Learning and Partisanship LO22464

AM de Lange (amdelange@gold.up.ac.za)
Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:43:58 +0200

Replying to LO22443 --

Dear Organlearners,

Aleksandar Raich <araic@EUnet.yu> writes:

>I agree with Rick's decision about my note. My understanding
>the partisanship includes two aspects:
>1. Telling things in favor only one party - political, ideological,
>etc.; telling "finite", one-sided, holly party "truths", not self
>explored, own truths; as a mean of aggressive apsolutistic
>ideology; ideologically beating others; propagation not
>dialogue and learning;
>2. Telling only own truth, only a part of wholeness; believes
>based on emotionally colored experience which offend others;
>insisting on own claims without analysis the reality of others;
>deafness toward information which not fit into own actual
>believes and interests and fears.

Greetings Aleksander,

What you have done above, is to give a description of a ONE-TO-ONE
mapping. The first ONE is called the input. It is one realm, a part of
reality. The second ONE is called the output. It is the perceptions of ONE
of many parties involved with that realm.

Some fellow learners have also described partisanship. All these
illuminating descriptions are about this ONE-TO-ONE mapping.

But in the ONE-TO-MANY mapping ONE reality (with focus on this one realm)
has to be connected to all the perceptions of the MANY parties involved
with it.

We as a LO need to learn two things:
(1) How to make a ONE-TO-MANY mapping for the benefit for
other fellow self-learners. Why? Self-learning is irreversible
and irreversibility is a ONE-TO-MANY mapping.
(2) To interpret the truely ONE-TO-MANY mapping of another
self-learner for what it is, even if it is very immature, but not
to assume it is a ONE-TO-ONE mapping.

By the way, the terms "ONE-TO-ONE mapping" and "ONE-TO-MANY mapping" were
not invented by me in Efficiency and Emergence LO22426. They are well
known terms in the world of mathematics for a couple of decades. What I
did in LO22426 is to connect them to irreversibility (entropy production),
something which gets little attention, if any, in hard-core mathematics.
(Funny, is it not, that hard-core mathematics prevail in the formulation
of irreversibility!)

We here in South Africa in the post-apartheid era are now engulfed by the
ONE-TO-ONE mapping of the victims of apartheid as we had been engulfed by
the different ONE-TO-ONE mapping of the perpetrators of apartheid in the
previous era. From these many ONE-TO-ONE mappings self-learners now have
to make a ONE-TO-MANY mapping. The TRC (Truth and Reconcilliation
Commision) should have assisted in making the ONE-TO-MANY mapping, but
failed. On the other hand, the late pres Mandela was one of the few who
succeeded in making a ONE-TO-MANY mapping. Yet the majority of his
followers, keen to follow him, persisted with their ONE-TO-ONE mappings.
What chaos!

The transition from chaos to order itself is a ONE-TO-MANY mapping. That
is why the term bifurcation has been used in the first place by Prigogine.
Perhaps the term "multifurcation" would have served better. But the use
of the term "bifurcation" (two forking) serve indeed its own purpose. It
tells us that superimposed on the "multifurcation" there is a duality of
utmost importance which involves constructions and destructions.

When we contemplate the "ONE-TO-MANY mapping", we must even try to avoid
superimposing a ONE-TO-ONE mapping on it. For example, we will do so if we
give an account of all the MANY present parties involved, but remain
silent about all the parties involved a century ago or even millenia ago.
In other words, we cannot have a "ONE-TO-MANY mapping" if we keep the
arrow of time out of the picture -- ignore the many (then) "presents" now
belonging to the past.

But this is exactly what happens presently in South Africa. Most people
compare the post-apartheid era (1992-..) to the apartheid era (1948-1992).
Few of them try to understand the many parties involved before 1948. And
what happened before 1902 or 1795, well, that is for the history nerds.

Aleksander, I will be very surprised if is it not the same for Serbia,
Kosovo, Croatia, Bosnia, ... -- the former Yugoslavia. We cannot learn
what the realm of Yugoslavia involves by looking at a few of the parties
presently involved. We have to look at all the parties involved, those of
today, those of sixty years ago, those of 150 years ago, ........ Only
then will we be able to make the ONE-TO-MANY mapping -- the rich picture
which we need to work in.

>This history of USSR is source for learning a part of actual
>civilization perspective.

I agree.

>Another part might be learned in ancient Rome Impery.
>That great civilization failed at the top level of riches, culture
>and military force.

I agree. We can learn much from their destructive immergence.

>To much enjoyment in closed ordered society without export
>of development possibility for environment (for non-Roman
>world), caused the catastrophe of that brilliant Impery. Wild
>Germans and Slaves deluge Rome.

"Wild Germans and Slaves deluge Rome".

A wording so typical from the classical textbooks of history on the
classical era. Rome and Athens were the centres of civilisation while the
Germans and Slaves were the epitomes of wild, barbaric people.

It is but two names. What about the San of South Africa, The Mayans of
Central America, the Maories of New Sealand, ......? We assume that the
injustices of the past will somehow correct themselves along the arrow of
time so that we can conclude that the present has only its own injustices
which we need to attend to. Rubbish. This is not how healing works. Ask
any MD how physical healing works and then make up your own mind how
spiritual healing works.

Please, will any fellow learner who is a MD not give us an account of how
phsyical healing works?

>During long war alarms, I was thinking about destiny of our
>actual world. With what kind of influence can the center of
>actual civilization change the rest of world? With bottles of
>beer and Coca-cola and extasy; or with show business and
>violence fairy tales like star-wars etc.; or with STEALTH war
>planes; or with INTERNET; or with high productivity and
>employment for millions of unimployed people and health
>care etc.? I know that we all agree which is the right answer.
>Lets try to learn how we can include in that right thread
>of development of our only world.

Thank you Aleksander for a frank description of what the world seems to be
doing. You reflect my own state of mind between 1980 and 1990.

I am not so sure "that we all agree which is the right answer". Which
"one of the many" is it in the ONE-TO-MANY mapping, or is it the very many
itself? What kind of influence and what change do we want when you write
"what kind of influence can the center of actual civilization change the
rest of world"? As little as I, a single person, can influence any single
one of you fellow learners to make a specific change, just as little can
one part of the world influence the rest of the world to make specific
changes, even if that part of the world is reckoned to be the "centre of
actual civilisation". The most I cannot offer, is:
Let us have a dialogue on how much we can each
change ourselves.

>Thanks for effort of understanding my "balkanian" English

The same here for my "borwa" English.

"bo"=prefix used by all Banthu languages in South Africa
to refer to country. Thus "botswana" refers to
country of the Tswana people.
"rwa"=name used by all Banthu languages in South Africa
to refer to the San ("bushmen") people.
"borwa"=the name used by all Banthu languages in South
Africa to refer to "south", but not used by any of the
more than a thousand Banthu languages north of
South Africa. Thus "africa borwa" means "africa south".
"phalaborwa"=(best place)+(south). So what about the
nothern hemisphere where the main influence seems
to come from? Speak up you people from "phalaborwa"
(South America, South Africa, Australasia).

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>