Dear Organlearners,
[Here Part III begins. The movie is still running! Please patch it up!]
With /_\F = +5J and W = -4J we get
. +5J (change in free energy) > -4J (work)
This contradicts the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
This can never happen. The system cannot do work W (-ve sign, 4J)
while also increasing its free energy F (+ve, 5J). It is like getting
into a car with the fuel tank nearly empty, letting the car work over
a considerable distance, and then expecting the fuel tank to be full.
Think of a daily paid worker. At the end of that day the worker has done
-4J. But the boss withheld the wage, expecting personal free energy of the
worker (first eating and then resting) to increase magically (because food
and rest could not be bought). This is exactly the case above. It is
unethical. Think of learning which is also doing personal (mental and
physical) work W < 0. Can I pay your wage? Can you use it to buy what your
mind and body need so as to restore your personal free energy F? Will
"well done" be sufficient wage? Or should I rather say "I love
you"scheming that you will assume that to be a wage by which to restore
yourself? No, I love you and that is why I have been working myself into
the bottom. For you to benefit form this work of mine, we will have to
work as a team. Working as a team means neither that you must follow me,
or that must I follow you in the decisive or even the minutest detail.
That would be rote mental behaviour. Working as a team means that we must
respect each others creativity, doing nothing which destroys the dance of
LEP on LEC. So, if your personal free energy has to be raised by /_\F, let
us work together in finding out how. I can tell you how I do it and have
in fact told you much how I do it. But should we neither respect wholeness
in our work W together nor respect any of the other six essentialities,
how can we expect to understand each other?
With /_\F = +5J and W = 0J we get
. +5J (change in free energy) > 0J (work)
This also contradicts the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
This can never happen, not even with a creative collapse. The system
cannot increase its free energy F (+ve, 5J) without any work W (0J)
involved. It is like drawing a shield over the entire earth so that
"sun-work" cannot get into it. How long will plants manage to increase
their free energy by means of photosynthesis? Its like denying that
God Creator is continuously working on Creation. How long will souls
increase their free energy by means of "spiritosynthesis"?
Think of a worker. At the end of every day the worker has done nothing and
nothing has been done to the worker, i.e. W = 0J. There are some three
billion of them today. We keep on drawing a shield between them and us.
Yet we expect them to increase their personal free energy so that they can
also become assets to humankind, i.e. /_\F > 0. Are we acting like the
sun, or do we act like the shielded star "nus" (reverse the letters of
"sun")? Are we acting godly, or are we acting "dog"ly? This crazy picture
of workers in general becomes a terrifying nightmare when we zoom in on
learners in particular. Neither do we expect them to do any much learning
work nor do we any much learning work (i.e. W =<>= 0J) on how to increase
personal free energy (i.e. /_\F > 0) from time to time so that in between
these times this free energy can decrease to sustain spontaneous learning
work. By allowing this learning work on sustaining learning to become
smaller and smaller until W =<>= 0 (very small), /_\F will have to follow
this same degradation, only faster so that the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
is maintained. Thus the oscillation in free energy F between full and
empty will become progressively smaller, called by physicists a
"damped oscillation". Its like hitting a gigantic gong, then listening
in a trance how the sound slowly dies away. Is this trance not because
of the mighty blow of some learning individual, and when the sound
has almost died away, another one does the same again to save
society in the nick of time? Should we not begin to tap that gong
softly and regularly as learning organisations so that the volume
gradually increases to full strength?
With a creative collapse (ordered deconstruction) something very
much like
. /_\F = +5J and W = 0J
seems to happen. But what actually happens is that the system SY gives up
some part of it, i.e. spontaneously divide itself into SYN (N for "new")
and SYG (G for "gone"). Thus also the free energy divides into two parts
with the order sign < used as > to indicate a spontaneous "g"ift. The
result is
. /_\F(sy) > /_\F(syn) + /_\F(syg)
Since no work is done (W = 0J) the /_\F(sy) cannot increase, i.e. at
most we can expect /_\F(sy) = 0J. Hence the value +5J required has to
be fitted to /_\F(syn). This gives
. 0 > +5J + /_\F(syg)
A value like /_\F(syg) = -7J will make this expression true, but not a
value like /_\F(syg) = -3J. So when the system wants to gain five miles,
the system has to give in walking a greater than a smaller distance. A
teacher from Nazareth once said that if somebody wants you to walk some
distance with him or her, give twice that walking. Why? To make sure that
your creative collapse is authentic.
With /_\F = +5J and W = +2J we get
. +5J (change in free energy) > +2J (work)
This also contradicts the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
This can never happen. The free energy F of the system cannot
be increased (+5J) by doing a lesser amount of W (+2J) on it. In
other words, the increase in free energy of a system is limited
(spareness) by the amount of work done on it. It is like pushing a
car partially up the hill, yet expecting that work to take the care
right to the top of the hill so as go spontaneously down at the either
side. Its like giving God Creator a minor role in Creation. How far
will Creation keep on creating?
Think of a worker. The W = +2J means that work has to be done on the
worker to raise the personal free energy of the worker with /_\F = +5J so
as to restore some of the personal (mind and body) health of the worker.
This work, on the other hand, is draining the free energy of the
surroundings. The more this personal health of workers deteriorates and
the more their numbers become, the more work is needed to restore their
personal free energy and thus the more the pressure on government (taxes)
and benefactors (donations). Does this not sound familiar? Then the
political knight on the horse called democracy comes riding in, promising
wide spread tax cuts as if paying for even less work will solve this
catastrophic deficiency in personal (mind and body) free energy? Such a
knight on such a horse have the colour grey because of trying to
contradict the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
Doing too little leads to incredible waste because it has been in vain.
Think of a learner who has to be restored with /_\F = +5J and who expects
W = +2J to do the job. The larger value for /_\F indicates restoration
needed for some complex learning work and the smaller value for W
indicates a simplistic supply for this restoration. Does this not sound
familiar -- learn complex things with easy instruction? Such an
instructional knight on such a training horse also have the colour grey --
the apocalyptic colour of death.
With /_\F = +5J and W = +5J we get
. +5J (change in free energy) = +5J (work)
This also contradicts the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
for the "real irreversible" world. Only for the "idyllic reversible"
world in which everything happens infinitely slow can needs (/_\F) and
supplies (W) be matched perfectly. Only in this "idyllic reversible"
world can the free energy F of the system be increased (+5J) by doing an
equal amount of W (+5J) on it. The price to be paid for this 100%
efficient one-to-one-mapping is the irreversible loss of the
one-to-many-mapping. Entropy, the measure of organisation, stays the same
for ever because no entropy production was involved.
Think of a worker. At the end of every day the worker has done exactly the
amount of work (W < 0 ) required. At the beginning of every next day the
workers personal free energy has been restored with exactly the same
amount of work, only opposite in sign (W > 0). What an ideal? Yet, since
no entropy can be produced to obtain this ideal state, the worker works
the whole of every day without changing the "pattern in form"
(organisation). Why will anybody hire such a worker? Would such a orker
want to be hired? Why, even the boss would not be able to speak because it
will involve creating "pattern in form" of speech. Think of learners.
Exactly what the trainer tells involving W = +5J, the trainee learns
rotely (perfect matching) so that /_\F = +5J. Now the trainee becomes
trainer, loosing /_\F = -5J by doing the same (W = +5J) to the next
generation of trainees so that they gain with /_\F = +5J. But because of
ONE trainer and MANY trainees speaking the same, we have the perfect
pyramidal scheme. Most countries have laws forbidding pyramidal schemes
involving money, but I know of no country in the world in which this
perfect pyramidal scheme involving information is even suspected. Oh, when
will we become knowledgeable to it?
Finally, with /_\F = +5J and W = +7J we get
. +5J (change in free energy) < +7J (work)
This is the only work category for non-spontaneous changes which
agrees with the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
The non-spontaneous changes of the system SY will indeed happen
because of having applied excessive work on the system. What systems
can we here think of? What about the GLOBAL system called technology
which has been mentioned much earlier with its four phases
. /_\F(tech-making) > 0
. /_\F(tech-fuelling) > 0
. /_\F(tech-caring) > 0
. /_\F(tech-doing) < 0
The first three phases are non-spontaneous and thus require excessive work
to happen. The last phase is spontaneous and can thus be harnessed to
produce work at less than 100% efficiency. It is impossible for this last
phase to sustain the preceding three phases. Hence for the hole of all
four phases of the global system technology we have
. /_\F(technology) > 0
It needs vast sources of free energy as the consumption of fossil fuel
(and even nuclear fuel) indicates. Some countries try to alleviate the
situation by making use of minor amounts of renewable sources of free
energy like hydroelectric plants. But is this magnificent engineering
feats the only sources of work from free energy. Are no other sources
consumed too?
Think of workers!!! As the non-human sources of free energy F to supply
work W become increasingly consumed, so does the pressure increase on
humans to supplement these sources of free energy to supply work. More
and more humans are working themselves to the very bottom to keep this
free energy hungry idol called modern technology well fed. Yes, some
consultants now even call humans the orgnaisation's most important
resource. The workers' own entropy production in doing so is but tiny in
comparison with the entropy produced by the other natural sources of free
energy which they are harnessing. Thus their own experiences are but tiny
what the rest of the environment is "experiencing".
Even though, they seem to learn very little form these experiences by way
of emerging tacit knowledge, then formal knowledge and finally sapient
knowledge. Yes. They seem to have little wisdom in working their butt off
to keep the idol of technology going, something which on its own would
have grinded very swiftly to a halt.
Dear fellow learners, are we slaves who have to work for some or other
"lord"? Let us think about this "lord"? Can this "lord" act spontaneously?
Does this "lord" love us? What imbeciles are we not for loving a "lord"
which cannot "love" us. Is there a Lord which loves us before we even have
emerged through creating, learning and believing to the highest spiritual
level of loving too? Has the time not arrived for us to do some serious
thinking on the dance of LEP on LEC.
We have worked through spontaneous changes (/_\F < 0), non-spontaneous
changes (/_\F > 0) and now have to complete our exploring on equilibrium
"changes" (/_\F = 0). The quotation marks at the "changes" means that on
lower levels of complexity changes do happen, even though minute and
reversible. This will be explained. But until such time, let us think that
/_\F = 0 points to the the equilibrium state. For this state we may
distinguish three work categories with representatives
. W = -3J
. W = 0J
. W = +3J
Before we discuss these three categories, let us delve deeper into
what seems to be a rather dull state.
Why can we say that /_\F = 0 characterises an equilibrium state? Think of
a system SY which interacts spontaneously with its surroundings SU.
Because the interaction is spontaneous, the free energy F(sy) of the
system decreases. This means that the change /_\F is negative, i.e.
/_\F(sy) < 0. The free energy cannot decrease indefinitely. In other
words, sooner or later it reaches a (notice, "a" and not "the") minimum
value. Since a lower value seems to be impossible, /_\F = 0.
Because /_\F = 0, no form of energy can be converted into other forms of
energy. Hence no further entropy can be produced. Since the entropic
pattern
. [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X
gives an indication of the entropy produced when the energy form X x Y
is converted into other forms of energy, this pattern must be equal to
zero, i.e.
. [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X = 0
This means that at least one of the factors [Y(2) - Y(1)] and /_\X have to
be zero. When both of them are zero, the equilibrium is stable. But when
only one factor is zero, the equilibrium is labile.
Consider a stable equilibrium. Then, for the entropic force, we have
. [Y(2) - Y(1)] = 0
and for the entropic flux we have
. /_\X = 0
It means that the all differences in intensive properties Y (like pressure
and temperature) have disappeared and all flows in extensive properties X
(like volume and charge) have ceased. This is true anywhere inside the
system as well as for the boundary between the system SY and its
surroundings SU. In other words, the intensive property of the system like
Y(sy) is equal to the same intensive property Y(su) of the urroundings,
i.e
. Y(sy) = Y(su)
The system cannot become any more so that it has become a being.
Its organisation stays the same so long as its free energy stays at
that minimum value.
People often have great difficulty to understand that a stable equilibrium
is dynamical rather than static. Whereas the level of the highest order is
definitely static, the lower levels are dynamic in a rather unique manner.
Small fluctuations or "reversible oscillations" happen in each of the
lower levels. Say that F* characterises the free energy of a lower
order.
Equilibrium means for the system as a whole that
. /_\F = 0
But the dynamical nature means for a lower level a slight disturbance
happens resulting in
. /_\F* =>= 0 (small increase)
This disturbance is immediately followed up by an equal correction
. /_\F* =<= 0 (small decrease)
so that over a long period of time also
. /_\F* = 0
The so called "reversible processes" of classical thermodynamics
(or properly thermostatics) is nothing else that quasi-equilibrium
ransformations. In such "reversible processes" only small differences
in intensive parameters are allowed. Symbolically
. Y(sy) =<>= Y(su)
Because of such small differences, the entropic pattern will be very
small too, i.e.
. [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X =>= 0
Since this pattern is very small, the time taken for any change must
be small. In other words, reversible processes happen slowly.
Consider a labile equilibrium. Then one of the two factors [Y(2) - Y(1)]
and /_\X cannot be zero. Consider the case
. [Y(2) - Y(1)] > 0 AND /_\X = 0
This case is called rheostasis. Something is preventing the entropic flux
/_\X to flow. This is nothing else than a serious impairing in at least
one of the seven essentialities. This impairing may be deliberate, for
example keeping a corrosive acid in a sealed, inert container so that it
cannot make effective contact (fruitfulness) with other reactive
substances. In a bomb it is usually the becoming of liveness which is
suppressed. By restoring that essentiality, the entropic flux /_\X will
increase once again from its zero value. Hence both factors are not zero
so that entropy is once again produced as is indicated by
. [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X > 0
This mean that the even the free energy F which seemingly could not
change, i.e.
. /_\F = 0
is changing once again, i.e.
. /_\F < 0
In other words, the "minimum" value of F(sy) was merely a "temporary"
minimum, induced by a serious failure in one of the seven
essentialities.
The other case of a labile equilibrium, namely
. [Y(2) - Y(1)] = 0 AND /_\X > 0
is just as interesting. It is called homeostasis. The system has a
mechanism (cybernetic control loop) by which it keeps the intensive
parameter Y even so that differences do not occur. Whereas in the case of
rheostasis at least one essentiality is seriously impaired, in the case of
homeostasis the system is sensitive to at least one essentiality to
maintain a complex level according to the LRC (Law of Requisite
Complexity). When, for some or other reason, the cybernetic control loop
gets broken, the system's free energy suddenly decreases again to the
reach the next lower minimum value of a labile equilibrium or the final
lowest value of the stable equilibrium. In the case of a living animal,
the complete break of one of these loops entails death so the lowering of
the free energy will drive the subsequent decomposition of the body.
Very few people are aware that the mind, just like the body, can also
reach equilibrium states, labile (with rheostasis or homeostasis) or
stable. A mental equilibrium means that the person cannot change the
organisation of his/her thoughts any more. The person still thinks, but
whatever changes are made in the organisation of thoughts, are soon
reversed back again. (It is the dynamic rather than static character of
the equilibrium, the slight disturbances with their corrections.) It is
usually said that the person cannot make up his/her mind. What may happen
to an individual may also happen to an organisation of people. It can
also end up in an equilibrium state, labile or stable. A paradigm shift,
for example, is the change of free energy from one homeostasis level to
another.
Let us consider the first work category. For /_\F = 0J and W = -3J we have
. 0J > -3J
This contradicts
. (change in free energy) < (work)
It means that a system which is in an equilibrium state, cannot self do
work (negative sign). If the equilibrium is stable, it means that the
system has become exhausted so that it needs to be refuelled again. If
the equilibrium is labile, it means that as soon as the cause for the
labile state is removed, once again /_\F < 0 so that the system can be
harnessed for work again. In the case of rheostasis an essentiality has to
be repaired. In a car the ignition system does such a job, causing
effective connection between oxygen molecules and fuel molecules in the
gaseous air-fuel mixture. In the case of homeostasis a control loop has to
be broken. Release the foot from the break pedal of a car against a slope
and see what happens!
Think of workers. When their personal (bodily and mental) free energy has
reached a minimum level, they will be incapable of doing work. In the
case of a stable equilibrium, they will be utterly exhausted. In the case
of a labile equilibrium which we can undo or break by doing work upon
(positive) the worker, we have to make very sure whether it is a
rheostasis or a homeostasis. Undoing a rheostasis usually has favourable
outcomes whereas breaking a homeostasis usually has detrimental and often
fatal outcomes. Whoever wants to guide a person in authentic learning, has
to be very aware of the signs of an equilibrium state in learning. Has the
learner reached the bottom of his/her personal free energy, or is the
learner locked at some labile state, either rheostatic or homeostatic?
When teaching several learners together, the means for undoing of the
labile rheostasis of one learner may cause the very breaking of the labile
homeostasis of another learner. This is one of the many dangers in
one-to-many-teaching which I often encountered.
For the second work category we have /_\F = 0J and W = 0J so that
. 0J = 0J
This seems to contradict
. (change in free energy) < (work)
unless we concede that the "real irreversible" world do have some
idyllic reversible" niches in it where with 100% efficiency
. (change in free energy) = (work)
to make provision for the trivial case where no fuel is used and no work
is done ;-) But these niches can never be considered as "worlds" in
themselves. A system may be in equilibrium with its immediate surrounding
systems, but they themselves will not be in equilibrium with other
surrounding systems beyond them. Somewhere in the surroundings free energy
will decrease, hence producing entropy and consequently drives changes.
These very changes may be propagated and will eventually reach the system
too, thus upsetting its equilibrium, whether stable or labile. For
example, a fire far away in an immense forest will eventually consume the
whole forest. In the case of systems depending on a labile homeostasis,
the systems thinker has to have an open mind to such changes elsewhere in
the surroundings -- they may very well become detrimental or even fatal to
the system's homeostasis. A profound example is the burning of fossil fuel
and the many homeostatic states in the ecosystem which are endangered by
it.
Let us skip thinking of workers and think about learners. My greatest
worry is what systems of formal education (systems which certify that the
learner has mastered a certain course) do to learners. Those learners who
failed the certification process are often led to believe that they are no
good for learning. Most of these reasonable learners will eventually find
reasons, whether true or false, why they cannot learn. When this happens,
they are fixed into a labile rheostasis, often for life. Very few of those
"certifying trainers" are able to undo uch a labile rheostasis. On the
other hand, learners who pass the certification process are often forced
to break some of their spiritual homeostasic loops to do so. They
eventually will need intensive psychiatry to restore what has been broken.
As a midwife for authentic learning the past thirty years, I had to help
hundreds of learners who either had to break their rheostasis or had to
restore their homeostasis, people whose personalities had been wrecked by
a system of formal education. In the beginning I had to work by love and
intuition. But now I am also able to articulate it as I am doing it now. I
personally believe that a drastic reformation of the system of formal
education is required, the sooner the better.
For the last work category we have /_\F = 0J and W = +3J so that
. 0J < +3J
This definitely agrees with
. (change in free energy) < (work)
This means that it is possible for the surroundings to do work upon
(positive sign) a system at equilibrium. We may have many reasons
for doing work upon a system. One reason may be to convert that
work into free energy and thus raise the system's free energy again
(recharging the system) so that afterwards it can change
spontaneously again. Another reason may be to make a change in
the system and thus set the system free from a labile equilibrium,
for better when it is a rheostasis or for worse when it is a
homeostasis.
Whatever reason we have, we should never forget that such work will affect
a change in "pattern of form" (i.e. "organisation") of that system. In
other words, the work will affect the entropy (measure of "organisation").
Even more important, we should never, never forget that we inundate the
system with entropy rather than letting the system produce its own
entropy. Systems who are able to control their own entropy production,
usually evolve favourably. But systems who are deluged with entropy,
usually deteriorate, either gradually by ablations or dramatically by
destructive immergences.
I leave it up to you as fellow learners to complete this last work
category for workers and learners alike as an excercise to overcome rote
learning.
Now let us after such a vast flow of thoughts turn the coin with name
. /_\F < W
around again to look at the fixed picture on the other side. Have some
changes in this picture occurred? Have you felt the Dance of LEP on
LEC?
What I had been trying to do with this contribution, is a "Heraclitian
experiment" -- all flows, (although many of you may feel that it was
rather a Herculian experiment, me working you into the bottom ;) I would
very much like to know how you felt working through this complex
contribution. Did it make you aware of the many rheostasis levels in you?
Will it help you to break loose from some of them? Did it make you aware
of this fantastic homeostasis called ethics. Will it help you to restore
this homeostasis?
May you all have peace and especially learn how to get peace.
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.