Replying to LO27065 --
Hi At
AM de Lange wrote:
> >Everything we have been discussing to date about
> >energy is in the realms of matter and mind.
>
> Greetings dear Gavin,
>
> Your last sentence quoted reminds me of the excitement among the
> handfull of scientists who together discovered LEC (Law of Energy
> Conservation) during the 1850s.
>
> >I have come to the conclusion that these laws and concepts
> >are a good map that defines the territory of matter and its
> >associates only.
> (snip)
> >The laws of the universe include anti-matter that which we
> >haven't discussed.
>
> If my memory serves me correctly, antimatter was predicted theoretically
> after Dirac combined the Schroedinger equation of Quantum Mechanics
> with the space-time equation of Einstein's Relativity Theory. The first
> antimatter particle actually discovered empirically afterwards, was the
> positron -- the exact opposite in mass and charge of the electron.
I am not so sure that the positron is the same thing that I am talking
about (dark energy, anti gravity). I do believe that anti-matter can have
no mass or temperature (the holy grail of absolute zero) and therefore
falls outside our present understandings of science and will need a
paradigm shift to understand.
> My own understanding of why such a theoretical prediction became
> possible in the first place, is because Dirac increased the wholeness
> of the Schroedinger equation by bringing in the relativistic equation
> with its own wholeness. In other words, when wholes are added
> together, their emerging whole is more than their sum -- holism. So
> Jan Smuts, who described holism some dozen years before Dirac's
> theoretical prediction and the subsequently empirical verification, is
> for me the real hero in the story. No wonder that Einstein, when he
> read Smuts' book Holism and Evolution (1926) even before Dirac's
> astounding work, predicted that his own rekativity and Smuts' holism
> will influence humankind the next millenium (yes, next thousand years!).
That antimatter and matter make the whole is in my mind never in doubt.
When we work in the realm of matter we really do not work with the true
whole only the half whole. This is where the field concept of Smuts enters
the picture. The human being (matter) and its field (transition between
matter and antimatter) and it antimatter. Input-transformation-output
concept is the same in the matter-antimatter world as in the matter world.
I have read Smuts book more than 5 times and each time I find something
new.
> >So as entropy and energy are on different sides of
> >the same coin. So is matter and antimatter or gravity
> >and antigravity or energy (& entropy) and dark energy.
>
> Here I myself walk very, very cautiously. I often find that I have to
> make a careful distinction between "complementary duals" and
> "dialectical duals". Energy and entropy are complementary duals
> whereas matter and antimatter are dialectical duals. LEC and LEP
> (Law of Entropy Production) do not oppose each other, but actually
> complement each other.
I have no problem with this and it is the same for matter and antimatter.
One cannot be without the other. However I cannot say if antimatter and
matter are dialectical duals because I do not know if they are. What I do
know is that LEP and LEC are laws of matter.
> Since they complement each other, they cannot be fragmented
> from each other without a great loss in understanding. It is in this
> sense that I speak of LEC and LEP as the two sides of a coin. But
> here the resemblance stops. On the side of LEC we have a static
> picture whereas on the other side of LEP we have a dynamic movie.
> Such coins do not exist, although they can be created by animated
> computer graphics.
>
> >I do not want to drone on about this concept but if
> >we define anti matter as antigravity then we have
> >the pushing or expanding concept and matter as
> >the attracting or sucking concept we start to see
> >how structure and process is created. The underlying
> >power of creation is on the same coin as the underlying
> >power of restriction and is the opposite of creation in
> >the WHOLE of the universe. The opposite of creation
> >is not destruction that is its matter opposite. The closing
> >in and around matter or the pressing against matter is the
> >antimatter opposite.
>
> Here I beg to differ, but not to oppose!
>
> The act "creating" has two dialectical duals: to create constructively
> like making peace or to create destructively like making war. I know
> through many experiences that I shock almost every creativity expert
> when pointing to this "Janus Face" of creativity.
Of course you will differ because to move into the realm of antimatter
(thinking) is a massive paradigm shift (you and I have always differed on
this issue, but you have shown an interest just once, you asked me how did
I discover this) and I look to your seventh essentiality for that.
I also now know why people have such problems with this concept and it is
the same reason people have problems with your concepts.
You speak (above) of the realm of matter and what you say is correct those
are the duals but to see that whole of wholes takes a slight shift. The
next whole is the whole of all wholes. It is not about just the creation
and destruction of matter. That is a matter concept only.
> >An interesting question would be how does the
> >transition look between a human being and this
> >anti-matter and an organization and this anti-matter.
>
> For me it is whether they are aware of the "Janus Face" of creativity
> or not. Furthermore, whether they are aware that fighting destructive
> creativity with destructive creativity never was and never will be a
> constructive solution.
This creativity is the creativity of matter and its annihilation
complement. AND I totally agree with you but as we move to the whole of
all wholes antimatter and matter is the whole. e.g. the black holes at the
centre of our galaxy is the transition between matter and antimatter, and
the reason no light comes from it is because antimatter has no light
because it is not matter. Secondly nothing is drawn into black holes that
is an illusion of our telescopes a black hole is actually a vortex (large
one always bulges, as do the galaxies) with the spin towards us. Galaxies
are massive vortexes and we can only see the matter parts (suns). Matter
(our galaxies)- transitions (black holes) -dark matter (antimatter) (just
been seen in the last few weeks). The same formula again. It just won't go
away.
If you look at humans the transition between matter and antimatter has not
been well documented (there is documentation of this field though) by
science because it is rather difficult to detect. (there is nothing to
detect in terms of our matter instruments). This in itself is a huge
problem for science to overcome.
> >So what does this have to do with organizations
> >or OL. Organizations are created and terminated
> >by the tensions between matter and anti-matter
> >and in here lies the concept of self organization.
>
> Here I agree in the sense that your "created"="constructively created"
> and "terminated"="destructively created". I know it shocking to think
> of "creating destructively", but this exactly what a war monger sells
> -- make war to get peace.
>
> >Looking forward to some interesting comments.
>
> Me also!
Remember my tension formula it lies between the tensions life (matter) and
death (antimatter).
As I mentioned I discovered this within myself some years ago when I was
close to death.
I hope this will be an interesting dialogue
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.