Replying to LO26180 --
Dear Organlearners,
Bill Hancy <wthancy@home.com> writes:
>Peggy,
>
>I agree with you that "empowerment does come from within."
Greetings dear Bill and Peggy,
Some time ago we also had a delightful LO-dialogue on this "empowerment".
I think I have mentioned during that dialogue that in my own mother tongue
we distinguish between "gemagtig"=authorised and
"bemagtig"=self-authorised. The stem word "mag"=power. The two prefixes
"ge-" and "be-" makes the noun a verb while the suffix "-(t)ig" makes it a
past participle. I think we should try to avoid confusing
"gemagtig"=authorised with "bemagtig"=self-authorised, or even to
understand "bemagtig"=self-authorised in terms of "gemagtig"=authorised.
This empowerment="bemagtig"= self-authorised in terms of the LO pespective
points to the two LO-disciplines Personal Mastery and Team Learning. With
Personal Mastery we each take fully control over our lives so as to give
it the value and meaning which are dear to us. By Team Learning and thus
sharing our learning experiences we help one another to overcome the
obstacles in the Personal Mastery of each of us.
But this LO perspective is not the reason why I responded to your
observation that "empowerment does come from within". It is rather the
profound significance of the obvious meaning of this phrase "empowerment
does come from within". Should we consider this phrase in terms of the
person self, what does it mean? For me it means primarily that every
person must have some potential to create self what is important. This
potential is that person's creativity. This creativity has to be improved
by the person self through learning. This learning involves both the
individual (dassein) and social (mitsein) dimensions of each person.
Because of the social dimension of learning, other people can influence a
person's creativity constructively or destructively. Most important for me
to "empowerment" is for the person to learn how to overcome or avoid the
destructive influences on his/her own creativity. This is where an
understanding of the seven essentialities of creativity becomes crucial.
However, let us see to what else other than the person orthe LO we can
connect the meaning of the phrase "empowerment does come from within"? I
will connect it to two things -- the Law of Entropy Production (LEP) and
the last two verses of the Epistle of James in the New Testament. Thus I
will be using the essentiality fruitfulness to broaden our understanding
of empowerment="bemagting. By connecting to LEP I will delve into the
lower orders of our spirituality. By connecting to James, I will reach
into the higher orders of our spirituality.
The concept entropy is some 150 years old. It concerns the physical
quantity entropy (conventionally symbolised by S) which is forever
intertwined with the physical quantity energy (conventionally symbolised
by E). Neither the entropy S nor the energy E can be measured directly
like length, mass and volume. Each has to be calculated by its own formula
from the measurements of two other quantities. The formula of each is
based on a definition (a mental creation) of that quantity in terms of the
two other quantities. Thus the quantities entropy S and energy E are more
mental than physical quantities because they rely heavily on definitions
and calculations, i.e mental activities. Yet, based on millions of
empirical investigations, it became clear that for $any$ PHYSICAL system
each of these two MENTAL quantities conform to its own law -- LEP (Law of
Entropy Production) for S and LEC (Law of Energy Conservation) for E. The
$any$ above means really any system, from the galactic to the microscopic,
from the inorganic to the living. This is truely extraordinary -- two
MENTAL quantities which each conforms to its own law when applied to any
physical system!
Was it sheer luck that these two mentally constructed quantities led to
two universal laws of the physical world? No. A study of the history of
these two quantities reveal that scientists through experiences and
experiments became tacitly aware of certain properties of phsyical systems
which could be expressed by such two quantities. However, to proceed from
this tacit knowledge to the actual formalisation of it by definitions is
one of the most exciting dramas ever of science. See the series on Primer
on Entropy. It begins with < http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0265.html >
These two laws apply to the physical world to which the brain belongs.
Without exception all our technology are remarkable manifestations of
these two laws. Even the very material brain has to function according to
these two laws. But do these two laws also apply to the spiritual world to
which the mind belongs? To answer this question with confidence, we will
have to demonstrate empirically that these two laws hold also for the
spiritual world. But how? Will we have to copy what have been done for the
physical world, or will we have to seek for a completely new way of
determining their validity empirically? Based on my own findings I can
assure you that a rote copying the demonstrations for the physical world
will lead to a dead end. The spiritual world is far more complex than the
physical world and this complexity has to be taken into account. It
requires a level of transdicilinary thinking to which I have gradually
exposed you fellow learners through the years.
It is one thing to know for a fact that these two laws also apply to the
spiritual world. It is another thing to suspect that they might apply, to
make observations in terms of them, to follow this up with most
imaginative speculations and then finally to weed out all inappropiate
speculations by appropiate observations. I prefer the latter way far more,
even when knowing for a fact that they do apply, because it affords us
(including me) much opportunities for authentic learning.
Most peculiar is the historical development of these two concepts energy E
and entropy S. The concept energy E was created only some dozen years
before the concept entropy S. Thus we would expect that after some hundred
years (fifty years ago) insight into them should have developed by similar
amounts. But this is not the case. The concept energy E already abounded
in textbooks in natural sciences (physics, chemistry, geology and biology)
some fifty years ago, so much so that the general public now uses this
concept in their every day lives. Some countries even have a ministery for
energy affairs and energy tax has become an important source of revenue.
Yet, the same cannot be said for entropy S. In fact, were it not for my
persistent writings on our LO-dialogue, some of you fellow learners would
not even have heard of the quantity entropy S. Why this difference in
evolution?
There are many reasons, but I want to focus on only one, namely the very
difference in complexity between these two laws LEC and LEP. They can be
formulated as follows for a system SY. The system SY is one of uncountably
many systems in the universe UN. All the other systems of the universe are
aken together as the complex surroundings SU (or context) of the system
SY. Now let the symbol "/_\" indicate "change". Then "/_\E" would
symbolise the "change in the energy E". By adding the tag "(sy)" or "(su)"
we will indicate whether the energy E refers to that of the system SY or
the surroundings SU. LEC may now be formulated as
. /_\E(sy) + /_\E(su) = 0
and LEP as
. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) > 0
Please do note that except for the signs "=" (is equal to) and ">" (is
more than) LEC and LEP have virtually the same form. Hence it is in these
very two signs by which their historical developments have become so
different. The sign "=" is very useful to simplistic thinking, but the
sigh ">" requires complexity thinking. For example, when the energy E of
the system SY INcreases with +5 units, the energy E of the surroundings
have to DEcrease with -5 units so that the equality can hold, i.e.,
. /_\E(sy) + /_\E(su) = 0
. (+5) + (-5) = 0
This is a "one-to-one-mapping". The +5 of the system SY maps to the -5
(same amount, opposite sign) as the only possibility for the surroundings
SU. A change in the system SY has to be matched by the equivalent change
in the surroundings. This is the basic requirement for all measurements.
It is as if in LEC nature has its own accountant -- the gain of the one is
the loss of the other. Nature conserves its energy E.
But for LEP it is vastly different. For example, when the entropy S of the
system SY INcreases with +7 units, the entropy S of the surroundings
cannot DEcrease with -7 units because then
. (+7) + (-7) = 0
whereas the sum has to be more than zero. For an INcrease of +7 units in
the entropy S of the system, we have many possibilities for the DEcrease
in the entropy S of the surroundings. Here are four examples:
. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) > 0
. (+7) + (-6) = +1 > 0
. (+7) + (-5) = +2 > 0
. (+7) + (-4) = +3 > 0
. (+7) + (-3) = +4 > 0
This is a "one-to-many-mapping". The +7 of the system SY maps to any one
of for example -6, -5, -4, -3 (different amounts, opposite sign) as some
of the many possibilities for the surroundings SU. A change in the system
SY cannnot be matched by the equivalent change in the surroundings. Since
this basic requirement of measurements are not fullfilled, we cannot trace
with our measurements alone exactly what is going on in the system. It is
as if in LEP nature has its own financier -- the gain of the one is more
than the loss of the other. Nature produces its entropy.
We can now imagine why it was so difficult working with LEP. Changes in
the system SY were not reflected by the equivalent changes (only opposite
in sign) in the surroundings SU. Something more than the French
Revolution's cry for "freedom, EQUALITY, brotherhood" was needed! LEC
reflects the equality relationship "=" of being. But what does LEP
reflect? The closest we can come to it is by saying that LEP reflects the
order relationship ">" of becoming. In the example above the numbers 6, 5,
4 and 3 have a certain order between them.
With this rather lengthy introduction above I am now one step away of
giving a meaning to the phrase "empowerment does come from within" with
regard to LEP. Let me introduce the last step. In the early fifties of the
20th century LEC was so well known by scientists that they even created
nuclear bombs based on Einstein's equation E = M x C^2 which makes mass M
equivalent to energy E. But for entropy S they got not very much further
than concluding almost unanimously that entropy seemed to measure chaos,
despite the dozen or more vastly different interpretations given to it in
earlier times such as "nature's propensity", "arrow of time", "driving
force of energy" and "complexion indicator". Then a young researcher named
Ilya Prigogine with the brillaint stroke of a genius realised that by
writing /_\S(sy) for the "change /_\ in the entropy S of the system SY"
scientists told less than what they actually knew. The expression /_\S(sy)
was too simplistic to account for what they knew. It had to be
complexified to tell more what they knew.
So Prigogine complexified /_\S(sy) into
. /_\S(sy) = /_\(rev)S(sy) + /_\(irr)S(sy)
Here the first term /_\(rev)S(sy) indicates the entropy which the system
SY receives or gives to the surroundings SU. The tag (rev) on the change
/_\ indicates that it happens in a reversible manner. The entropy which
the system gains from the surroundings may be lost by just reversing the
process. But the second term /_\(irr)S(sy) indicates the entropy which is
produced within the system SY itself. The tag (irr) on the change /_\
indicates that it happens in an irreversible manner. By reversing the
process, even more additional entropy will be created within the system
rather than undoing the formerly irreversibly produced entropy so that it
can disappear into nothing!
The spinoffs were profound. For example, it allowed LEP as
. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) > 0
to be generated into two formulas, namely
. /_\(rev)S(sy) + /_\(rev)S(su) = 0
and
. /_\(irr)S(sy) + /_\(irr)S(su) > 0
The first formula tells us that for reversible changes LEP behaves exactly
like LEC. But the second formula tells us that as soon as a change happens
irreversibly, some definite part of that change will never be reversed
again. Yes, nature has propensity, time has an arrow, production forces
changes and life becomes more complex. Suddenly all these long forgotten
interpretations of entropy become as important as "chaos increases".
Another important spinoff of this complexification was that it enabled
Progogine to show that entropy is produced irreversibly by entropic
"force-flux" pairs. The entropic forces had to do with the intensive
(qualitative) nature of the system while the entropic fluxes had to do
with the extensive (quantitative) nature of the system. Every form of
energy can have its own entropic force-flux pair. But perhaps the most
important spinoff was that it empowered Prigogine to give an unexpected
insight into physical evolution. Up to that time three theories for
biological evolution existed -- Lamarck's theory which offers
environmental factors as the cause, Darwin's theory which offers natural
selection as the cause and Smuts' theory which offers holism as the cause.
Prigogine realised that irreversible entropy production can be used to
explain all physical evolution -- elemental, geological and biological.
So what can we imagine when we suspect that LEP not only holds for the
physical world, but also for the spiritual world? Can we imagine LEP as
the cause for spiritual evolution just as it is the cause for phsyical
evolution? Is "empowerment" a crucial facet of spiritual evolution?
Finally we are now in a position to connect the phrase "empowerment does
come from within" with /_\S(sy). Let us assume by our wildest imagination
that this "empowerment" have some or other connection with the entropy
changes /_\S(sy) in the person as the system SY. We know by the stroke of
genius of Prigogine that the change /_\ in entropy S of the system SY can
be generated into two terms, namely
. /_\S(sy) = /_\(rev)S(sy) + /_\(irr)S(sy)
To which one of these two terms will we connect this "empowerment", either
the term /_\(rev)S(sy) for a reversible exchange of entropy with the
surroundings or /_\(irr)S(sy) for an irreversible production of entropy
solely within the system by means of entropic force-flux pairs? How would
you fellow learners say? Does somebody else "give you empowerment" like in
/_\(rev)S(sy), or can that person assist at most as midwife your
"internally generated empowerment" like in /_\(irr)S(sy)?
Long ago Shannon proposed a logarithmic relationship between entropy S and
information I. In terms of the /_\(rev) \&/_\(irr) duality, we can expect
that the information I which a person may create, may come from two
possible sources. The one is a reversible copy of external information
which the person has memorised in the past, namely /_\(rev)I(sy). It
merely requires rote learning using existing information sources. The
other is an irreversible production of information within that person
itself, namely /_\(irr)I(sy). To create this information the person has
to have formal knowledge. Where does this comes from? Through the
emergence of some of that person's tacit knwowledge into formal knowledge!
So quess which source of information is most important to "empowerment",
copying what the books tell or struggling with what the person knows
intuitively, but cannot yet formalise?
Clearly, once we focus on empowerment in the sense of "empowerment does
come from within", we will have to struggle with the emergence of tacit
knowledge into formal knowledge. But this has actually been foreseen by
Michael Polanyi. He organises his book The Tacit Dimension in three parts.
The first part is called "Tacit knowing". Guess what is the second part
called? "Emergence". Guess what is the third part called? "A Society of
Explorers". He could easily have called it "An Empowered Society". Only
those who have been empowered dare to explore.
How does /_\(irr)S(sy) actually connect to "empowerment"? It is a very
long, complex picture on which I have wriiten several times in the past on
the topic authentic learning. It involves human creativity, perhaps the
most remarkable manifestation of "entropy production" in all of the
universe. Creativity is the result of entropy production. To learn is to
create. But let us leave this complexity for another occasion.
I have promised that I will connect the phrase "empowerment does come from
within" also the the last two verse of the epistle James. This epistle has
been a hard nut to crack for many a Christian, including Martin Luther,
because its central message is "walk the talk"!
The Bible consists of the Old Testament (OT) written mainly in Hebrew and
the New Testament written in Koine Greek. To translate the original Hebrew
or Greek text, written two or more millenia ago, in a modern language like
English while preserving its original meaning, is the gravest problem to
the translator. A "one-to-one-mapping" from Greek to English will not
work, try as hard as we can. What we have to accept, is a
"one-to-many-mapping". We can use several English words for a particular
Greek word. The internal construction of the Greek sentence helps us to
decide which one of the many possibilities will be the better. The
pericope (or immediate context) in which that sentence is imbedded, plays
just as important role in deciding which word to use. Furthermore, the
whole of that bible book as well as the rest of all the bible books also
determine which one of the many possible words to use. Lastly, and not the
least important, the culture and the general educational level of the
present Bible reader also determine which word to use.
The Epistle of James uses perhaps the "simplest" Greek of all NT books. If
the internal meaning of its sentences, the pericope, the epistle itself
and the rest of the Bible played no role, this epistle would have been the
most easiest of all Bible books to translate. (The epistle to the Hebrews
would have been its opposite.) But James lived all his life (almost
thirty years) with this "strange" older brother of him, called Jesus. Like
all other people Jesus confused him while walking the Way to God. But
James had one advantage above all other New Testament writers. He had to
deal with thirty years of facts concerning Jesus, how confusing these
facts might have seem to be. Only after Jesus' resurrection and ascension,
followed by his own conversion, did he understand the "walk the talk" of
Jesus.
Here are the two English translations of the last two verses of his
epistle. There are many more translations available.
King James:
5:19
Brethern, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
5:20
Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from his error of his
way, will save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
The King James version is almost 500 years old. The much later athorised
Revised Standard translation is
5:19
My brethern, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one
brings him back,
5:20
let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way
will save a soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
In verse 19 of the two translations the striking difference is the words
"error" versus "wandering". Now what word does the original Greek use? The
word "planete", the reversible wandering of the planets in the sky! Only
after Copernicus' heliocentric theory and Newton's explanation of it in
terms if the law of gravitation, became the pattern of this wandering
clear -- eliptical trajectories around the sun -- the /_\(rev)S(sy) term.
In verse 20 the the striking difference is "converteth" and "brings back".
So what is the Greek word which they tried to translate? It is
"epistrephas". The prefix "epi-" means basically "beyond the border,
besides" like in epidermis (the outer skin). The stem "strepho", often
translated as "turn" also can mean "progressing the full cycle" like in
the word strophe So what James may be telling us here has not so much to
do with "converteth" or "brings back", but with "envisioning the outcome
after the progressing of the cycle". Whereas the term /_\(rev)S(sy) is
cyclic in nature like a poem -- the ups and downs of good, right, true and
lovely -- the term /_\(irr)S(sy) is uplifting like prose -- the endless
becoming of good, right, true and lovely.
James writes in verse 19 that there are many ups and downs in our
spiritual life exactly like /_\(rev)S(sy) tells us, but in verse 20 he
tells us that we have to encourage each other that the gradual "endless
becoming" of character will make each of us spiritually alive while also
covering our past wanderings from our destination exactly like
/_\(irr)S(sy) tells us. Our authenticity is the key to our destination, an
authenticity in which we have to take into account our fellow learners as
co-learners and God as our superior midwife.
This last verse of James is pregnant with the concept of a Learning
Organisation (LO). The best possible way to "epistrephas" is within the
LO. No wonder. James had an immense task before him -- a task which
neither Peter nor Paul had. He had to be the midwife to the first ever
emergence of the church of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem within a most hostile
world. The problems of these first Christian believers were profound, but
not much unlike our problems of today in even a much complexer society.
His message was clear -- "walk the talk". And he ended this message with
"empower each other" for this will save us from spiritual death.
With this second connection to the epistle of James I do not try to
"converteth" any of you fellow learners. I merely wish to point out that
there is far more for me to any religion (in this case the Christian
religion) than what traditional dogma based on simplistictic thinking can
account for. I wish to point out that each of us will have to rethink our
lives and make sure the order of things important to us as well as our
fellow humans, the rest of Creation and the Creator. I think that
"empowering" our fellow humans will in future become increasingly crucial
to the quality of our own lives. We are experiencing it daily in South
Africa. Those who are not "empowered" can make life extremely difficult
and precious when trying to "empower" themselves in hostile organisations
or without wise midwifes.
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.