> I could have replied to other postings. I have been re-reading some of
> your postings from the last months this morning.
>
> I reply to this-one because the idea of fear and fear preventing us from
> doing things has been hounting me for some time.
Dear organlearners
Martine, I cannot remember how I connected fear to the Inner/Outer Circle
thread. However, speaking of fear itself, I have to admit that fear has
often hounded me.
In most cases my IGNORANCE (lack of learning) was the source of my fear.
For example, I feared the bifurcations during revolutionary creativity
because they could so easily result in immergences rather than emergences.
However, since my understanding of revolutionary creativity grew, I fear
these bifurcations much less. I now know that I have to make sure that the
seven essentialities are not impaired for the particular emergence which I
plan. As another example, I also feared complexity during evolutionary
creativity because it so easily dampened my motivation. However, since I
now know how the higher order qualities within me empowers me to overcome
this intimidation of complexity, I fear digestions much less.
Sometimes my own creativity induces fear in me, if not depression. Last
week, I was walking on a open corridor connecting two buildings at their
sixth floors. Suddenly I saw that one of the two bolts keeping the
protective rail on the one side into position, was gone. I suddenly
imagined a strong gust of wind forcing me against that rail which would
not support me. Immediately I was frozen stiff with fear. My wife laughed
at me while I barely managed to get across. Only when I pointed the
missing bolt to her, she realised how careless they all have been.
> The need to work in small circles, start learning, changing things there.
> In the open, in a large bureaucracy for example, it would not have the
> chance to survive.
You are quite right. I would like to correct you a little bit by saying
that we need to work in an expanding spiral (an open 'circle'). There are
a number of reasons for this. The one reason I have expounded upon in my
response to Rol Fassenden on the topic Hidden Incremental Change. We have
to create chaos of becoming before a new order of being can emerge. After
that order has emerged, we must allow it to mature digestively. Only when
it is mature, can it act as the source to create chaos for yet another
order to emergence. Since each emergence is different to its parent order,
a closed circle is never formed.
Another important reason I am now thinking of, is that no new creation can
happen in the void. It has to happen by connecting and then transforming
two or more creations. The two creations need not to be of the the same
order of complexity. The more complex one may be called the substrate. For
example, we build a house by beginning to connect its foundation with
mother earth. The earth and the foundation becomes the substate. On this
substrate we connect the walls to form a more complex substrate. On this
new substrate we connect the roof, etc., etc.
> Is your book out yet. Did you find a publisher ?
Not yet. I am now making corrections on the final manuscript. I have
finished four of its nine chapters. It happens too slowly. Every day I
make a resolution that I will not even take a peep at my email, especially
that from the LO forum. Every day I get lured away from my book.
No, I have not yet found a publisher. But I also have not been looking
hard for one,because I first want to complete the final manuscript in a
photo copy format. However, I expect difficulties in finding a publisher.
Publishers need to make a living. The economics dictate that normal
science constitutes (in my opinion) more than 99,9% of all scientific
activities. Scientific revolutions are so rare that whenever they happen,
they have to be handled intuitively through lack of experience and
knowledge. Unfortunately, since this book is about a new scientific
revolution, one which finally brings creativity and learning right into
the centre of the scientific arena, the book cannot be shaped very much
like all the other books on normal science. This will surely scare most
publishers stiff.
Let us take only one issue to see what problems I had to overcome in
creating the book. I have mentioned before that I kave disovered the seven
essentialities of creativity and hence learning. How? By comparing two
superior exemplars of creativity, one from the material world and one from
the abstract world, hunting for patterns common to both. Why? Because
another discovery compelled me to do it - but you will have to wait for
the book to see the details. What exemplars did I finally choose? The
chemical system and the mathematical system.
Now, consider for example, how many of the members of this forum have an
advanced knowledge of both chemistry and mathematics? Probably less than
10/2000, i.e < 0.05%! Connect this small fraction to the following matter:
one of the the seven essentialities is 'Associativity-Monadicity'(AM).
(Monadicity is that part of holism without its emergence. Monadicity means
that everything is connected into one web which we call the universe - the
monad.) The double barrel name for each essentiality is used to indicate
that each essentiality is complex rather than simple. My book will show
why. The opposite of the essentialitiy AM is fragmentarism. (Fragmentarism
was one of the main pillars of apartheid.) If I were to omit the chemistry
and mathematics in reporting the discovery of the essentialities, I would
have acted fragmentarily, thereby impairing the associativity- monadicity
of the book. By impairing this essentiality, the creativity of the reader
eventually becomes impaired!
On the other hand, 'quality-variety' is another essentiality. Thus, I can
never expect most of the readers of the book to be chemists and
mathematicians. This means that I had to struck a balance between the two
essentialities, i.e how much to include of chemistry and mathematics and
yet not to intimidate the reader who have not yet acquired a taste for
chemistry and mathematics. When we bring all the other essentialities into
play, it becomes an immensely complex balance. It is foolish of me to
expect any publisher to understand this balance. But it will be equally
foolish of any publisher to suggest changes for the mere sake of making
more money - changes which will destroy this balance. Hence the book is
very like a poem - it is almost impossible for an outsider to edit it.
I have mentioned the essentiality 'Associativity-Monadicity' (AM) for a
specific reason. Almost every knowledgeable person knows that Albert
Einstein is considered as the most capable of all scientists in the
history of mankind. His theory of General Relativity, for example,
predicts phenomena with an error of less than 1 in 1 000 000 000 000 000
parts! Many people desire secretly to have mental capabilities comparable
to that of Einstein. But few know what made his mind tick. For example,
from what quality did he derive his superior mental creativity?
It is dangerous to try and explain Einstein's thoughts in terms of
concepts which appeared only after his death. We might easily be guilty of
putting words in his mouth to which he never would have agreed. However,
Einstein was demonstratedly senstive to the tacit dimension of his
knowledge. Thus we would not err by at least trying to explain what has
driven him - it was nothing else than this essentiality AM.
Although Einstein was exceptionally mature in all the other
eseentialities, he was most extraodinarily sensitive to AM. We all learnt
from Sir Isaac Newton that the gravitational force between two bodies
depends on their masses and the distance bewteen them. However, Einstein
learnt from Ernst Mach also a different viewpoint, namely that the
gravitaional force between any two bodies depends on the masses of ALL the
bodies in the UNIVERSE and their distribution. Now how on earth can an
insignificant human ever take all the stars of this universe into account?
This did not worry Einstein too much. He was so sure of the monadicity in
gravitaion that he eventually solved the riddle by creating a new theory
for gravitation, one which did not depend on some collection of bodies
selected from the universe! In this theory he proposed that mass and thus
gravitation are nothing else than a dense curvature in 4D space- time
which is otherwise linear. In other words, he considered gravitation as a
NONLINEAR space-time phenomenon. Today nonlinear phenomena are the fashion
because all selforganisation phenomena act nonlinearly!
Most probably one of the seven essentialities have been driving some of
you to the point of insanity. How will you ever know if you wish to remain
ignorant of them. In my very recent response to Ben Compton under the
thread Impression, I have actually admitted that one of the seven
essentialities have driven me nearly crazy. It is the essentiality which I
call 'Open-Paradigm' (OP). Rather describing this essentiality in
technical terms, I carefully constructed a context into which I could
introduce the metaphor "werfbobbejaan". One cannot be a "werfbobbejaan"
and also be mature in the essentiality OP. A "werfbobbejaan" cannot
experience a paradigm shift.
Lastly, I am too well aware that long expositions tire the reader.
Therefor I forced myself to tell it all in less than 250 pages for the
book, including all the figures. I also forced myself to ensure that
nobody should experience more than two of the nine chapters of the book as
black holes. Furthermore, the book is intended for the widest audience
possible like its subtitle says: how to manage chaos, order and complexity
in nature and culture. However, there is only one requirement - the reader
should have 15 years or more of learning experiences.
> I can't wait to read it.
I can't wait to hear your comments and to help you with your emerging
thoughts. I cannot help to feel that we are living in a most exciting
slice of time - the birth of a new era - leaving the old era of roughly
2000 years. In this new era entropy, creativity and learning will be
foremost in our thoughts. Our spirituality and our civilisation will
become rejuvenated by emerging into a new order. If not, then doomsday is
very close.
> Do I need to tell you that I enjoy reading your postings.
Thank you very much for your most kind words. It makes me very happy and
gives me new strength. May I remain your humble midwife. But is also
forces me to make once again a firm resolution - from now on I will
contribute only once a week to this forum by leaving the Inner Circle. The
book now has to have first priority because the Whole Circle (monadicity)
is at stake.
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/>