> AM De Lang has gone in the direction in some of his postings of saying
> that we have to not be bothered by the behaviors of others. We should
> just do what we feel is right. While I agree with this, I also remember
> many instances where I was under pressure to be quiet or not say the
> obvious comment. Too often I found myself starting to yield, knowing that
> the consequences would be undesirable in the long run.
Dear organlearners,
Clyde, I have read this paragraph with mixed feelings. English is not my
mother tongue so that I am continuously aware that I might convey the
wrong message in the words that I use. (You should see my dictionary - it
is in tatters!) For me the word 'bother' means 'to take trouble'. I never
intended to say that we should not take trouble by the behaviour of
others. In fact, I insist that we should take trouble in the behaviour of
others. You will see in the rest of my response that I actually feel the
same as you.
What I actually am trying to say, is that we should never allow the
behaviour of humans to incapacitate ourselves, i.e. we should never allow
the behaviour of humans to force ourselves into a nonspontaneous state. In
such a state we will be incapable to behave under our own accord, working
deliberately towards some attractor state. I usually use the word
'intimidation' to refer to these external forces which may incapacitate
us.
Other people do intimidate me. But strangely enough, it is never because I
become afraid for myself. When they do succeed, it is because I am
becoming too afraid for other persons involved with me, for example my
family. It is then when I begin to wish that I have far less close
personal relationships so as to have not so much others to be afraid of.
However, deep in my heart I know this wish is wrong. I know why I am
afraid. I fear that their own creativity will not enable them to survive
when I resist the intimidation and what follows next. It is in moments
such as these that I am intensely aware of my misson in life - to promote
the creativity in general and especially the learning of my fellow humans.
It is from this mission that I draw my power. Thus the indimidation by
others has the wrong effect on me, it makes me more spontaneous.
The worst possible intimidation I personally experience, is by my own
imagination when it becomes too creative. The beginning point of
revolutionary creativity which will result in a bifurcation (emergence or
immergence), is to break loose from the death of equilbrium by amplifying
an extraodinary disturbance/fluctuation, how minute it may be. As soon as
I follow this route, either by myself or by helping a hellow human to get
on it, my imagination begins to anticipate the future. What will happen?
Will the expected bifurcation ever be reached, or will a unexpected one
happen by way of the Onsager reciprocal realtionships? What sort of
Onsager cross inductions can I expect? Will the bifurcation result in an
immergence to a higher order, or will it result in an immergence to a
lower order? What is the worst sort of immergences to expect?
By that time my imagination has painted such a complex picture that the
very complexity of this picture intimidates me into a state of depression.
I begin to wish that I never should have started it. I begin to
misinterpret the behaviour of others, perceiving these behaviours as
negative rather than positive intentions. I amplify minor aches into major
pains. I wish to become a slave who only acts when forced to do so.
It is then when a kind word of encouragement from a fellow human saves me
from my own death wishes. It can be someone who lives in the same time
niche as me. But it can also be the words of someone from a past age which
reaches me through some literature. (Through the years I have made many
such friends, many of them dead for centuries and some even for millenia.
I almost become mad with rage when somebody destroy an old book - how can
one ever be so foolish as to destroy companionship?) In almost a flash
this self-intimidation disappears. Like old Don Quixote I am ready to
charge the next adventure on the path.
Of one thing I am dead sure - we cannot proceed to a brighter future
without human companionship. We need each other to share with our joys and
our miseries. If we cannot find this companionship on this list/forum,
then this list will cease to be a practise field. How do we share? We are
back to square one! We have to reach out - we have to break loose from the
death of equilbrium.
Clyde, this brings me to the last point. It seems as if we are running
around in the viscious circle of Bertrand Russel, not being to able to
escape the deadly attractor state. However, we can transform the circle
into a outward growing spiral. We simply have to promote emergent
experiences among people, how minute or insignificant such emergences may
be to us. In a sense you are right - I do say that we should begin doing.
I have only one reservation - we should do it learningly.
Life is not only one continuous process of digesting. We are not worms
which have to eat until they are ready to become pupas. We are not locusts
which have to eat until they are ready to mate and lay eggs. We are
humans. Our digestions of life have to be interspaced in a balanced manner
by our emergences. This is why we are humans and not merely animals. We
are the most revolutionary of all life forms. We can willfully plan and
execute bifurcations to emerge, but unfortunately also to immerge. In the
new age now to come, we will all have a very important task, namely to
reduce immergences to a minimum.
Best wishes
- --
At de Lange
Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education
University of Pretoria
Pretoria, South Africa
email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
--"Mnr AM de Lange" <AMDELANGE@gold.up.ac.za>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>