> At mentions "emergent learning" as the key to mutuality and symbiosis on
> something like this list.
>
> At, in my thinking about learning, there is little (nothing?) that isn't
> emergent in some sense if there is learning occurring. What I think you
> are pointing at is that "emergent learning" writ large is required for the
> kind of generative possibility that this series of post is aimed at.
Mike
Yes, the LO itself and not only some of its individuals have to experience
emergent learning. It is through this very collectively emergent learning
that the LO comes effectively into existence, unfortunately, only barely
so. Let me explain.
We must try to observe TWO assymptotes (phases) in learning and even
creativity. The one is revolutionary, far from equibrium, and the source
of emergences. The other is evolutionary, close to equibrium and the
source of growth. Let us speak of these two phases as emergent learning
and digestive learning.
Emergent learning leads to the birth of a new concept of higher order.
However, this concept is bare like a newborn baby. The concept then must
grow to maturity like a baby feeding on nutrinional food. This the
digestive phase. This phase is very important because it is the potential
energy of the mature concept (and not the bare concept) which act as
source for the entropy production for yet another emergent phase.
We must never take emergences for granted.
> That is, unless there is something generated that did not exist before -
> in the thinking of ANY single participant on the list, the emergent
> learning of mutuality is not present.
You are right. All the individuals of the LO are important in the
emergence of 'collective' qualities. Any past experiences of any member in
any past LO cannot be transferred into the present LO. Thus ALL members of
the present LO have to work at the emergence.
> This is a central problem of transforming working with individuals towards
> a learning organisation to having organisational learning occur at the
> level of organisation.
Yes, it is indeed the case.
> The particular focus that I was aimed at in my earlier posts was the
> situation where there is some single person who is leading the thinking in
> an area and wants to share it with decent economics or mutuality. This
> mutuality might be a combination of economics and contribution to new
> understanding, enriching the original expression, etc of the originator
> and value for those who are paying.
This is how I understood your contribution. An emergence is always
accompanied by mutual benefits. This is so from the microscopical world of
molecules emerging from atoms to the macroscopical world of human
organisations emerging from individual people. In the microscopical world
the emergence of the molecule leads to more stability for the
participating atoms. The reason why I stressed 'symbiosis', is that we
should not restrict those benefits to merely money and information.
Symbiosis in the biological world (excluding humans) entails much more
than merely food. Symbiosis in the realm of human affairs should manifest
even more variety, including the levels of spirituality and love.
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/>