Protection LO22809

Winfried Dressler (
Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:21:38 +0200

Replying to LO22774 --

Thank you Leo for following up this thread. You remind me that I have left
a question from At open and you provide a clue which allows me to try to
answer. So while I pick up your mail as a catalyst, I am responding to At
de Lange (LO22723):

>[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

At continued his reply with a question:

>>You can reach love only with the strongest harness, protection,
>>devolped on the path while constantly free energy is flowing
>>irreversibly - producing entropy, creating order and growing
>>this order to maturity.
>When I consider your sentence as
> "You can reach love only with ..... constantly free energy is
> flowing irreversibly - producing entropy, creating order and
> growing this order to maturity."
>I am with you all the way. But the part
> ".... the strongest harness, protection, devolped on the path
> while .... "
>confuses me. You will have to explain it to me please.

In order to explain, I will pick up your previous question:

>>Is "protection" not the thing which comes to our mind when that
>>harmony is diminished, i.e when liveness gets impaired?

This is not what I had in mind with "protection". As Leo cited, I meant:
"View all seven essentialities as one mean to protect against immergence".
Because impaired liveness will lead to immergence (as any impaired
essentiality), protection in my way to use that word is not a sign of
impaired liveness, but impaired liveness would be a sign of insufficient

This is a constructive interpretation of protection. As soon as the
wholeness of the seven essentialities is impaired and protection assigned
to only one of them, e.g. sureness, protection becomes destructive. In
order to "protect" sureness alone, another essentiality like openness or
liveness may be sacrificed.

Besides, I see a parallel between our exchange on "protection" and "Jack
of all trades". In the case of the "Jack of all trades", I saw a
destructive exaggeration of interdisciplinarity, while you expressed your
sympathy based on a different understanding. In the case of "protection"
we did the same, but switched our roles: You saw a destructive
exaggeration ("harmony is diminished"), while I expressed my sympathy
based on a different understanding.

Now let me turn to the relation of protection and love. Therefore I will
add a d) to Leo's list:d) love as the third order emergence of creativity.

So when I talk about "love pulling", I talk about the back action of the
high order level love on the lower levels believing, learning and

In order to actualize such a high level like love, one needs to be
perfectly protected against immergences. I called such a protection
"harness". It develops "on the path" of digestive and emergent learning,
while the dance of change is danced. Finally you need to imagine a fully
mature harness, which requires especially the wholeness of all the seven
essentialities be perfectly met.

I hope, I could make my vision of the role of a (w)holy harness clearer.

Yet, I have to admit, that my (like any) vision need to be balanced by

Let me repeat your: "is it not the case that you focus on "being" (of
which differences cause entropic forces)". Yes, I do. Writing about
vision, is writing about entropic forces. A vision/force can be a (linear)
tangent to a (curved) lifeline. To force the lifeline to be like the
tangent is linear thinking and expresses as "being obsessed by a vision".
As far as a specific understanding of deep creativity is pressed into
vision, it may become an obsession ("a monotonous obsession of form" in
this case). Am I guilty of this?

It is competence, which is about the actual ability to constructively
direct the entropic flow yielding from the vision-force. It is Senge with
his five disciplines, system thinking above all, and summerized as "Dance
of Change" in the lastest book, who deals in depth with the development of
competence. At, I very much appreciate your enormous effort you put into
the competence side in your last mails, starting (as I can see) with the
discussion on "one to many mapping", going to point out the vital
importance of changes of change and now supplementing this with "linear
thinking". I have to see, what I can do with this.

Liebe Gruesse,



"Winfried Dressler" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>