Kubler-Ross hierarchy LO11058

Mnr AM de Lange (AMDELANGE@gold.up.ac.za)
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 15:25:49 GMT+2

Martha Landerman wrote (LO11041):

> I'm not happy with our children's focus on blood and guts at all. I
> don't like our trend in violent movies and some music forms that
> glorify violence and total disregard for the humanity of people not
> like us -- women, other colors, ages, and cultures. But I don't think
> putting religion "back" in school will cure all this.

> What religion do you put "back?" Many of the people on this list who
> responded to this question are Christian. I'm Buddhist. So I wouldn't
> be overjoyed if my children had to listen to Christian religion every
> day in their schools.

> I understand the craving to do SOMETHING to coax the attitudes,
> actions, and artistic expressions so objectionable to so many into
> other channels. But teaching a moral code and naming it a particular
> religion doesn't seem workable. No religion has a monopoly on ethical
> and moral behavior. Respect, hard work, responsibility, caring for
> others, service to the community, are all ideals many religions share
> and strive for.
>
> So teach those ideals. But don't burden them with naming them a
> religion. Teach religion in its place, in the synagogues, churches,
> and temples, and have the proper counsellors of each faith do the
> teaching. But in school, where we all come togther to learn,
> regardless of faith, putting exclusionary barriers up to that
> inclusiveness doesn't help us.

Dear Martha (and all others)

You have touched what I believe to be a very important subject in learning
for individuals and organisations.

Many believe that the more/less religious a society becomes, the
higher/lower the level of morality in that society. In other words, they
believe in a monomorphic correspondence between religiousness and
morality.

I do not believe in this simple one-to-one relationship any more. We have
an extremely complex situation at hand. For example, many experts on
creativity (of which some back it up with evidence) believe that our
society is becoming less creative. Thus it is possible to postulate a
monomorphic correspondence between creativity and morality rather than
between religion and morality. Morality then becomes the promotion of the
creativity of all creatures, including fellow humans.

Although the link between creativity and morality is simple
(a monomorphism), neither creativity nor morality are simple.
Yet there are a few rather strange properties common to both.
1 Both creativity and morality are complex subjects.
2 Both creativity and morality rely heavily on emergent learning
which happens in turmoil (chaos) far from equilbrium
3 Both creativity and morality can proceed only spontaneously
to a higher level of excellence. It cannot be forced by
external work and control.
4 Both creativity and morality have to acknowledge spirituality
as the highest level to emerge into.

I personally would prefer that our children learn at school how to become
more creative while promoting the creativity of others. (Obviously, I
desire it for every member of our society.) I agree with Martha that a
particular religion should be TAUGHT at the places of worship for such a
religion. However, it is impossible to LEARN a religion only at those
places of worship. It is this mismatching of the places for teaching and
for learning religion which is the actual source of our controversy.

Some believe in terms of their religion that this mismatching should be
eradicated. Others believe that this mismatching has to be accepted and
accomdated. But what about the teachers who act as midwifes for emergent
learning when the noble thought to be borne in the learner is a spiritual
one? They know that emergent learning has an element of emergency
(urgency) to it and hence they cannot allow the emergence of the spiritual
thought to abort whatever place it happens. Thus they might easily find
themselves at the 'wrong' place. There is only two ways out of this
dillemma: either be willing to accept the ensuing drama when acting as
midwife in the 'wrong' place, or stop acting as midwife in any place by
burying the concept of emergent learning with the rubble of rote learning.

Now why should they be willing to accept the drama when guiding the birth
of a spiritual thought? It is very important to notice not only the
'willing to accept', but also the 'ensuing drama'. Why will drama ensue?
Because there is little respect for (emergent learning and especially) the
birth of spiritual thoughts. A remarkable exception is this LO forum. Why?
Is it because it has become a place for worship, or is it because we
tacitly acknowledge and respect the role of emergent learning?

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/>