Jackie Mullen wrote:
>Where perhaps I differ is that I understand belonging and
>separation as part of a dynamic whole. For me "immorality" would arise
>from one not being informed by the other. I think separation, or making
>distinctions, is a fundamental part of creative, adaptive process.
>However, if unity and part were divorced from each other, not engaged in a
>sort of "stochastic walk", that's when you would find yourself in trouble,
>in my opinion.
Thank you Jackie. Excellent point! If you read my post on the "Pegasus:
Wheatly Keynote" thread you would see that we agree. I will modify my
previous definitions of morality and immorality...moving it more toward
creativity. You have shown me the link.
I wrote:
>Dr. Deming's inquiry system of Profound Knowledge (Systems Thinking,
>Reduction >of variation, Psychology, and Theory of Knowledge) unites
>holistic thinking >(synthesis) with reductionist (analysis) into a
>living dance. At the same time I'm >reducing variation in current
>reality, I possess a "profound" outside view that >continually expands
>my capacity to create the future.
I could call synthesis "not making distinctions" and analysis "making
distinctions." By not making distinctions I find belonging and meaning.
By making distinctions I can achieve enough sense of control to achieve a
purpose.
David Stendl-Rast again ( with my bias)
> Contemplation joins meaning (vision) and purpose (action). We
>simultaneously >"give" ourselves to meaning while taking control in
>purposeful action. If we allow >contemplative tension between meaning
>and purpose to snap, meaning would >fade out of any purpose we pursue.
>Meaningless purpose is mere drudgery. >Meaning is that which gives
>rest. When we find meaning, we find rest and a sense >of
>belongingness...the essence of the human spirit. The meaning you find
>in what >you do will inevitably challenge you. It will make you
>responsible. In order to >achieve purpose we must be in control. In a
>situation in which you experience deep >meaning, you were touched,
>moved, carried away. Unless you take control you >won't achieve your
>purpose, but unless you give yourself to being carried away, you >can't
>experience meaning and take joy in achieving your purpose. We must
>manage creative tension between giving (meaning,vision) and taking
>control in >(purpose, action).
If I reflect on my previous definitions:
morality- Unconditional Belonging
immorality- Conditional Separation
How is "Conditional Separation" distinct from "making distinctions?" My
assumption is humans can only find meaning or aliveness when we give
ourselves to unconditional belonging to God and others, not conditional
separation.
You wrote:
> "immorality" would arise from one not being informed by the other.
Excellent! From this I see four possible worlds or scenarios:
World 1: If the unconditional belonging I give myself to "informs" my
attempt to make distinctions, meaning would arise in the taking of control
and creativity will flow.
World 2: If the unconditional belonging I give myself to does not "inform"
my attempt to make distinctions, meaningless drudgery would arise in the
taking of control and creativity will dry up.
World 3: If the conditional separation I give myself to "informs" my
attempt to make distinctions, meaningless drudgery would arise in the
taking of control and creativity will dry up.
World 4: If the conditional separation I give myself to does not "inform"
my attempt to make distinctions, meaningless drudgery would arise in the
taking of control and creativity would dry up.
My morality(unconditional belonging) or immorality (conditional
separation) will be codified into the structure for achieving my purpose
and will drive my distinctions. This structure will influence, over the
long term, the behavior of those who say yes to belonging to that
structure. Only World 1 can be considered moral, because the meaning they
give themselves to will inevitably challenge them to create. In World 1
quality is the stimulus the meaning around us puts on us to co-create the
world in which we live. Seeing quality as a stimulus, not a end, is the
deepest source of creativity. Without this stimulus, creativity will dry
up.
>From this I will change my definitions, without losing the essence of
>the previous ones:
Morality- Being mindfully responsible to the creative tension between
giving yourself to unconditional belonging (i.e. meaning) and the taking
of control to achieve your purpose. Morality is like the wind. you can't
see it, but you can see its effects in meaningful purpose, belonging
(salvation), intrinsic commitment, and co-creativity.
Immorality- Not being mindfully responsible to the creative tension
between giving yourself to unconditional belonging (i.e. meaning) and the
taking of control to achieve your purpose. Immorality is like the wind.
You can't see it, but you can see its effects in meaningless drudgery,
alienation (sin), extrinsic compliance, and no-creativity.
Is this better or am I missing your point?
Side note:
This raises an interesting philosophical question for me. It seems the
only reason I need to reduce, fragment, analyze and make distinctions is
to take conscious action on or to change the world. Why? Can I take
action without organization or making distinctions, classifications,
parts? Or can I just ride the waves of God's implicate order, bask in
meaning and belonging, cruise the dynamic complexity of the Way, and let
the collective self-organize and create by itself? Love and do as I
please by giving myself to the now that never passes away. Just be in
the Great I AM and not becoming? Interesting.
Sorry about the length...I'm learning and creating as I go because of the
meaning I find in connecting with people like you. This is my organized
ignorance waiting for more stimulus from belonging. Say yes!
thanks again Jackie.
Have a Great Adventure!
Don Kerr
--"Kerr, Donald" <Donald.Kerr@usahq.unitedspacealliance.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>