Replying to LO26406 --
Hi Gavin,
Hm, I am not sure that I got 'it'.
Are you saying that you have faced the same question like Alfred and that
your experiences with models tell you that models tend to capture less and
less about more and more until they say nothing about everything? And that
you finally switched to choose to learn more and more about less and less,
what you call 'into the gap (as 'less') and into the depth (as 'more')'?
This 'more and more about less and less' or 'less and less about more and
more' sounds like an implicit conservation law. The structure is 'A about
B' and the law suggest a kind of A x B = constant. Is this what you mean
by accounting of the constant as being?
If I had a certain fixed amount of energy to spend on learning, then I
would be tempted to decide whether I will spend most of it on few subjects
or less on more subjects. But in my eyes, learning has to do with growing
organization of the complexity of my knowing. This growth is accomplished
not by energy conservation but by entropy production - entropy is not at
all conserved, on the contrary the corresponding law to the law of energy
conservation LEC is the law of entropy production LEP - continual creation
of something where nothing was before. The complexification of complexity
is learning more and more about more and more. There is no choice here.
But because in order to produce entropy, free energy has to be spent and
because LEC holds together with LEP, the process of complexification need
to obey the economy of free energy including its replenishment. This is
the dynamics of complexification, the necessary condition. On the other
hand, a certain dynamic in the rate of entropy production is not yet
sufficient for growing complexity to emerge. The system has to be
sufficiently mature in its complexity in order to sustain further growth.
Such sufficiency conditions - requisite complexity - have to be met by the
mechanics of the system.
Would you now say, that the above is a model, telling very little about
very much? (I just want to make sure whether I am starting to get you
right.) I think that such a choice does not exist. Let me take EKS as an
example ('into the gap and into the depth' sounds very EKS-like to me):
Does 'concentration' in EKS mean to learn more and more about less and
less? I don't think so. I think 'concentration' means to focus on ones
strengths and - defined by these - on external and corresponding internal
constraints. Instead of wasting ones free energy, energy is invested in
complexification. This is a starting point. I have seen nothing suggesting
a continuous process of making the gap more and more narrow. On the
contrary one may grow from a very narrow specialty into a market niche
into a market segment up to leading a whole industry - all by continuous
innovative and authentic learning. Mewes calls it "Zielgruppenbesitz", but
the Zielgruppe is allowed to grow with the success of the EKS strategy.
Thus the paradox process of increasing energy by spending energy is
ignited - learning more and more about more and more. I had a really hard
time learning to solve this paradox. Nothing in EKS had prepared me to do
so. It has to do with the digestor model and creative collapses. My
struggle and Ats patient guiding is somewhere in the archives of this
list.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
Gavin wrote:
> Alfred has captured with great essence what I was trying to say about my
> experience with models that was taken taken of context by both of you
> guys.
> What a well constructed by Alfred. How I should have put it but could
> not
> find the right terminology.
>
> Now, I have chosen the former. What I call into the gap and into the
> depth.
>
> Will it pay off "there is some interesting accounting there". What happens
> to the "being"?"
--"Dressler, Winfried" <Winfried.Dressler@Voith.com>
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.