Replying to LO25163 --
Dear At
At wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
You seem not to have a grasp of cybernetic principles at all, At. I am not
going to get into another whole issue as you seem so often to presume that
one or other is thinking in a particular manner. That is not at all what
variety means, variety means dynamic interconnected states in perpetuity
with recursivity etc etc.
> 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.
If you look at the law of requisite variety it is not that difficult to
measure the states.
> One answer away from this extreme is to claim that complexity can be
> measured by one and only one property (state, component, predicate).
At, again you seem to have your concepts confused to what variety is meant to
> 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
This concept totally confuses me I have tried to look at Shannon entropy,
LEC and the second law entropy, plus information entropy but I still have
not put this concept to mental rest. After all I suppose I am an an
engineer and the thermodynamics laws make perfect sense to me.
> Another answer one step further away is to claim that complexity can be
> measured by two and only two properties.
If you have read the Stratified systems Theory or even cybernetic theory
you can see that nobody is claiming this actually states what you have
been going on about. I do not understand were you get this from.
> 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".
Again At, nobody who is in cybernetics, or systems thinking that I chat to
thinks this, I fail to see why you keep saying that this is my or their
mode of thought. This is a real problem and obstacle to dialogue.
Assumptions of ones thought modes, in some schools this can be called
fluff thought.
I do not understand why you project these assumptions on to me. When I
have clearly shared with you the modes of thought that I am using.
Remember the DO and CF concepts that is what you are talking about here.
I am fully conscious of the interconnectivity, dynamic states, emergencies
etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.
> 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.
Systems Thinking is very far from having a complexity approach often, it
only works at certain levels of complexity and miserably fails at others.
But I know this and will only use it under certain instances which I have
mentioned before. Like dealing with multi bi-conditional parallel
processing variables that can be symbolically assessed. It does not work
at higher levels of complexity like thoughts on thoughts that have the
types of variables that I mention above. I am fully aware of the levels of
abstraction that I mentally use and where they can or can't be used.
> 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).
At this is your opinion but you need to understand my frame of reference
which you haven't grasped at all. It is like trying to find common ground
but you are looking in Africa and I am in New Zealand.
> 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.
At, as I have said before your writings are full of motives, which I do
not think you understand, your thread that you mention on "evident points"
is just the motives I was talking about before. Your emotions cloud the
very issues that need objectivity. But I chatted about this before. This
is the hardest task for all humans, to see in side the ego (its proper
meaning) and its peripheral rind and be totally neutral.
This is love, this is when the creation works it is when the creation is
silent, dark and infinite, but this is not easy to share with anyone it
has no symbols, no variables and no words. I know from a personal point of
view only, I have been witness to this on many occasions.
> 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?
At, you really seem to make assumptions about the frames of reference that
I use, this is confusing and it is difficult to have dialogue with you for
this very reason.
> >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.
Nobody is claiming this least of all NLP, its just a tool. In fact I have
had many chats with John Grinder and he for one has never claimed this. It
is a purely behavioral thing that you can use.
> 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:
The biggest problem of our time is transference (projection) of our fears, our
pain and suffering.
and was the destruction of South Africa.
My entire family was killed in the second world war because of this.
> >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.
This is just the same thing, but I could not claim this because there is
nothing essential that could do this. And ultimately this is your model,
use it if it works discard it if it doesn't.
> For example, when you say there are many paths up the mountain, you make
> use of "otherness".
No I don't that is your interpretation of my comment. It is really a poor
example that I used because it has symbolism and finite variables for this
I apologize. Otherness assumes that it is either/or and we don't have to
go down this road of Boolean logic or LEM again.
Kindest
gavin
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
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.