I was fortunate to discover what I call the 'seven essentialities of
creativity'. (Their discovery and their meaning will be reported in my
forthcoming book.) If one or more of these essentialities is impaired, our
creativity will become impaired. Each of these essentialities is complex
itself. Therefore I had to use double barrel names for each one of them to
indicate their complexity. I will list all of them at a later opportunity.
I will mention two of them now to illustrate their dichotomous names and
thus complexity: 'becoming-being' and 'associativity-monadicity'.
We can use many other names for the essentiality 'becoming- being', for
example: function-structure, operator-operand, process-system, verb-noun,
..... 'becoming-being' was given much more attention in this forum than
'associativity-monadicity'. Thus it is not necessary to delve deeper into
it here. Let us then attend to the other essentiality. The word
'associativity' should not give too much trouble. But the word
'monadicity' needs some explaining.
The quality monadicity is derived from 'monad' which originally meant to
Leibniz an undivisible entity. (Please do not confuse it with monadology).
It comes from the greek root 'monos' which means 'single' or 'one whole'.
Although the word monadicity is a new creation, the word monadelphous
(one+brothers) is not. For example, the male and female flowers in plants
of the Euphorbiaceae (milkweed) family are united into one organ called a
cyme. Thus a cyme is a monadelphous organ. The cyme could also have been
called a monadic organ (which is better because it unites brothers/males
AND SISTERS/females). The word monadic can be followed by words such as
dyadic, triadic, etc to form a series. The word 'monadicity' is of an
higher order than 'associativity'. This means that associations can be
destroyed, but monadicity still remains. The opposite of monadicity is
fragmentarism.
Why not use the word 'holistic'? The word holistic means 'the sum is more
than the parts'. It contains two facets, namely 'the sum of the parts' and
'is more than'. The facet 'the sum of the parts' is an essentiality of
creativity. It refers to the mechanics/syntaxis/form of creativity. The
facet 'is more than' concerns emergence which refers to the
dyanmics/semantics/ /content of creativity. The dynamics of creativity
concerns more than merely emergence. It is sometimes beneficial to mix a
mechanical and a dynamical part of creativity. The words holism and
bisocianism (Koestler) are examples. However, it can sometimes become very
confusing. It is then when we have to distinguish mechanics from dynamics.
When the matter of 'belonging' is at stake, it is better to use monadic
than holistic. The best synonym for monadicity is wholeness, a word
prefered by David Bohm..
Don's word 'belonging' exemplifies the complexity of the essentiality
'associativity-monadicity'. Other modern words are 'networking' and
'infrastructure'. Many words from latin origin with the prefix 'co- ' also
hints to this essentiality. I think that Don's whole contribution concerns
this essentiality, but let him be the final judge.
What Don is saying is that when fragmentation is prefered rather than the
essentiality 'associativity-monadicity', then it will lead to 'immoral
behaviour'. I am saying much the the same, but in a more general manner.
Immorality is the degrading of the creativity of fellow humans (or
morality is the promoting of such creativity). If I wish to behave
immoral, then it is now very easy for me to do so because I simply have to
inhibit or degrade any one or more of the seven essentialities of
creativity in my fellow humans. When I do so, I will create insecurity par
excellence. I now have the knowledge to do so. On the other hand, if I
want to behave morally, then I have to promote at least these seven
essentialities. I also have the knowledge how to do it. Thus my morality
has shifted: to what outcome do I apply my knowledge?
We in South Africa should now the better. In the previous centuries, due
to the immense varieties to be found in its climate, flora, fauna and
peoples, many people in South Africa realised how important it is to
preserve variety. Thus at the end of the previous century few would argue
against the proposition that each culture group had to have a territory to
live safely in. For example, the Kruger National Park is a living monument
to provide the same for some of South Africas fauna and flora. (Guess how
many such parks were there at that time in the world?) But then came the
inhedious Anglo-Boer war in which not only Boer territories were invaded,
but immorality were made a virtue (study concentration camps). After the
war, much of these territories were regained, but not the belief that they
will sponsor safety any more. Thus slowly the idea of Apartheid crept in.
Fragment the peoples, their cultures and territories to make South Africa
a safer place by impairing their ability to interact creatively. The rest
is modern history.
During warfare, one of the most important things to do is to impair the
seven essentialities among the enemy while promoting them among own
forces. Make 'THEM' less creative and make 'US' more creative. Thus, if a
war is not justified, (can it ever be justified?), it leads to horrendous
immoral activities.
An exhilirating study is to examine how commandments, codes of conduct,
rules, etc, try to delineate the seven essentialities of creativity in a
linear, simple, closed and reversible fashion. To sin is to deny, degrade
and inhibit these seven essentialities. The worst form of degrading is to
create an encyclopedia of prescriptions based on these essentialities
without being able to list one of them. But it is no sin to be immature or
deficient in these essentialities. (This explains why God hates sin, but
love the sinner) To remain immature and deficient in them is an immense
tradegy. But to grow in each of them is sheer joy. Wihout them creativity
and especially learning is impossible.
> What is moral? Unconditional belonging.
> What is immoral? Conditional separation.
> What is moral decay? Increased consciousness of our separation.
> What is moral victory? Increased consciousness of our belonging.
But what about those perons who have shifted to a new paradigm? They are
extremely conscious of having separated conditionally from the old
paradigm. Does this mean they now are decaying morally? We know that
paradigm shifts are revolutionary. We know that they happen on the
condition that too many anomalies have arisen. We know that proponents of
the old paradigm call their pratices 'normal'. We know that the 'normal
ones' resist the shift with all their might. They are even prepared to
kill for it. How would they love to use the following phrase: "It is
immoral to separate from our paradigm, even because of the anomalies it
caused." What a problem we have here!
What is the solution to this problem? Emergences, even those of a
paradigmatical nature, falls under the dynamics of creativity. "Belonging"
(associativity-monadicity) falls under the mechanics of creativity. A
creativity with dynamics but without mechanics is like using a language to
convey meaning while denying its grammer. The result is incomprehensible.
'Belonging' is essential to emergence. I do not want to belong to a
paradigm which causes anomalies. But I desire to belong to a paradigm
which promotes consistency and coherency. Therefore, I am willing to
emerge to a new paradigm. I will jump back and forth between the old and
new paradigms to aid willing others in shifting themselves, thus
exhibiting my 'belonging'. I can do nothing for the unwilling ones, except
to encourage them to participate in as many constructive emergences as
possible. This will elevate their spontaneity. To command me to fixate my
paradigm in order to help the unwilling ones is the worst way to deny my
belonging. I belong not only to the past, but also to the future with its
new heaven and earth.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>