Replying to: Nick Heap LO22669, Winfried Dressler LO22688, At de Lange
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Nick Heap wrote:
> One way I find that works for me is "Coconsulting". Take time every month
> to talk about what you are doing, thinking or experiencing (and any
> specific issues) to someone else who agrees for (say) half an hour to
> listen to you.
Yes Nick, recycling is essential. Not to be confused with the 7
essentialities of At de Lange (which refer to the conditions, not the
process; the form, not the content; the mechanics, not the dynamics).
'Feed back loops' is a subject which deserves to be treated separately. I
am sure that a lot of readers will jump on this wagon, because it is also
one of the five disciplines of Peter Senge.
> I would be glad to hear from anyone who tries this. If it works well you
> could set up a local network in your organisation or town. Could this lead
> to a learning organisation?
Nick, I do this type of reflection regularely, not for the purpose to
stick in the past, but to be able to cope with the future. It is part of
my way to live an open life, without much protection. I wonder if you use
always the same 'willing ear', or that you have a stock of available
Winfried Dressler wrote in LO22688:
>I don't do this to annoy you, but to connect the puzzling relation
>between sureness and openness to what I have developed with the terms
>"interdisciplinarity" and "mastery" yesterday (a way to approach
>wholeness) and see what will become of it.
Thank you Winfried for your clarification.
Fachidiot's protection is the life in a cocoon, partly constructed by a
special language and special expressions. Words and expressions which only
the other fachidioten could understand (I hope this sentence is clear for
the general reader :-)). Those scientists who are able to explain very
specialised and difficult matters of their discipline, give themselves
open so that others may enter (or even are invited) into this specialised
world. The isolation of a specialisation is broken and interdisciplinarity
and transdisciplinarity may develop.
>I have expanded protection to sureness in the beginning, then I have
>tried to discribe a possible way to think the essentialities together,
>and now I have reached a much expanded, complexified term for protection:
>View all seven essentialities as one mean to protect against immergence.
Winfried, your contribution, together with At's reply sustained the
structuring of my own thoughts. Thank you both.
>You talk of the flow of love. I don't see love flowing. I see love
>pulling, pulling through that coevolution.
Giving love, or consuming love; spreading love, or sucking love. Pushing
and pulling. You may understand that the strongest flux happens if both
mechanics are in action. Talking about people, both persons should open
themselves in some way.
At de Lange wrote in LO22723:
>You are right in the sense that there is a direct connection
>between the essentiality openness and protection.
>protection --- "pro-"=before, "tego"=cover
>Beschoetzen --- ??
>beskerming -- "be-"=about, "skerm"=cover, "-ing"=action
We may even go further into etymology and look to the other side: opening
Think of dis-cover (Dutch: ont-dekken), or the stage previous to
discovering: unlocking, opening up, or even dis-solution.
Another expression that came into my mind:
susceptible - ready to accept, receive (Dutch: ontvankelijk, where the
verb 'vangen' = to catch, is recognisable).
[At, in reply to Winfried]:
>>You talk of the flow of love. I don't see love flowing. I see love
>>pulling, pulling through that coevolution.
>Should you compare your viewpoint to that of Leo in terms of the
>essentiality liveness ("becoming-being"), is it not the case that you
>focus on "being" (of which differences cause entropic forces) while Leo
>focus on "becoming" (of which changes cause entropic fluxes)? Should we
>not try to see the harmony between "becoming" and "being" in love? But I
>want to go even further with my questioning. Is "protection" not the
>thing which comes to our mind when that harmony is diminished, i.e when
>liveness gets impaired?
Yes, I agree with you, At. But I also understood Winfried. The difficulty
of our languages is that there is only one word 'love' that refers to:
a) the difference in potential between SYstem and SUrrounding
b) the 'material' which flows from SYstem to SUrroundings.
c) the process of flowing from SYstem to SUrroundings
Is there a language which has different words for all these different
At ended with the following words:
>I cannot but imagine how much this contribution is confusing to many of
>you. If I did not love you all, I would rather have prefered not to make
You know maybe the best of us all, what effects the creation of chaos
(confusion) will lead to.
Well done At! You opened yourself, enabling us to have a look in your
'emergency room', the kitchen where all your emergencies develop.
dr. Leo D. Minnigh
Library Technical University Delft
PO BOX 98, 2600 MG Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: 31 15 2782226
Let your thoughts meander towards a sea of ideas.
Leo Minnigh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <email@example.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>