Dear Organlearners,
Bruce Jones <brucej@nwths.com> writes:
>I can not impart my creativity by lecture, it is something
>that has to be learned and developed internally by the
>learner.
Greetings Bruce,
Thank you very much for your fine examples.
>From your quotation above we can infer something very important:
creativity develops by self-organisation
So, if we know nothing about self-organisation, how can we facilitate
the evolution of a person's creativity. Furthermore, how will we know
that our guidence is not actually detroying the person's
self-organisation and thus the evolution of that person's creativity?
You also write in response to my:
>>In order to do this, we have to know exactly what is the
>>difference between creating (creativity) and learning.
>>
>>What is difference between creating (creativity) and learning?
>
>The difference, for me, is there is no difference.
Let us assume that their is no difference. Then they must be the same
thing. Thus by implication learning also develops by
self-organisation. Tell that to traidtional education and see what
happens next ;-)
>You must have the one to have the other.
Bruce, if two things are essential to each other, it does not mean
that there are no difference.
First example which does not involve a direct emergence. My dear wife
is essential to me and I am essential to her. Yet we differ very much.
Second example which involves an emergence. Fowers are essential for a
plants propgation. The plant is essential to keep the flowers alive
for their full duration. Yet the plant and its flowers differ very
much. However, despite this immense difference, the majority of
flowering plants are identified by their flowers rather than another
part of the plant like leaves or roots. Why? Different species have
differences in their flowers.
>>Have we carefully observed how each student becomes
>>a master of some branch of knowledge, or do we merely
>>observe how they try to master our training?
>
>OUCH!!! Were you looking over my shoulder when I wrote my
>last paper???
What a beautiful way to refer to the tacit knowledge which each of us
acquire through our own self-organisation!
>>Thus it seems that learning comes first. But should we
>>have used the phrase "creativity depending on knowledge",
>>an entirely different meaning is possible. It may mean
>>that creativity comes first, but that its products, knowledge
>>being one of them, promotes creativity. How does this
>>happen if this is the case?
>
>The same question as above only worded differently....
>Which came first the Chicken or the Egg?
>This is a circular argument that has no direct answer. The
>question of creativity and knowledge is even more of a
>challenge and, as stated before, personally, they are one
>and the same.
In my opinion an important answer can be found in this circularity.
Which of the two is the more complex -- the Egg or the Chicken? Which
comes first (is lower ordered) in complexity? Why does the higher
complex entity make use of the lower complex entity?
Which is lower in complexity, creativity of learning? Or would you say
they are one and the same in complexity? If you say so, what criteria
did you use for such an evaluation?
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
--"AM de Lange" <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>