Perhaps this is more about the unique arrangement that each person learns to live within. Proclivities and aversions, aptitudes and challenges all form an aesthetic of learning and mutual learning that we might call ‘character.’

The models, graphs, and charts that communicate this methodology carry ‘fact’ packaged in such a way that its authority is unquestionable. It says, “this is serious,” “this is how things are done,” and most insidious, “this is how life works.”

otherwise. I thought that since we came from the same culture and spoke the same language we would and should have less confusion about one another’s intentions. On closer inspection, this was not the case at all.

Mutual learning is only possible when all participants are willing to be wrong… willing to learn, to explore new ideas, to go off the map, out of the known, and together grope in the shadowy corners of new ideas, new plans, new territories.

Since our culture has a penchant for mechanistic thinking, it will seek mechanistic versions of systems thinking. And, conversely, since our culture seeks to fill the hole that science dug where religion used to hold the soil in place, unrigorous forms of systems thinking will offer explanation through mystery. In both cases, what is lost is the ab

‘How is this symmathesy learning to make sense of its world?’

I want to emphasize that whenever we pride ourselves upon finding a newer, stricter way of thought or exposition; whenever we start insisting too hard upon ‘operationalism’ or symbolic logic or any other of these very essential systems of tram-lines, we lose something of the ability to think new thoughts. And equally, of course, whenever we rebel a

There is no language to define the spiraling processes of the vast context we are participants in.

We are normalized into an unworkable imbalance, forever tearing the world into pieces and reifying the need to grasp each answer, each ‘solution,’ and freeze it.