Jan Lelie <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Hello At and Aleksander,
>At, you answered to Aleksandar Raich stirring posts with,
>> The most I cannot offer, is:
>> Let us have a dialogue on how much we can each
>> change ourselves.
>I agree, and would like to add:
>"Dialogue is not merely a set of techniques for improving
>organizations, enhancing communications, building
>consensus, or solving problems. It is based on the principle
>that conception and implementation (of change? - JCL) are
>intimately linked, with a core of common meaning." - snipped
>from the LO-fieldbook.
I agree with you and with the rest what you have written.
But the reason why I offered Aleksander such bare advice is because I
think a paradigm shift is here involved. That which you refered to in the
LO-fieldbook is largely based on a particular paradigm.
However, when a paradigm shifts, especially the "core of common meaning"
also changes, influencing the process of conceptualisation of all the
people involved. It is then when we have to fall right back to one or more
of our five elementary sustainers of creativity:
During the dramatic paradigm shift of physical science early this century,
the dialogue failed dismally. It was another sustainer, namely
exemplar-studying. which pulled the calf out of the well.
I did not dare to offer a second choice to Aleksander and their specific
situation in the Balkan. The little which I know of their situation,
suggests the dialogue.
But when it concerns humanity as a whole, I am again not so sure that
dialoque will bring us far. In this case I think we will have to fall back
on all five of them. The sustainer game-playing, for example, did wonders
to the transformation from the old to the new South Africa since so many
South Africans are sport crazy.
>The only thing i have to offer is: "do not take it personally, or,
>to put it differently: the only choice you have is to choose who
Please Jan and other fellow learners, do not understand me wrongly in what
I am now going to say.
When we view what you (or even I) have offered from far away against all
reality as background, what we perceive as choices are actually the
nonlinear, one-to-many mapping of irreversibility. What makes it so
wonderful, but also complicated, is that we can even choose to accept or
deny this actuality because it follows from the actuality.
These choices about choices (once again the "dog is biting its own tail")
offers no loophole so that we cannot make a choice on it also. The "dog is
biting its own tail" is a "dog biting its own tail" -- the indispensable
feedback loop in all living organisms and of cybernetics -- the key
element to the dialogue without judgement.
But to come back to the topic "Learning and Partisanship".
How much is partisanship a consequence of the paradigm "life is a
one-to-one mapping"? Living in South Africa, first the Old and now the
NEW, what do you think my answer would be?
At de Lange <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>