Replying to LO24707 --
Dear Organlearners,
Andrew Cambell < ACampnona@aol.com > writes:
>Certain repetitions are necessary for some forms of Mastery to
>take place. The Mastery of true service can be gained through the
>indivisible moment. It is necessary all 'be there'.
>
>The sheep > the wall > the field
Greetings Andrew,
Thank you very much for the parable. I will tell it to him.
Repititions? YES and NO.
Yes -- for example, in science an experiment with a certain outcome
needs to be repeated so as to make sure that that the outcome is
indeed true. This is based on the logical theorems which I tentatively
(not formally) describe as
true AND true = true
true AND false = false
In other words, BOTH ARE NOT TRUE.
The validity of these two theorems depend on LEM (Law of Excluded Middle).
No -- and I have written several times on it. When the complexity of
a system reach a certain level, LEM does not apply anymore. For
example, the two theorems above is based on the CONTENT
(semantics, message) of the two propositions A and B. It means
(again tentatively)
A(=true) AND B(=true) = A/\B(=true)
A(=true) AND B(=false) = A/\B(=false)
Here /\ is the symbol in logic for AND. But when we look at the FORM
(syntaxis, grammer) of the two, we have in both of them a
"conjunction".
In other words, BOTH ARE TRUE conjunctions.
When we replace the second expression by
A(=true) OR B(=false) = A\/B(=false)
its FORM is not that of a conjunction (/\) any more, but that of a
disjunction (\/). In other words, BOTH ARE NOT TRUE conjunctions.
Even worse, this expression is not a theorem of CONTENT, although
A(=true) OR B(=false) = A\/B(=true)
is one. Consequently
A(=true) AND B(=true) = A/\B(=true)
A(=true) OR B(=false) = A\/B(=true)
shows us that COMPLEX TRUTH involves BOTH FORM AND
CONTENT. In other words, for a A(=true) AND B(=true), when
B becomes B(=false), the AND (/\) also has to be come OR (\/)
to regain truth.
Language trickery? Perhaps.
Indivisible moment? Yes. yes and yes.
>Foreknowledge IS the imagination.
I understand what you mean. Perhaps my next change to it will destroy its
wisdom for most fellow learners:
Imagine becomes foreknowledge.
(Foreknowledge = experential + tacit knowledge?)
Why do we want to judge (Greek: "kritikos") imagination, especially of
children? Are we not destroying their experiences and thus tacit
knowledge? Are we not prepraring them in this way to become rote learners
rather than authentic learners?
Is imagination without becoming possible?
Here is an true story. One night many years ago our three daughters (they
were still sleeping in one room) came running to their mother, too afraid
to sleep. "Mommy, mommy, there is a wolf under our bed." (Ask Ilse-Marie
about my wolf stories.) Did my dear wife SAY the following? "There is not
such a thing as a wolf under your bed. Go to sleep!" No, she ran to their
bedroom, they following her, and DID the following! She kneeled, took aim
under the bed like holding a shotgun, and DID the sounds BANG, BANG, BANG.
Then she left the room. They went happily to bed.
>Will that do Mr. De Lange;-)
Yes, Mr. Campbell, but the LO-dialogue will continue ;-)
Will there ever be, for example, another William Blake?
Will there ever be, for example, another Andrew Campbell?
Dear fellow learner, will there ever be another person like you?
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@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.