There exists an INSIDER REVIEW OF OUR LIFE as well as a REVIEW of OUR ROLE-PLAY LIFE and these are very different in a manner that reminds me of what Argyris called DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING;

 

Double-loop learning is an educational concept and process that involves teaching people to think more deeply about their own assumptions and beliefs. It was created by Chris Argyris, a leading organizational trainer, in the mid-1980’s, and developed over the next decade into an effective tool. Double-loop learning is different than single-loop learning which involves changing methods and improving efficiency to obtain established objectives (i.e., “doing things right”). Double-loop learning concerns changing the objectives themselves (i.e., “doing the right things”).

 

In the REVIEW of MY LIFE, … what comes to my mind is how this splits into two different perspectives; i.e. for example, there is the perspective of Colonel Paul Tibbets Jr., the pilot of the Enola Gay that dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima which associates with our situation with the intellectually shaped dynamics of the societal matrix that we uniquely work ourselves into, … and, …  there is the other situation as assessed by our sense-experience which simply assess our situation within the continually unfolding world dynamic based on emotions without the intellectual social structure framing.

 

I was never a draft-dodger because I was not a citizen of a country that employed the draft in my era, but like everyone, I was continually aware of the DIVERGENCE between (A) the envelope of outside societal behaviour shaping ‘pressures’ or ‘tendencies’ to ‘do the right things’ and my own internal desires or inspirations, which is not exactly the split that Argyris is talking about, the latter being further described with the following analogy;

 

Single-loop and double-loop learning are readily understood using the analogy of a household thermostat. Single-loop learning is about achieving a given temperature–like a thermostat set to 68 degrees that turns up the heat whenever the temperature drops below 68 (the objective). Double-loop learning involves changing the setting on the thermostat (i.e., changing the objective of the system). Double-loop learning calls for changing the objective itself. Indeed, double-loop learning is not only about changing the objective, but involves questioning the assumptions about that objective, the ways of discovering and inventing new alternatives, objectives, and perceptions, as well as ways of approaching problems.

 

Is this not simply the reversal of the ‘banishing of the Female WAVE-FIELD-conjugate, a banishing that left us with a one-sided MALE ASSERTING ACTION dynamic, unguided by the now missing (banished from WESTERN CULTURE LANGUAGE) female accommodating WAVE-FIELD conjugate?  The aggressive male-asserting conjugate is much admired within WESTERN CULTURE social collectives but as Lao Tzu advises, ‘Know the male but go with the accommodating female’.   We credit the punch with the shattering of the skull, even when it is the female accommodating of the eggshell skull that secures the collapse commonly credited to the male punch.  Perhaps this shift from ‘doing things right’ (the proud male way) to ‘doing the right things’ (the sensitive female accommodating) signals the homecoming of the DEA ABSCONDITA.

 

 

In seeing value in Argyris’ comments one does not have to be talking about ‘intellectually” changing the objective or “intellectually” questioning the assumptions about that objective, … what I am talking about is INTUITION of the type that has been transforming ‘who I am’, NOT by slowly morphing me from someone who has been ‘trying to do things right’ to someone who is trying to ‘do the right things’, but to someone who is coming to grips with the understanding that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOCAL AUTHORING, so no need to fuss over whether I am ‘doing things right’ or ‘doing the right things’, both of which are male asserting pseudo-real abstractions, but to instead ‘let go of’ the local and explicit of ‘LOCAL AUTHORING’ and pick up on the ‘nonlocal and implicit’ of female accommodating that beckons conjugate male-asserting movements that transform the matrix of relations we are bound up in.  Male asserting movement induced to satisfy a nonlocal and implicit ‘growing female deficit’ appears to be making the latter the victim of linguistic obscurantism..

AFTER ALL, the concept of ‘LOCAL AUTHORING’ is a MYTH put together by the DOUBLE ERROR of NAMING and GRAMMAR as Nietzsche pointed out. Life is relational and we are included in it.  As Schroedinger says, SUBJECT AND OBJECT ARE ONLY ONE, as was also pointed out by Ernst Mach.

 

The science of psychology is auxiliary to physics.  The two mutually support one another, and it is only when they are united that a complete science is formed.  From our standpoint, the antithesis of subject and object, in the ordinary sense, does not exist.” — Ernst Mach. ‘The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical,

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT for us WESTERN CULTURE ADHERENTS TO PICK UP ON?

 

BECAUSE, as WITTGENSTEIN TELLS US, OUR LANGUAGE KEEPS REPEATING THE WRONG STUFF TO US, OVER and OVER AGAIN

 

A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. –-Wittgenstein

 

So, all of these quotes highlighted in bold italic are pointing to the reality that our sense-experience of being in the world has a ‘compound’ structure to it, consisting of the LOCAL and EXPLICIT of material world, and NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT of the …. what shall I call it, … ‘spiritual world’?  … or should I use the term ‘imaginary’ as in the complex mathematical structure where the ‘whole’ is composed of the ‘real’ and ‘imaginary’ components?.

 

Ernst Mach is calling it the ‘physical’ and ‘psychological’ and that makes sense to me, but there is more nuance to it than the simple labels suggest because, while the physical is LOCAL and EXPLICIT (concrete), the PSYCHOLOGICAL is NONLOCAL and IMPLICIT (relational) and the questions arise as to which of these has precedence and how we are to combine them.

 

The ‘more nuance’ can be seen when we use language to capture just the MALE ASSERTING conjugate as in ‘the TOWN is GROWING’, … and we know from our sense-experience that this ALSO MEANS that the WILDERNESS is doing the FEMALE OPENING UP TO ACCOMMODATE THE MALE ASSERTING so why architect a LANGUAGE that DROPS OUT the FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE?

 

GUESS WHAT!   THIS DROPPING OUT OF THE FEMALE ACCOMMODATING CONJUGATE FROM OUR LANGUAGE ….. AT THE SAME TIME, ‘OPENS UP AN EMPTY SPACE’ AS THE NON-PARTICIPATING STAGE FOR PRESENTING MALE ASSERTING AS IF IN ITS OWN LOCAL AUTHORING RIGHT.

(more…)