Replying to LO24793 --
Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@Voith.de> writes:
>>If this is meant to be a dialogue, might it be a time
>>for a concise description of the meaning of dialogue?
>
>In my perception, we failed miserably whenever we
>attempted to agree on a concise description on anything.
>Yet stepping back and viewing the unfolding exchange
>- dialogue? - on such concise descriptions was usually
>quite stimulating for me.
Dear Winfried,
[Please press the ESC key should complexity bother you. I might be
bashing your brains with more than a feather ;-)]
Few realise how profound Socrates' mauetic questioning influenced the way
of "western thinking" and the way in which much of the world now thinks in
trying to copy with it by rote learning. Socrates managed to show that his
compatriots who considered themselves as knowledgeable persons, actually
could not descibe the things which they were speaking of. He did not
suggest a solution.
The "solution" came with Plato and was later "perfected" by Aristotle --
define the things which you speak of so that others could not be uncertain
of its basic meaning. I know of no subject in which this "solution of
comprehension by using definitions" were perfected better than
mathematics. Close behind mathematics comes physics. Please notice that
chemistry lacks notoriuosly far behind.
I suspect that this very solution of "define the terms in when thinking
systematically in easily comprehensible concepts" caused the shift from
the paradigm of the "mystic and ritualistic" to the paradigm of
"simplicity". As such Socrates' questioning and the solution initiated by
Plato and perfected by Aristotle were necessary to shift the paradigm of
the western world, but not necessarily those of other civilisations.
I have drawn your attention that chemistry lacks far behind physics
and mathematics. It is very difficult to structure the systems
thinking of chemistry in the same manner. It is even difficult to
define its most basic concept -- that of an element. It is usually
said that an element is a substance which cannot be analysed
into simpler substances. But the atoms of many elements
spontaneously break up into in simpler ions when coming into
contact with other elements. Eg
Na (sodium) => Na+ (ion) + electron.
So Na+ is simpler, but it is not considered as a substance. So
what is a "positive ion" like Na+? Try to define it like an element.
In the case of an element the common concept "substance" is
used in its definition. Now try to define a "positive ion" in terms
of "substance" -- it is a nightmare!!!
Another example. For almost half a century it was thought that knowledge
of Quantum mechanics is indispensable to elucidate the structure of
molecules. It was indispensable, but not anymore. Advanced predictions of
structure and reactivity can be made in terms of VESPR and molecular
"mechanics", so easily that even fist year students in chemistry can
master it.
For a couple of centuries up to WWII chemistry was seen as somewhat
inferior to physics and mathematics because of its lack of systematical
thinking based on definitions. But after WWII advancements in chemistry
(and especially the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick)
superceded that in mathematics and physics at a dazzling rate -- and the
number of publications too. It is now intuitively accepted practice in
chemistry not to waste too much time on definitions because it will lead
you not where you want to be in chemistry.
Unfortunately, very few chemists ever offer a reason for this intuitive
practice of not spending too much time on definitions because it leads
nowhere in chemistry. The reason is the following. Chemistry is a science
on the complexity of reality with regard to the organisation (structure
and reactivity) of matter in terms of "kernels" and "electrons". For
example, the Na+ ion is the kernel of the Na atom. GN Lewis used the term
"kernel", but everybody else thought him to be crazy using it so that no
text book which I know of uses it systematically. Yet the kernel of any
atom has a profound meaning -- it is that part of an atom which cannot be
changed by any chemical means!
I have stressed in many contributions that humankind is now actually
shifting from simplicity to complexity. This shift began in full force
after WWII and will take another perhaps fifty years before complexity
will become readily accepted as a key feature of reality. I believe it is
impossible to organise complex Systems Thinking in terms of comprehensive
definitions like the case is for Systems Thinking on the paradigm of
simplicity.
The best example which I can offer is "entropy production" itself.
When the paradigm is simplicity, "entropy production" begins with
the Law of Entropy Production. Together with LEC (Law of Energy
Conservation) AS WELL AS mathematics the basic "entropy
production pattern" is then derived as:
[Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\ X > 0
where [Y(2) - Y(1)] is called the entropic force (creative tension)
and
/_\ X is called its corresponding entropic flux (direct creative
response).
But when the paradigm is complexity, the mental recognition of
"entropy production" with mental "entropy production patterns" leads
to the the discovery of LEP in the physical world. This activation
of these mental "entropy production patterns" require a sufficiently
high mental "free energy" (mental motivation) to manifest themselves.
This again points mentally to what I may call "the law of requisite
complexity" and a creative collapse to release some of its "free
energy".
It means that the whole evolution of physics over many millenia was
necessary to prepare the mind for such requisite complexity to
discover LEC and LEP. Perhaps you may have become aware how
I have worked this evolution into the Primer on Entropy, wondering
why I did it.
In other words, in complexity we ought not try to construct any Systems
Thinking or any other organisation, mental, material or both in terms of
basic (elemental) definitions. We rather ought to use definitions as
effective connections (essentiality fruitfulness) to some or other vital
feature of a richer picture which we have experienced rather than the one
which we intend to paint. In other words, we use definitions to connect
effectively to the context of our environment rather than to build
exclusively inner meaning in terms of definitions using elementals.
When I "evaluate" ( ;-) your personal evaluation of our LO-dialogue in
terms of what I have described above, it means to me that you recognise
the LO-dialogue as something complex rather than as something simple AND
that honouring its complexity has allowed you to gain understanding and
stimulation. But you will be the better judge of my "evaluation" of your
evaluation.
Should you carefully think it over, you might discover that each of the
five elementary sustainers of creativity and not merely the dialogue have
this remarkable property of uncovering the complexity of whatever is the
object of such a sustainer. But please take care not to formalise this
discovery on the five sustainers too often. This would make them
"fundamentalistic sustainers of creativity" which, by their very acquired
fundamentalism, will destroy their power of sustaining creativity in
practice. Rather use your profound knowledge to guide others too in their
own authentic use. Since other animals use them too, all our talking will
not help them the slightest.
Tell an artist how to copy the art of another artist and see how ong it
will last -- immergence or emergence! (Art-expression is another
elementary sustainer.)
I first became ware of this "wierd destruction" when delving into
problem-solving (one of the five sustainers) and publishing on it. The
more I tried to help students with problem-solving based on its inner
organisation, the more they got tempted to dogmatise that inner
organisation and then use it to solve problems by rote mental behaviour
than authentic mental behaviour. At one stage it drove me out against the
wall, but then I began to seek the reason for it.
How to become Einstein in one easy lesson than seven hard lessons ;-)
It reminds me of a book which I once read on seven ideas which
shook the universe. The seven ideas
The earth is not the centre of the universe
The universe runs by rules
Energy makes the universe go
Entropy tells it where to go
Facts are relative but the rules are absolute
Not everything can be predicted
Nothing change fundamentally
were truely shocking, but presenting them in the context of
traditional rote learning which followed upon them made the book
to me personally a shocking failure. I will not identify the book
more closely.
Many now seems to have jumped on the band-wagon of problem-solving so as
to sell rote learning on it, while in the mean time an armada of new
problems manifest themselves. Perhaps there is a connection between the
two ;-)
Is the same not happening to the dialogue? The more some learners tell
what it should be, the more some others become dissatisfied with the
dialogue so analysed? Immergence or emergence? Is this not the most import
message which has manifested itself in the topic "Our LO Dialogue Here"?
My own solution to this "fundamentalisation" of the five elementary
sustainers is merely to set examples by doing in each what I would like
them to become rather than talking about my wants and doing nothing. Doing
them sustains my creativity, not prescribing them them in detail. Perhaps
fellow learners can try this too. Preparing a nice piece of bait to catch
a ceratin fish is a fine example of "game-playing" ;-)
I would love to read (hear) of ways how to prevent the LO-dialogue of
becoming formalised and thus losing its sustenation. On the other hand, if
there are fellow learners who believe that the more we have a dialogue of
the LO-dialogue (the dog biting its tail) the more we will understand its
inner (implicate) nature, I would love to read and study how this can be
possible too. It will help relieving me from the seemingly dilemma in
advising Winfried not to talk too much on "inner room" thinking,
explicating the implicate too rapidly unless the implicate becomes
replenished itself ;-)
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.