Replying to LO24854 --
Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to you all. In this contribution I will connect once again
to the contribution by
Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> (LO24816)
but also to the contribution by
Charlie Saur <csaur@remc8.k12.mi.us> (LO24795)
to whom Rick has replied.
However, I will do it by connecting first to my own reply (LO24854) which
is rather silly because I will be replying to myself. But I have to do it
for two reasons. Firstly, the way in which the LO-archive work, connecting
a contribution with past and future contributions. Secondly, by trying to
write less in a contribution, I forget to say some vital things which I
wanted to say. Once again it has happened in LO24854 too. Thus I will make
a suggestion at the end of this long contribution to try and solve this
problem.
Before I get to what I forgot to say in LO24854, allow me to say something
else on how I present a complex contibution. I try to connect to something
definite which another specific fellow learner A has written to the
LO-dialogue (the path of mitosis or asexual cell division) rather than
introducing a new topic (path of meiosis or sexual cell formation). Then I
try to contain all the complexity as one whole in that reply. I will weave
in comments on another on going topic of our LO-dialogue rather than
connecting directly to the contribution by a fellow learner B on that
topic. The same for fellow learners C, D, ....By this I want to assist the
digestive phase of authentic learning of A as well as B, C, D, ... rather
than any rote learning. In the case of A a struggle through the complexity
is almost inevitable. However, should B, C, D, ... not read my complex
contribution, they will not have the opportunity for such digestive
learning.
I must stress once again that I try to contain the complexity in one
contribution rather than fragmenting it into many tiny contributions.
Metaphorically, I try to present the contribution as a living biological
cell with an inner complexity rather than as a broken cell with its
various inner organelles drifting around without any wall (boundary) to
contain them. By doing this I avoid putting stress on the functioning of
the LO-archive system which will involve a clicking through many related
contributions so as to get an oversight of the whole.
However, by trying to reduce the complexity in a contribution like
LO24854, some of its organelles get left out because often my memory then
fails me. Consequently I have to introduce more complex jumpings between
various contributions in the LO-archive, for example LO24854, LO24816 and
LO24795 in this contribution. This tends to illustrate what I may call (in
analogy to what Ross Ashby once formulated for variety, ie. merely
otherness) "The law of requisite complexity". This law means that should
we try to reduce the complexity in one part of any complex system into
simplicity, the complexity in another part of the system will increase so
as to maintain the overall complexity of the system.
What did I forget to say in LO24854? Well, in LO24816 Rick wrote the
following profound words:
>>How to have effective boundaries without controlling?
>>
>>What's the role of boundaries? I believe boundaries create
>>the possibility of being selective, and that being selective
>>is the key to staying alive and fresh in this modern age.
to which I have replied in LO24854:
>I like your linking of control to boundaries very much. All
>living organisms consists of one or more cells. Every cell
>has a boundary. This boundary is called "closed". Please,
>do not view this "closed" in terms of LEM as Mental Model.
>This "closed" is between "isolated" and "open". It means
>that some and not all things can enter the cell through the
>boundary. It means that some of these "some things" as
>well as some other things can also leave the cell through
>the boundaries.
Now look again at that last sentence. Is it not rather curiously
constructed?
In terms of set theory of mathematics it is easy to understand. It refers
to an incoming set X of simple subsytems and an outgoing set Y such that X
/\ Y (join) and X \/ Y (meet) are not the same set. This induces and
well-ordering into the boundary, making it open to investigations by
Boolean Algebra and thus logic. Brrr, should a cat consume it, then ;^)
But in ordinary language, it simply means that Rick has to use all his
wits to manage the boundary.
That curiously constructed sentence mean the following. Not all things go
in and not all things go out, i.e. some things stay outside and some
things stay inside. Furthermore, not all the things which go in are the
same as all the things which go out, i.e. some things which go in cannot
go out and some things which go out cannot go in. In other words, by using
Rick's idea of "possibility of being selective", the cell wall is actually
"input selective" as well as in its own right "output selective" !!
But wait, there is yet more complexity to it! What goes in and out of the
biological cell are organised clusters (molecules and polyatomic ions) of
various kinds of atoms. The cell do reorganise these incoming organised
clusters of atoms into different organised clusters of atoms of which some
goes out again. On the one hand, for example, in goes ONE glucose molecule
C6H12O6 and SIX oxygen molecules O2 and later on out goes SIX carbon
dioxide molecules CO2 and SIX water molecules H2O. In other words, on this
hand there is no accumulation of atoms in the cell. On the other hand, for
example, in goes ONE glycine molecule CH2NH2COOH (an aminoacid) to build
up another link in a protein and out goes nothing. But, on the first hand
again, should the aminoacid rather be used to supply energy, out will go
ureum CO(NH2)2, carbondioxide CO2 and water H2O.
This first hand case, illustrated by
C6H12O6 + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 12H2O
namely that the organisations of that which go in differ from that
which go out, but underneath the same atoms which go in also
go out, may be called "chemical hysteresis". Rick ought to
remember this hysteresis effect from his study of magnetism in
physics. Here is now an important clue -- as soon as we can
detect any hysteresis effect, we ought to say goodbye to simplicity
and welcome to complexity.
Consider the LO-dialogue as a "cell", the incoming contributions as
"C6H12O6" and the selections from them by fellow learners as "O2". Then
learning takes place of which the learners disgard some information as
"CO2" and retain the rest as "H2O". In other words, the learning
interactions on this LO-dialogue exhibit what we may call "ontological
hysteresis". Say goodbye and say welcome? Nevertheless, I am very much
aware of this "ontological hysteresis" happening on the list.
An interesting feature in the life cycle of a cell is the following. Do
not look at the diiferent organised clusters which go in and the others
which go out, but try to picture the various atoms underneath which go in
and out. Immediately after a new daughter cell has been formed by mitosis,
more atoms go in (by way of clusters) than the atoms which go out (also by
way of clusters). In other words, there is retaining of various atoms in
the cell as it gradually builds up into a mature cell. When the cell
becomes mature, this retaining disappears so that the atoms which go in
(by way of clusters) and the atoms which go out (by way of different
clusters) are the same. Then, as the cell begin to prepare itself for
mitosis, more atoms begin to go out than those which go in. This signals
the beginning of the creative collapse. It accelerates until the cell
begins to divide into two daughter cells. During the division it
deaccelerate sharply so that at the moment when the division is completed,
the incoming atoms become more than the outgoing atoms.
I now wonder how many fellow leaners have become intuitively aware of this
action (initially more infos come in than infos going out, then gradually
an equalization, penultimately a rapid increase of infos going out with an
internal reorganisation and finally followed by an even faster decrease in
infos going out) on the LO-dialogue? I wonder how many fellow learners
have wondered what this uneaven, yet rhythmic pattern in the quality and
quantity of the contributions may mean? I wonder how many fellow learners
are as excited as I by this most curious dance of Team Learning? I wonder
how many fellow learners are intuitively dancing the metabolism of the two
daughter cells rather than the metabolism of the parent cell?
In my country among my own people there was a time (which overlapped part
of my life) in which all dancing other than traditional folk dancing was
dogmatised as sinful, as serious as swearing, stealing or even murdering.
Members of some churches were isolated by canon rules form dancing events
so as to maintain a "superficial law and order" beneficial for both church
members and those lost souls who did not conform themselves to the
traditional folk dancing. Obviously, the lost souls retaliated too by
wanting nothing to with traditional folk dancing. This isolation was
viewed by both sides as the sign that sure healing would follow for an
exclusive side. What a crazzy use of LEM was it not? Use LEM
unconditionally and you will get healed ;^)
Does the sage in Proverbs 18:1 not say:
He who isolates himself seeks his own desire
He quarrels against all sound wisdom.
Rick writes that "being selective" -- "is the key to staying alive and
fresh in this modern age". I wonder how much how much the complexity of
cell biology and not only selectivity will help us "staying alive and
fresh in this modern age"? I suspect that dear Rick is aware of it too
because he gives thorough consideration to Charlie's contribution.
Charlie Saur <csaur@remc8.k12.mi.us> writes in LO24795:
>I currently work in special education, and for years prior to
>this gig, worked in adult education, business training and
>taught college courses. I am the parent of a special needs
>child. And I am constantly asking, and will ask again: In
>our world of education, does the word learning really mean
>control?
Charlie say little, but should we remember well enough, he wrote in a much
earlier contribution that his son Dan has serious cerebral palsy. My
admiration for Dan and the extraordinary way in which he and his wife have
to struggle to provide an environment which is healthy for Dan too, has no
bounds.
Dear Charlie, your struggle is to make people aware that Dan's
"ontological hysteresis" is far different from that of ordinary kids. In
fact, a society which offers merely normal "ontological hysteresis" even
for kids like Dan have "spiritual palsy" which is just as serious as Dan's
cerebral palsy. This "spiritual palsy" has been gradually caused by the
paradigm of simplicity. Unfortunately, my friend, I cannot give you any
guarantee that a shift to the paradigm of complexity will rectify it. But
I can assure you that as you delve deeper into the complexity of authentic
learning, the more you will know how to help Dan to lead a healthy life in
his own way.
I wrote in LO24854:
>I have deep empathy for the many fellow learners who want
>simple and concise contributions to the LO-dialogue. They
>do what almost every cell (except the white blood cells) in
>our bodies do -- to be open for simple things and otherwise
>to be closed for complex things. But let us bear the white
>blood cells also in mind.
As with respect to dear Dan, it is even worse than for normal cells. That
which he has to take in, needs to be even much simpler than that for
normal cells, and that which he gives out, is also much simpler. It is
almost as if dear Dan has to operate on the level of individual atoms
rather than the level of organised clusters of atoms. I would be very
cautious to reduce everything to actual individual atoms and I would
encourage any cluster, even it is merely diatomic, as much as possible.
The experience to deal (in and out) with clusters and not merely
individual atoms, how simple they are, is of utmost importance. In fact,
no live cell ever deals with individual atoms.
When a potassion ion K+ (its a potassium atom K minus its outer reactive
electron) has to enter a cell, it seems to happen indeed on the atomic
scale. But it is not the case. The K+ ion exists in the solution outside
the cell and in the solution inside the cell as K+(aq). This "aq" in
brackets mean that roughly four water molecules H2O are tightly bounded to
the K+ ion. It is the slightly negative part (-) of the oxygen O in H2O
which binds by an electrostatic force to the unit positive (+1) charge on
the K+ ion. Thus the K+(aq) is actually the complex cluster K(H2O)4+. We
say with K(aq)+ that the ion K+ is solvated.
In the advanced technology of Reverse Osmosis (RO) units, water is
purified from all the solvated ions in it by forcing the watre under high
pressure (far higher than even in your household) through molecular
membrane (sieve). (I wish I had the money to by one for my won fish
culture ;-) The holes in this membrane is so small that only single H2O
molecules can go through, but that a cluster like K(aq)+, i.e. K(H2O)4+,
cannot go through. Obviously, bigger clusters like pesticides and even
much, much bigger organisations like microbes also cannot go through.
Should we want water molecules and solvated ions to go through, bot bigger
clusters, then we need a molecular sieve with "bigger holes" in it. With
the advanced techonology of today, a whole range of molecular sives are
now available as a result of careful planning, manufacturing and testing.
Despite this advanced technology, it is all achieved by very high external
force and exact control of pore sizes, almost like the prescriptions so
often given to regulate the functioning of some email lists on Internet.
The live biological cell use neither that high external force and exact
control of pore sizes. It makes use of far more intelligent and softer
procedures. The, for example, solvated potassium ion K(aq)+ cannot move on
its owr through the cell wall. The "holes" in the cell wall are too tiny
to let them through and the osmotic pressure is too little to force them
through. So how did the cell solve this problem in an intelligent and soft
manner?
Dear Charlie, by catalysis! In the case of K(aq)+ and a neuro cell, the
catalyst used is aceto-choline (AC). We call AC a transfer catalyst. The
AC does two things. It strips the K(H2O)4+ of most, but not all, of its
solvated water molecules so that it becomes smaller. It also gently widens
a channel through cell wall, in this case called a potassium channel, so
that the reduced solvated potassium ion K(H2O)+ can worm its way by tiny
thermal pushes (the tiny manifestations of entropy as chaos in this case)
through the channel to the other side of the cell wall where it becomes
fully solvated once again. Is it not orders more beautiful than our own
advanced technology? Is this not the beauty in the art of Creation? Is
there really no Creator at all?
Now in the case of a person like Dan, we have to be far more experts in
the role of catalysts which help info to go in and come out. Is this not
one of the main features of the "conducive education" which you are so
keen of and which you had to master with high costs outside your country
because of its own "spiritual palsy"? Normal kids create their own
"mental catalysts" to aid them with receiving and sending information.
They are not aware of doing it, neither their parents, nor their teachers,
and perhaps only a few experts are aware of it. One has to observe with
intense focus to look for this catalysis beyond what is seen obviously.
Sometimes little Jessica reveals to me how she does it, but more often I
am still perplexed by it. But in the case of Dan I wonder if it is ever
possible to see it, not because he cannot do it, but because we are too
clumsy to work with such a great difference.
Charlie, have you observed how some fellow learners in our LO-dialogue
play spontaneously and intuitively the role of transfer catalysts? To each
and every one of them I now want to say "Thank you, you definitely make my
day when I see your artistry at work." I do notice as much as what you do
not write as what you do write. I do notice that you do not call for fluid
pressurising and pore sizing. I do notice that when you do warn against
it, even then you do it in a gentle and spiritual manner.
Rick, by way of exception I thank you too, eventhough (through only my
eyes ;-) you vulgarise it as " 'loose' definition" by writing
>How tightly to draw the boundary? I hope all readers will
>agree that I have been using a "loose" definition, not a "tight"
>one, in deciding what is org learning and what is not. I intend
>to continue to use a "loose" definition.
The second last thing which I still have to mention. I have focussed a lot
on what happens across the boundary (cell wall). Because of that our
thoughts may go overboard so that we may think that the becoming "what
goes in and out" is a measure of what is inside as well as what is
outside. It is not. Inside the cell we also find metabolsim with its
constructive anabolism and destructive catabolism phases.
For example, as simple solvated mangnesium ion Mg(aq)2+ may go into the
cell aided by its corresponding transfer catalyst. However, once inside
the cell, it will not always persist in being Mg(aq)2+. In a plant cell
with chlorophyl, it will become created together with many other different
clusters within the so called cholroplast into the complex molecule
chlorophyl. The cholorplast is a semi-independent organelle within the
cell will its own DNA. In one of the most beautiful, collaborative synthon
(multistep process) known to me, this chloroplast DNA together with the
nucleus DNA will manage to assemble all these clusters together into the
chlorophyl molecule, making various catalysts for the various steps
according to information stored in the DNA of both. This chlorophyl
molecule will eventually use up free energy which it will not take from
any other living organism, but get from tiny photons of light coming
directly from the sun.
Charlie, within Dan such a complex metabolism does take place, but because
of the much simpler "what goes in and out" we now have to face, we ought
to expect a much complexer metabolism on the other side within Dan because
of the "law of requisite complexity" as I have mentioned much earlier in
this contribution. As you have indicated between the lines in a
magnificent contribution a couple of months ago (I forgot its topic name),
your greatest struggle as the parents of Dan is with people calling
themselves "educators" and who reckon that since "what goes in and out" is
much simpler, that what goes on inside Dan must also be much simpler. They
are completely ignorant of the "law of requisite complexity". Again I am
reminded of Proverbs 18:2
A fool does not delight in understanding,
but only in revealing his own mind.
Furthermore, Proverbs 18:4 reminds me of myself:
The words of a man's mouth are deep waters,
but the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.
The last thing which I have to mention, is our struggle how to cope with
complexity. This has been once again a contribution in which I have not
tried to avoid complexity, although I have tried to avoid adding confusion
to the complexity. I will not be happy by breaking the LO-dialogue up in
parallel dialogues according to some scheme. But I do realise the
necessity to know in advance that a contribution will be complex so that
whoever wish to avoid complexity, can hit the ESC key.
Unfortunately, the various propriety e-mail software do not make provision
for anything else than only one header-subject-topic. Thus I propose the
following solution to make it easier to hit the ESC early enough. I also
suspect that Rick's system of the LO-archive will not squeel too much. So
what I will do is to add [complex] behind the LO##### number if that is OK
with you Rick, otherwise will have to modify it. Perhaps along the
creative course of time we can develop as whole series of standardised
short one word tags such as for example:
[art]
[complex]
[commerce]
[discipline]
[guidance]
[introduction]
[notice]
[practice]
[provocation]
[theory]
I would not make the use of such a tag obligatory, but I would
suggest the developing of a standardised set of tags which we
may make use of should we want to.
[Host's Note: At, just put those tags after the LO###. We'll see if they
help. I tried doing this a bit in the early days of the LO list, and found
I could not categorize msgs. My good friend Bob Eberlein does categories
messages on the system-dynamics list as Question, Reply, and Announcement.
..Rick]
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.