Replying to LO25411 --
Dear Organlearners,
Roy Benford <roy@benford.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I am somewhat puzzled by the reduction of human
>interactions to mathematical formulae.
(snip)
>I appreciate that the mathematics of complexity, relativity,
>etc have replaced Newtonian mechanics but the
>Weltanschauung seems to be the same!
Greetings Roy,
In 1963 in my first university course in mathematics the wise old
professor (Dirk van Rooy) said to me in front of all the students "Mr De
Lange, if you cannot say in words what a mathematical formula means, you
cannot work with that formula". I felt extremely embarassed and even
angry, but eventually I became forever grateful to him for saying so.
Since that day I began to discipline myself to say in ordinary language
what is the meaning of every formula which I work with.
The transformation of the sentence
. only the free energy of all the energy is available to
. create the future since the rest has to maintain the
. present organisation
into the formula
. F = E - TxS
is indeed a reduction of symbols. In the sentence some 100
symbols have been used whereas in the formula only 7 have
been used. If I cannot transform the 7 symbols of the formula
back into a sentence like the one above, then I am indeed ailing
reductionism.
Let us assume that I can reduce sentences into formulas and
vice versa expand all formulas into sentences. Am I then freed
from reductionism? No, not at all. For example, I can contemplate
human interaction after human interaction and always end up
with the conclusion (one concept!!!!)
. F = E - TxS
This is indeed also a reduction, not now of only symbols, but
also of behavioural concepts. When I cannot expand this
. F = E - TxS
into as many behavioral concepts as needed to understand it,
then I am indeed ailing reductionism once again.
Let us assume that I can reduce all human behaviour into formulas (or
sentences if you do not like formulas) and vice versa expand all formulas
(or sentences if you do not like formulas) into human behaviours. Am I
then freed from reductionism? No, not at all. For example, I may toil only
with my formal knowledge, ignorant of my tacit knowledge (intuition). So,
once again I am reducing human thinking by working only with what has been
articulated. I may also, for example, toil only what the "experts" have
to say, neglecting what common people, even the uneducated, are saying. Is
this "academical practice" not also reductionism?
As I see it, the only way in which I can escape from reductionism
is (metaphorically speaking) to "paint rich pictures" increasingly
complex. But there is a price to be paid. It becomes increasingly
expensive in "painting utensils" like paint colours, brushes,
thinners, canvases, etc. It seems as that I have to import more
and more so as to export more complex. It actually can become
a serious constraint when I have the Mental Model that every
"rich painting" of mine is so valuable that I have to leave it
untouched. It means that I cannot give up my present organisation
for what I have to do in future. Thus we arrive again at the formula
. F = E - TxS
but now in a manner where the dance of S upon E becomes vitally
important.
However, should I sufficiently let some of my present "rich paintings"
collapse creatively, I can use these "released paints" to work on a future
"rich painting" rather than increasing my imports of "virgin paints". In
"physical paintings" it is impossible since we have deliberately selected
and designed the medium to ensure the longlevity of the painting -- that
it will neither deteriorate nor "collapse creatively" on its own. But in
"spiritual paintings" it is indeed possible once we have removed the
Mental Model preventing it.
What applies to "physical paintings" need not to apply to other forms of
art expressed physically. There is indeed many physical mediums of art in
which we can demonstrate how it is done. One of them is music. Just think
how magnificently Beethoven has demonstrated this mastery in almost every
composition of him.
But what about story telling. The same thing applies here. Just think of
the mastery of a Dante, a Shakespear, a Goethe or a Marais! Every work of
literary art has driven the artist to produce another unique one.
Obviously, nature is the greatest artist of all, using colour, sound,
touch, smell and taste, telling us how LEP dances upon LEC in the whole of
Creation. It manifests the artistry of the Creator.
However, I really want to get at the LO-dialogue as the medium of choice
for any human organisation to revive itself. Debates and discussions are
for me too much a making of "fixed pictures". The LO-dialogue is rather
like making music. The same score can be performed several times. However,
each performance is a "belewenis" on its own, fleeting and unique. It is
difficult for me to translate this "belewenis" from my own mother tongue
into English. Its syntactical translation would be "be-living-ness". Its
semantical meaning is something like "adventurous experience leading to
bliss".
Whether we use sentences consisting of words, formulas consisting of words
or even strophes consisting of musical chords, should we not use them
artistically as a result of our Personal Mastery, our LO-dialogue will
suffer severely.
Roy, you say
. "the Weltanschauung seems to be the same"
namely a reductionistic one. I deeply respect your opinion. But I
myself think that the reductionism results from the many constraints
we place on the Personal Mastery of each of us. Personal Mastery
for me means, among other things, getting rid of constraint upon
constraint in a harmonious fashion so as to sustain our creativity
and spirituality. Some of us, for example, work in universities.
How many universities go beyond recognising "expertise in a
particular discipline"? What is the "Weltanschauung" of our tertiary
educational institutions?
So, if somebody questions me whether using a formula like S=(E-F)/T is not
reductionistic, I have to create one dance for LEP on LEC. But if somebody
tells me that the use of a formula like S=(E-F)/T is reductionistic so
that I have to stop using it, I have to create another dance for LEP on
LEC. This attempt at controlling my mind is reductionistic, if not the
very source of reductionism. And should somebody tell me that I know
nothing of the formula S=(E-F)/T, is this not reductionistic too. What
dance for LEP on LEC should I then create? A war in words?
But, once again, as I have suggested in the contribution
"Work and Free Energy", much of this "control of the minds of
others" may have to do with the formula
. /_\F < W
-- the principal dance of LEP on LEC.
The hot question is: where must this "control of the minds of others"
be stopped and not by way of self "control of the minds of others"?
What about the LO as the "where" of the question?
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.