Replying to LO25154 --
Dear Organlearners,
Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz> writes, in reply to my:
>> Rather than gradually leading them up the ladder of
>> complexity bearing in mind the "Law of Requisite
>> Complexity" and "Intimidation by Digestor action" as
>> I have argued above, they were recklessly exposed to
>> the "clash" between different levels of complexity".
>
>The law is actually the law of requisite variety (Ashby)
>which means that only variety can absorb variety. Variety
>is a state. I am not sure what levels of complexity are
>meant to mean here? It generally is attributed to information.
Greetings Gavin,
You are free to reduce the Law of Requisite Complexity (LRC) into Ashby's
Law of Requisite Variety (LRV), even though you use the word "actually" to
make it appear as if they are the same thing.
But by the same freedom I want to point out that the name LRC is not the
same as the name LRV, nor do these two names refer to one and the same
thing. I perceive the LRC as a much more complex version of the LRV. Ashby
considered the state (property) "variety" as an indication of complexity.
Thus Ashby had to use "variety" as pre-emptive for acquiring more variety.
How do we express complexity? Is "variety" sufficient for measuring
complexity? If it is, then it is like saying that one physical quantity,
for example, length with units such as "meter" or "feet" is sufficient to
express all relationships in physics involving mass, time, velocity,
momentum, force, energy, power, temperature, charge, current, field,
resistance, etc., etc. Why? Because all physical relationships are but
one part of complexity.
An answer to the one extreme is to claim that the degree of complexity
cannot be measured, expressed, modelled or even metaphorically indicated.
This will entail that we cannot even speak of less complex or more
complex. In the end we will have to conclude that there is not even such a
property as complexity itself.
One answer away from this extreme is to claim that complexity can be
measured by one and only one property (state, component, predicate). A
typical example would be when somebody claims that "truth logic" is
necessary and sufficient to deal with complexity. This "truth logic" makes
use of one property called the "truth value" which is usually allowed two
values, "true" and "false". An extraodinary example would be when somebody
claims that "entropy" (which has infinitely many positive values) is
necessary and sufficient to deal with complexity. People sometimes think
or pretend that I am claiming it too. But I have written enough to stress
once again that "entropy" is necessary (so as to get a hold on the
dynamics of complexity), but definitely not sufficient
Another answer one step further away is to claim that complexity can be
measured by two and only two properties. A typical example would be when
somebody claims that "truth logic" (having "true" and "false" as values)
together with "moral logic" (having "good" and "bad" as values) are
necessary and sufficient to deal with complexity. Such a person need not
to articulate complexity explicitely. By saying "truth and morality will
solve all society's problems" this complexity is implicated. Politicians
are fond of using such "double barrel" measures to gain popularity. For
example, "christian nationalism", "federal democracy" and "african
socialism".
The next possible answer three steps away is to claim that complexity can
be measured by three end three only properties. Should we carefully look
around us, we will observe how this claim is gradually gaining more
ground. Consider, for example, the claim "manage the future by a mission,
goals and objectives". Another claim would be "use the past (history),
present (practice) and future (eschatology) to understand reality".
The next step is utilised by the "tetrapoda". They make any foursome
connection and then claim that these four dimensions are sufficient to
manage anything complex. People who have some notion how Einstein combined
3D space and time into a 4D space-time continuum, are fond of trying this
as a recipe for their own benefit.
The fifth step is rather interesting for our LO-dialogue because of the
Learning Organisation and the five disciplines which Peter Senge
identified to characterised them with. In managing very large
organisations like multinational corporations and even nations, some
facilitators begin to argue that these five disciplines are sufficient to
manage the complexity of such massive organisations. They fail to
understand that these five disciplines are not meant to manage complexity,
but to help that organisation to steer itself as a Learning Organisation.
In the appendix to his "Fifth Discipline" Senge discusses how some eleven
essences determine the nature of these five disciplines caharacterising a
LO.
Thus we are invited to consider expressing complexity with essences.
Obviously, we have now to bear in mind Husserl's phenomenology. One of the
main tasks in phenomenology is to give a sound representation of any
phenomenon in terms of its essences/essentials (not the seven
essential-ITIES).
Can we measure-express complexity by essences? Yes, this is the very
"beauty" of phenomenology. How many essences will be sufficient?
Unfortunately, this question is the very "beast" of phenomenology.
Consider as an example the human as a complex system. The Neurological
System (NS) is essential to the human as phenomenon. But the NS consists
of the brain, the spinal chord, solar plexus, various sensory neurons,
etc. Each of the brain, the spical chord, etc. is essential to the human
too.
Another way to express complexity by means of an unending number of
properties, is to use combinatorics. It works as follows. Every property
defines a two-way fork. If property A is present, follow branch 1.1, but
if it is not present, follow branch 1.2. If property B is present, follow
branches 1.1.1 or branches 1.2.1, but if it is not present follow braches
1.1.2 or 1.2.2. This scheme can go on and on. How powerful is it? Very
much. Taxonomists in biology (botany, zoology, entymology, microbiology)
have used it for centuries to represent the complexity of millions of
biological species. They do not use the term "combinatorics", but rather
the term "keys". I invite fellow learners to study just one such a key
covering all the species of a large family like the Mesembreanthemaceae.
It is a mind-blowing experience ;-)
A third way to express complexity by means of an unending number of
properties is by means of a "generalised Boolean algebra". It works with a
power series of 2 like 2^2=4, 2^2^2=8, 2^2^2^2=16, 2^2^2^2^2=32,
2^2^2^2^2^2=64, etc. This is the way which computer technology followed
incidated by names such as 8-bit, 16bit, 32-bit and 64-bit machines. The
ever increasing "power of two"-bits in this technology is simply to be
able to repesent more complexity!
A fourth way to express complexity by means of an unending number of
properties is by means of "grammatology", i.e. using a natural language
with its grammer. Properties like verb/noun, adverb/adjective,
prefix/suffix and articles are used. Some languages have a complex
grammer and simple word order while others have a simple grammer and
complex word order. Whatever the case, natural languages are used to
"measure" complexity. The outcomes of these "measurements" we read every
day on pages or screen! All our printings express complexity. But in the
ancient times it was done on rocks and later on papirus and leather.
Through all this immense span of time these languages were spoken too --
fleeting measurements using sound waves.
There is also a fifth way to express complexity by means of an unending
number of properties. It can be illustrated by many disciplines like
topology, irreversible thermodynamics, dimensional analysis and evolution.
These disciplines, when compared with one another, form a collection which
is both enchanting and appalling. The easiest way I have found to
articulate this way is by the name "one-to-many-mapping". I will come
back to it at the end of this contribution.
The most extraordinary thing for me about these five ways (and possibly
more being important) of expressing complexity with an indefinite number
of properties is that each have the "beauty" and the "beast" in them ;-)
They draw us closer because of the "beauty" in them and repell us to seek
other measures because of the "beast". They trigger in us the devine and
the demoniac depending on our own intensions.
Is it possible that somewhere along this spread of posibilities from 0, 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, .......... to 6-6 we might be able to find
a "mouthpiece" which will enable us to harmonise with the left-side up to
0 and the right-side up to 6-6? In other words, is there a number which
will represent the complete set and which is for some people "sheer
beauty" while it is for other people "sheer beast".
I think that Rosh Ashby gave us an extraordinary peep into this "complete
number" when he realised that "variety" is requisite to managing complex
systems. I myself see this "variety" as one of the sub-patterns of a
strange contingency for all acknowledged and imaginable creativity. I call
this contingency by the name "otherness". It is in the Husserlian sense
essential to all creativity. So how many such a "XXXX-ness" do we need to
measure all possible patterns in all possible creativity?
The answer, surprisingly, depends on how all these "XXXX-ness"es interact
with each other in every conceivable manner. Yes, they are not independant
of each other as in all the 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..... steps which I have
discussed extensively above, but rather intimately related to each other
in most exciting ways. In the end, when we have found them all, indicated
by their "complete number", we may also call them all together by one
single name. What name will we choose for them?
>Who knows Dennis the holographic theory just states that
>everything is some level a recursion of the whole.
Is one of the other "XXXX-ness" not perhaps "wholeness". Whether
"holographic theory" or whether "holism" or any of the many other theories
of isms using the "whole", they all make use of the "whole" as requisite
to understanding what they mean by the theory or ism. So how will we show
that "wholeness" is indeed an "XXXX-ness"? Or will we shy away from this
task because of the complexity involved?
>I also think that love is a satellite, and is not the real
>answer to solve some of these issues, honest self
>reflection is one way, but this is the hardest task of all.
>NLP is also a good way to reframe poor experience
>and enrich positive ones. I once used something called
>re-birthing to get a breakthrough.
Well, NLP (Neuro - Lingusitic Programming) is one of those typical
three-legged options claimed to cover complexity.
Love has many synonyms. But for these synonyms to exist at all, there must
be one "singularly complex" love of which they all are synonyms. This is
"unconditional love" or in ancient times also known as "agape". It is by
far the most compelling of all "one-to-many-mappings which I know of. Yes,
it is not the real answer to solve these issues whenever we only talk
about agape, but not also show agape in deeds.
This brings me once again to one of the hottest problems of our time. How
can we proceed from talk to doing? It is a problem which you refer to in
the following:
>As i mentioned under personal growth thread some made
>break throughs when they found the gap between thought
>and response, others when they found that action is the
>key, others that it is mandatory to be responsible, for
>myself it was the tension between my fears and hopes.
>For At it is his seven essentialities (I think). In reality it is
>not any one of these because there is no one path up the
>mountain. Human motives are connected to our values
>which manifest as culture. Very easy to assess actually.
Gavin, it is not my seven essentialities. Their use is in telling us what
will be essential in the mapping of every path up the mountain.
For example, when you say there are many paths up the mountain, you make
use of "otherness".
If you are like me when against a mountain in the desert, you would even
try the impossible paths because somewhere on one of them you have spotted
something with which you just want to connect effectively, come hell or
high water. That path focus on the essentiality fruitfulness.
But all these paths going up the mountain have one thing in common --
irreversibility. The path may even be a zig-zag of ups and downs, but all
the ups have to be more in height than all the downs so as to arrive at
the top. Irreversibility involves "entropy production" and that requires
the dissipation of "free energy". It simply means that when I get at the
top I am tired (loss of "free energy"), hot (extra chaos as heat) and
sweaty (secondary minimisation controlling primary maximisation). But the
body+mind is most wondrous. At that very top and especially at such a top
the body+mind becomes rejuvenated, reborning to fresh body+mind. So, after
some minutes, I see another mountain in the distance calling me. Since I
cannot fly to it, down again so as to go up that new mountain.
>In ancient society power and prestige was gained through
>physical deeds, honoring ones ancestors and getting their
>power and waging war on one's enemies so as to vanquish
>their evil (which in reality is its own societal projection).
Yes. And in the desert it is a singular person and everything else with no
other human to complicate the complex issue of exploring everything, even
body+mind.
>Here is a nice phrase to end with, we have found the enemy
>and it is us.
It is wise.
I had to learn this wisdom many times in the desert in the hard manner. I
am my greatest enemy.
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.