Print

Print


Thanks Roger, Luc for the clarifications.

This is a difficult conundrum to communicate and understand, much the less resolve. We are talking about dualism, [what, in The Bhagavad Gita, is referred to as] "the delusion [or snare] of the pair of opposites," [in Kabbalah as] "constricted consciousness," [in Sufism as] "the-One-and-the-many," [in The Kybalion as] "the same in kind, different in degree"...

English does not even have an adequate vocabulary for these subjects because in Aristotelian/Cartesian/etc. ways of thinking these ideas or concepts are illogical or irrational if they exist at all... I find that, often, even if we use the same words we mean different ideas or thoughts... all this and more without even giving much consideration to Bohm's admonition that these so-called differences that we make and observe have no "independent reality" but are created by the act[s] of analysis... here, inside our heads.

I largely "identify" with what Joe wrote -- at least, with the essence of what he wrote. For me the escape from duality is through Three Dimensional Thinking, which is a gateway to Multi Dimensional Thinking...

I want to think a little and see what others may have to say that might enhance our communications.

Boris


  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Luc Hoebeke 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 7:02 AM
  Subject: Re: May I?


  Dear Russell,


  A simple request: books have been written about this issue and pages and pages why the first word of genesis begins with the second letter of the alephbet: the letter beth. When you name something all kind of triads become into being: eg the namer, the name and the relation between both or subject object and the loop between both, etc. Pask also defines a concept through the entailment mesh between three topics. Thus it appears never two without three. But also never three without two. This refers to the mystery you are pointing at. The VSM defines six communication channels linking the systems 1 with the metasystem (three times two) and a three tier in the management unit where the system 5 is emerging from and constraining the duality between system 3 and system 4. Apparently there is someting with this 1, 2, 3 in the way human beings "observe" the world they are living in.


  Luc




  Op 27-mrt-11, om 12:27 heeft russell_c het volgende geschreven:


    Dear Luc,


    Re: "From the moment you name something, you define three components relating to one another: what it is, what it is not and the boundary between what it is and what it is not." 


    Surely before (or as) any boundary between A & B is appreciated the boundary between subject and object is made to be significant for the observer?

    In other words, it appears to be a function of observing. (i.e. the Other) 

    The beginning of Genesis 1 needs to conform to numerous assumptions structures of the written word -- all of which imply a dualism. It certainly defines action in several steps (6 with a pause for a 7th). 

    However, I'm not so sure it describes 'Being' as adequately -- already within the first two sentences we have the Creator and the Spirit of the Creator. (*) 

    What is this boundary condition? 

    And where is it reflected within the Creator's image?  

    We probably need to go to the Hindu type models, which are based on different premises, for a more holistic appreciation of this mystery. 

    regards
    Russell

    (*) Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV 


    On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Luc Hoebeke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

      Dear Roger,
      Dear Boris,


      Making a distinction is at the same time a curse and the only way to act in what you Boris lable as the universal connectedness. In Genesis 1 the Creator makes that act of distinction on the second day of creation when he "separated the waters from the waters", a crazy distinction if you think about it. For this reason the second day of creation is not labeled as "good" by the Creator. Tradition states that on that day "evil" was created: one of those basic distinctions as light and dark, life and death, good and evil. The second day breaks the unity of the first day! All dualistic paradigms are luring us around the corner from this day on. Thus each time we create a distinction we fall in the same trap as the Creator.  (We were created in his image, remember). Now, don't blame me to be a Creationist. This story is about the human being and expresses wisdom with which the UCD Metaphorum Listserv is struggling with in 2011 :-)


      Acting creatively implies the capability to make a distinction. From the moment you name something, you define three components relating to one another: what it is, what it is not and the boundary between what it is and what it is not. Aristotle excluded this boundary and in this way made "holism" more difficult to handle. To antagonize Aristotle, I have defined the "identity function" as a boundary function. I understand Roger, and I agree with him that in order to be able to act creatively in the "whole interconnectednes of the Universe", making a distinction is essential. Regarding the VSM, this is the difficult moment when in practice one has to distinguish which the System in Focus one chooses. This puts a constraint to the dream to Act Holistically while thinking holistically. This is how I understand Roger stating holism is never about action. This is also the reason why I wrote that systems practice implies a kind of humility.


      Kind regards,


      Luc




      Op 26-mrt-11, om 22:24 heeft Boris G Freesman, Q.C. het volgende geschreven:


        Roger,

        I don't understand what this means: "you must have the means to make distinctions about that which you wish to concretely act."

        If you are saying that we must understand the component parts of the whole and their interdependencies, interconnections, interactivity and interrealtednesses... then no problem. Always mindful, of course, that it is our acts of analysis -- as Bohm says -- that creates these distinctions...

        If you mean something else, please clarify or expand. Tell me in ERM [English for the Reasonable Man] what the other half of Stafford's message is.

        As to the VSM, I understand it as a model [based on the human endocrine system] for organizing complex social systems that have the requisite channels of communication between the component parts that will allow for the exchange and flow of information required for its effective continuance and survival. Are you saying something different?

        Also, please explain how one can "act holistically" if "Holism itself is never about action." It may be just my  Saturday afternoon Gin'n'tonics, but I am confused...

        Boris


        ----- Original Message -----
          From: Roger Harnden
          To: [log in to unmask]
          Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:08 PM
          Subject: Re: May I?


          Boris - that is only HALF of Stafford's message. The main difference between him and the mainstream of second order cybenretics, is that he showed that in order to act holistically, you must have the means to make distinctions about that which you wish to concretely act. Holism itself is never about action, I'm afraid.


          That indeed is why the VSM is unique,


          Roger


          On 25 Mar 2011, at 20:43, Boris G Freesman, Q.C. wrote:


            Oui, mon ami... c'est vrai... chacun a son goût... mais...

            What then becomes of Stafford's message? Can anyone who says they espouse and wish to promote his ideas nevertheless ignore his central message: THINK AND ACT HOLISTICALLY!

            Can anyone who says they understand his message nevertheless maintain it only as a theory [even a beautiful idea] without themselves incorporating it into what they think and do, in their  own lives -- how they look at the world we live in?

            I can debate and accept being challenged and corrected on my interpretation of the details and contents of what it means to think and act holistically, but is there truly a choice on whether or not to do so, whether or not, personally, to "change paradigms"?

            Boris


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Roger Harnden
              To: [log in to unmask]
              Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 5:09 AM
              Subject: Re: May I?


              Boris,


              I'm more than happy that you and i 'inhabit' different paradigms. Vie la differance!


              Roger


              On 24 Mar 2011, at 19:48, Boris G Freesman, Q.C. wrote:


                With respect, Roger [I will not say "due respect" because that is an euphemism that lawyers use when they doubt that any respect is due!], I think you miss the point.

                I am talking about holism. From a holistic perspective, purposive and emergent are not "either/or" alternatives but "both/and" or complementary factors... notwithstanding the ostensible conflict or contradiction which is a useful catalyst for greater and better perspective and understanding.

                That age old debate [and many other, similar debates] is a product of the limitations of the paradigm that comes from an Aristotelian/Cartesian/Baconian/Newtonian way of thinking or logic. As I often heard Stafford say, when you reach a paradox or dichotomy, kill it; you have reached the limits of the paradigm in which you are thinking and that means you must rise to the next level of thinking... which, in terms of what I am saying, is holistic thinking or logic.

                The trap that you imply is, indeed, a function of the nature of the trapped!

                I don't accept your definition of "discipline" either; that, too, is a function of the limitations of your paradigm.

                I don't know if you are or were ever a horseman [I was until a horse threw me and I badly fractured a vertebra] but that is, indeed, the clearest example of precisely what I am saying. It is both the driver and the instincts of the horses that determines the "trajectory" of the chariot. If you have ever watched dressage, for example, you cannot miss the fact that the rider and the horse are complementing each other in determining the "trajectory."

                Boris

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Roger Harnden
                  To: [log in to unmask]
                  Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 4:54 AM
                  Subject: Re: May I?


                  Well, Boris, indeed you 'may'!


                  But...............


                  If these things are 'ways of thinking', then they are not (surely?) 'scientific disciplines'.


                  Boris - your comments have once more highlighted the age-old debate about purposive on the one hand, and  emergent on the other. The 'next level' of consciousness is either directed (according to the finite and limited thinking of one person or a group of people), or something that emerges (as in 'sefl-organisation') as a consequence of recurrent coordinations of actions. There is either a driver directing the trajectory of the chariot, or the horses are pulling the chariot according to the landscape and contours that they follow.


                  Surely history is full of examples of the dangers that tend to accompany confusion on this issue - think of the Third Reich, to name just one, but there are many closer to home. The whole debate on Darwinism and social darwinism concerns this, and ends up not being a conversation (Pask) because of naivity here.


                  For myself, Boris, all 'this stuff' (I include cybernetics, but it is just one strand) does, as you indicate, involve a particular way of thinking and interaction, and does integrate findings from contemporary 'scientific' findings. But the incorporation of such findings is not in order to move towards itself becoming a new discipline, but, simply (as you write in your first paragraph) a way of thinking.


                  Let disciplines retain their ontology (there you go, Russell!) as disicplines; and let ways of thinking retain their ontology - as ways of thinking. Obviously insights guiding these ways of thinking emerge from experience of those advocating these ways of thinking. But this is not in order to compete with these' disciplines'. Boris - it is to escape the pathologies of becoming a discipline. Not that disciplines as suich are bad (they are intrinsic infrastructure), but that the dynamics of disciplines and a 'discplinary' society require a counter-balance - just like the financial sector and banks, they require a regularity function that sits outside them. And 'our' practcies and ways of thinking surely serve some such function as this?


                  Roger





                  On 23 Mar 2011, at 21:04, Boris G Freesman, Q.C. wrote:


                    May I?

                    The way I see it, nothing that we do can or will endure unless there is, first, a rise in the level of consciousness... a rise not merely to a higher level of current thinking, but to a level of higher thinking.

                    At the "next" level of consciousness, holism [or wholism], cybernetics or whole systems perspectives [they all mean more or less the same thing] ceases to be understood as a beautiful theory and becomes a scientific discipline.

                    That level of higher consciousness is group consciousness – which, by the way, is the real significance of Team Syntegrity! At that level, we have a much better perspective and understanding of what the problems and solutions are.

                    Cybernetics is a way of thinking – a language – that expresses the integration of the cardinal axioms of quantum physics and mystic traditions of all cultures... to wit, holism

                    Boris

                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to:www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.htmlArchive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org

For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:  www.platformforchange.org

METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html

Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~