> Is there a chance we could have
>
> A produces something which is food for B
> B produces something which is food for C
> C produces something which is food for D
> .....produces something which is food for A
>
> and what would we call it....
You have described a 'string' of comensal symbiosis. It occurs freaquently
in nature and plays a major role in setting up an ecosystem.
> My take on this who issue of freely giving in the learning is that it
> might not come back to us from those who we give it to but that in a
> generous environment it will surely come to us from somewhere. I would
> like to be part of the creation of the generous environment if I can
> ..........
It will come back to us if
* the string forms a closed loop and
* the wholeness of the system is not impaired.
If the wholeness has been impaired, then even a closed loop
will not ensure that bread thrown on the waters, will come back
to us after many days.
> My take on being on the recieving end of this symbiosis is that it can be
> an uncomfortable as the giving because we feel in some from of
> indebtedness - why is that uncomfortable. I would like to try out the
> notion that our debt is not necessarily directly back to the person who
> gave to us but to the whole community??
You are right. I think that you have pointed out that a closed string of
comensal symbiosis is not the same as network of mutual symbiosis.
Emergence in the latter is far more frequently than in the former.
But I also think that we tacitly acknowledge that the wholeness (mentione
above) may indeed be impaired. This is a primary source of us becoming
uncomfortable. If that wholeness is impaired, then somewhere along the
string somebody loses rather than gains. This is far more difficult to
ascertain in a string of comensal symbiosis than in a network (strings and
clusters) of mutual symbiosis.
> When At said:
> >However, I fear that there is too much comensal and too little mutual
> >symbiosis in this forum.
>
> I was not sure what this meant. I am drawign all sorts of conclusions
> which I suspect may be right out of line so I would be grateful if you
> could say more about what it is about the forum which makes you think
> there is too much comensal symbiosis?
I will first formulate the relationships in a general manner and then
refer to the forum. Comensal symbiosis is very important for incompatible
organisms to live together in an ecosystem. Incompatible means that these
organisms need not change their identity in order to participate in mutual
symbiosis. The 'common sharing' of mutual symbiosis is very important to
any emergence among all the symbiotic members. Any such an emergence is
accompanied by a change in the identity of all the members. The change is
not that the members become the same, but that they become less
individualy orientated and more collectively orientated.
(I will now speak of I rather of any other person so that no one can feel
accused). If I paticipate comensally in the forum, it means that I make
use of whatever is made available by the forum without myself making
something useful to the forum. I then become part of the so-called silent
majority - a problem which plague modern society. I may think that by
making use of what others offer to me, it will change me for the better of
society. Although I do change, it is not for the the better of society,
but only for myself. Only when I make something useful for the benefit of
all in exchange for the useful things made available to me, I will also
change for the better of society.
> >It is very difficult
> >for very creative people to enjoy mutual symbiosis.
>
> I am not sure I understand this either - my take on earlier postings about
> creativity and creation was that we are all creative people this seems to
> imply that some are more creative than others. I am struggling with this
> model - my sense is that everyone has something to offer someone else. I
> am uncomfortable with the picture of people at the front's edge - my sense
> is that there are many fronts and I do not want to stand at all of them
> although I am glad that someone is.
We are indeed all creative people. But we are also not all on the same
level of creativity. The toddlers among us stil have to grow in creativity
while others who have become creatively ill have to become healthy again.
It is true that everyone has something to offer someone else, but each of
us has to make sure that it is bread and not a rock or fish and not a
snake which we are offering. If I make myself available as a source for
comensal symbiosis, I may easily offer rocks and snakes without knowing
it. However, if I inadvertedly try to that in mutual symbiosis, I will
quickly be informed of my unsensitivity.
Since reality is complex and we are limited creatures, we cannot all be at
all the front edges of reality. Thus we all are part of the back-pack of
some or other frontier. I am personally much more part of back-packs than
of frontiers. Therefor I am forever grateful for the comensal symbiosis
possible between a frontier and its back-pack because it helped me to get
closer to that frontier. However, I long to be part of some frontier while
still being in its back-pack. This, I believe, is only possible with
mutual symbiosis. Unfortunately, there is often a lack of mutual symbiosis
even among the peers of a frontier.
> I am nervous about the notion of a
> back-pack and the implication that it is parasitical.
No. I did not say that the back-pack is parasitical (parasital). However,
members of the back-pack can easily become parasitical. By this I mean
that if I am a member of the back-pack and I make use of what is made
available to me by the frontier in such a manner that it is detrimental to
the frontier, then I have become a parasite.
Let me illustrate it with an example. The cry all over the world is for
more training in technology. In other words, we have the technological
frontier and its back-pack. Most of us make use of technology in the
comensal mode, i.e. we use it without making something directly available
for use by the technologists, (except the money we pay for such
technology). But we fail to see that every piece of technology was the
result of extremely creative people at work. The absence of this
collective insight is because of the lack in mutual symbiosis between the
back-pack and the frontier, ie. an abscence of an LO on the domain of
technology.
Now, there are a few brave ones like Philip Coggin who promote creativity
as a prerequisite for education in technology. When I now fail to promote
creativity while crying for more training in technology and even
participate in delivering such creativeless training, what have I become?
Since creativity is the lifegiving blood of technology while I actually
take creativity away from technology, I have become a parasite.
I loved working through Philip's Book. It is:
Coggin, P. A. 1979. Education for the future: the case for
radical change. Oxford: Pergamon press.
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/>