.
This seems to be a sheer contradition -- this contribution of mine
being spontaneous as well as non-spontaneous. No, it is not because we
have not thought hostically enough. This missing part is work!! I
refer you to the Primer on Entropy - Part III B LO20048 and
specifically the section
>Work and irreversibility.
>---------------------------------
Read that section carefully, trying to understand that:-
* in a nonspontaneous event the free energy has to increase
* a non-spontaneous event will only happen when it is FORCED
through work done by an EXTERNAL source of free energy
whereas:-
* in a spontaneous event the free energy has to decrease.
* the spontanous event can (but need not) become a source of
work by COMMITMENT to its INTERNAL organisation
The hot question now is: MAY person A change person B (having knowledge or
being ignorant, giving permission or being submissive) when the change
itself is non-spontaneous? In other words, to use the computer as an
example, may I do to another person what I have done to the bunch of raw
materials to obtain a computer, something which would never have happened
on its own? (Note the MAY -- we can also ask the question with a CAN, but
then it becomes a different question, technical rather than ethical.) Each
of you will have to formulate your own answer.
Let me formulate my own answer very clearly because it is probably a great
source of confusion about me. NO, NO, NO, I may not change any other
person when that change is non-spontaneous. I am consciously commanding
myself never to even to try and do it. If I have done it without realising
it, show me and I will correct myself. Sadly, although I tried to avoid
doing it since 1970, I knew too little to do it effectively. Thus my
family, those who I love most, have also suffered the most because of our
close and prolonged contact. Furthermore, this is such a complex thing to
understand that it took me almost twenty years to understand it
sufficiently to be able to teach others about it. Twenty years is a long
time in the life of any family as for any other Learning Organisation.
(I know that I have promised not to do something for quite a while. Thus
I will do it in such a manner that it will not offend any one. What is
the meaning of the above other than knocking on the door, waiting for it
to be opened and to be invited inside for a feast?)
I wish you could understand like me that attempting a nonspontaneous
change in any person is the beginning point of the culture of hurt which
may end in war.
But let us think positively. Do you realise that the very idea of a
democracy rests on this principle to avoid inflicting non-spontaneous
changes in other people? Do you realise that this priciple prevents us
from transforming other humans into humanoids? Do you realise that people
shift from the machine paradigm to the life paradigm because of an
intuitive awareness of this principle? Do you realise that the exponential
growth of Internet is because of this being able to walk this principle?
Do you realise that this principle keeps businesses above board? Do you
realise that a Learning Organisation cannot function without this
principle? Do you realise that the respect for life depends on this
principle?
John has refered to apartheid above. Well, one of the things which
developed during the last years of apartheid, was the contencious Belhar
Confession among the non-white churches of a certain denomination
("Nederduits Gerereformeerd" or NG), the major Christain denomination in
South Africa. In this confession a very important word occurs once, namely
that Christians have to repudiate FORCED apartheid. In other words, they
acknowledge that people will associate themselves spontaneously so that
some kind of separation will result. But forced separation is the thing
which they repudiate.
John, you also write:-
>And I even think it's a bit naive to believe that people are
>not skillful enough with words to manipulate them in such
>ways that those who go so far as to read them (without
>"decid[ing] to pry myself open to them") will be influenced
>in ways they may not have chosen to be influenced.
>Politicians do this all the time, and so do rhetoricians and
>fiction writers and ad copy writers and even some people
>who contribute to this mailing list.
Note the one word which you have used, namely "manipulate". Does it mean
anything else than a "forced non-spontaneous change"?
>So, just trying to be a friend, I say, "Beware." Examine what
>other people are saying and doing and examine very carefully
>how you are responding and reacting to their actions. You,
>ultimately, change your own behavior but you may do so without
>consciously choosing to.
John, thank you for this warning. I agree completely.
One of the most powerful ways in doing it, is to intimidate people by the
complexity of what one is saying. However, this is exactly what also
happens when I write about complexity itself. In order to make sense of
complexity, I have to write about "entropy production" and all which is
entailed by it because "entropy production" is the primordial cause of
complexity. Thus once again I enourage all fellow learners to examine my
contributions very carefully and especially examine their own behaviour as
a result of it. If they are producing a non-spontaneous in your own
learning, stop reading them at once and please inform others on the list
why you are doing so in order that they van benefit from your learning.
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> 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 <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>