Replying to LO23861 --
Dear At and Org Learners
>What I mean is the following. Look at the FORM of
>your first sentence in which I left only a few words to
>accentuate the form:
>[verb] ....
>or .... move [verb] ...
Actually all systems exhibit only two types of external movement, either
-away from or towards. ( my observation)
>I hope that you meant to say that the system (in your
>case the CAS) becomes SELF.
I am not so sure we will agree on this. However hope from my point of
view is an anticipation or expectation. This is a moving towards action
which may or may not result in the expectation that we might or might not
agree or have similar point of view on something.
This is a very contentious issue and encompasses a spiritual belief which
in itself is another system which has energy, A point of view only.
Whether this is so cannot be effectively discussed because of our
attachments to our thinking and values, so I will agree to disagree.
>For Prigogine the system's becoming is "organisation".
>For Kauffman the system's becoming is "complex adaptation".
>For Maturana the system's becoming is "making" (poiesis).
This is a very contentious issue because saying that the system is
becoming is already reducing it to a single value or point of view. All
these CAS theorists are correct from a single point of view. However one
can never be sure that it is correct as there is not a General Systems
Theory (GST) acceptable to all, at this time. By the way JC Smuts wrote an
interesting book on GST.
>These are "various trees" in "one forest". There are many
>other trees too. But let us look at the "one forest" and not
>the many "various trees". The "one forest" is the SELF of
>the becoming.
This may be true. Reducing the concept to the forest in turn may be a
reductionist approach and not a complexity approach beware.
>As for neural systems, they cannot result in cognition when
>they do not fire self. It may seem to be a trivial observation,
>but there is an incredible mileage to it with a new world to
>explore.
Of this we cannot be sure, how do we know for sure that neural systems do
not have cognition, the energy theory will discount this point of view. It
says that all systems living or dead have an energy field, morphic field,
orgone, subtle field, or whatever they call it that has intelligence and
maybe then have cognition. see W Mewes, plus a whole host of other people
whose names escape me. There is a theorist who wrote the Presence of the
Past- Morphic Energy , his name eludes me too.
>Spontaneity is a systems property which unfolds in two categories:
>spontaneous changes and non-spontaneous changes. A system changes
>spontaneously when it changes self.
Yes I think so.
> On
>another hand, the property spontaneity may lead to most powerful
>conceptualisations. I myself have the insight that the collective
>consciousness of humankind has to pass a certain level of richness before
>the cognition of spontaneity will happen spontaneously for most humans.
This is possible,
>Please take care not to confuse spontaneous with natural and
>non-spontaneous with artificial. Spontaneous is not exactly natural and
>non-spontaneous is not exactly artificial. A minority of natural events
>are ineed non-spontaneous while a minority of artificial events are indeed
>spontaneous.
This was not even a consideration.
>Here is an interesting study. Make a list of what you consider to be the
>twelve most important subjects to the evolution of humankind, physically
>and spiritually.
This exercise seems like the one that I asked you to do on motivation.
>From the Latin to move-another verb.
Like any energy or systems theory it makes no differenece where one starts
or begins because complexity seems to replicate it self in spirals of
spirals ( like the holographic theory). Another point of view. The
outputs become the inputs and so on and so on. There would be spontaneity.
My thoughts on this issue is that it is another characteristic of CAS.
Another point of view.
>>However all CAS seem to exhibit "spontaneity" from
>>anticipation of future events.
>it generally may seem to be a mystery for us and sometimes even a
>downright failure.
Again you mention future and failure, one an output and one a very
important characteristic of a CAS. All human CAS seem to behave as if
there is a future and possible failures or successes. Success can mean
survival and failure death or reduction. This returns to the whole issue
of motivation-the fear(death), failure and the need (hope, desire,
anticipation, expectation). Which results in a spontaneous reaction. and
back to the beginning again. This is the spiral or loop so often spoken
about in CAS.
Another point of view.
Kindest
Gavin Ritz
from Auckland New Zealand
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.