Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to all of you.
Part 2. Creativity is a "one-to-many-mapping".
We live in a world which changes whether we like it or not.
Often the changes are so gradual that we do not notice them. Occasionally
the changes are profound like the horrific and evil events of 11 September
2001. We still bear in our hearts the some 5 000 leaves broken off and
those close to them. But what about our minds? Should I have been one of
those leaves plucked off, I would want you to question the world we are
living in as never before to prevent such tragedies happening in future.
"Something" in nature and in the minds of people makes the world change.
What is this "something"? Is it one thing? Is it one thing which becomes
manifested in many things -- a "one-to-many-mapping"? Is it one of many
possible things which are unrelated to each other -- a
"many-to-one-mapping"?
We usually think of this "something" as one of many possible unrelated
things. For example, when any building gets demolished (no disgrace
intended to the 11/09/2001 victims), we will ascribe this change to an
earthquake, a structural fault, a bomb or whatever else applied. For the
earthquake we will say that nature caused the change. We will seldom, if
ever, speak of an evil minded nature. But what about the structural fault
or the bomb?
For the structural fault, we will sometimes say that somebody had to mind
the correct planning and supervision in the construction of the building.
But we will more often say that somebody has to take the blame for
insufficient planning or supervision. Only with enough evidence will we
say that an irresponsible minded person caused the structural fault.
For the bomb the technical minded among us will sometimes say that the
bomb's explosion (nuclear or chemical) caused the change. But we all will
usually conclude that a mind has launched that bomb. Should it be the mind
of a terrorist, we would usually speak of an evil minded person. But
should it be the mind of one of our soldiers defending us, we would
usually speak of a brave minded person.
We have discussed three of many different ways in which a building can get
demolished. In each of these different ways our minds think differently.
Should I now suggest that in these three different ways one and the same
thing happened, would I not be accused of reductionistic and linear
thinking? But wait, I did not say that the three different ways are the
same action. I said in effect that one and the same action unfolded itself
in three or even more different possible ways. In other words, I suggested
a "one-to-many-mapping" in action.
In all three ways it was one and the same building which got demolished by
the conversion of gravitational energy into kinetic energy as the upper
levels jack hammered into the lower levels. With this conversion came a
rapid and vast entropy production which the building's structure could not
sustain. Entropy has been manifested in chaos. In all three ways this
chaos was triggered somewhere by some conversion of energy with its
associated entropy production. In the case of an earth quack it was
elsewhere that two tectonic plates released the free energy of mechanical
pressure against each other with the friction providing for the entropy
production. Tremors then conducted some of this dynamics through the
earth's crust to the building.
In the case of the structural fault we have to think further than pieces
of concrete within the building doing the same thing as the tectonic
plates. We have to think of what happened in the mind of the supervising
engineer. Likewise in the case of the bomb we have to think what happened
in the mind of the terrorist or soldier who launched the bomb as well as
their leaders who commanded them to do so. It all these cases we will find
the same thing -- "mental plates" (different interests) pressing against
each. Then some "mental tremor" causes these "mental plates" to get
displaced with a conversion of "mental free energy" and its associated
"mental entropy production".
We assumed that the three different ways by which a building can become
demolished are unrelated to each other. But it now appears that despite
these differences, there are patterns common to them. One pattern is the
lowering of "free energy" (two words, one concept) with its associated
"entropy production" (two words, one concept). Another pattern is the
destruction rather than the construction of a building. Can these two
patterns have anything to do with creativity?
Many definitions for creativity has been offered. For example, creativity
is the novel connection of two or more seemingly unrelated thoughts into a
novel idea. Whatever the definition, the mind then uses this one
definition to construct all the many facets of creativity which it is
aware of.
The problem with using a definition to give an account of creativity is
that it makes creativity a "one-to-many-mapping" with the definition
serving as the "one". Will that "one"=definition ensure the full exploring
of the "many"=all-facets-of-creativity? The many already existing
definitions and subsequent accounts for creativity tell us that the answer
is no. The reason may be that creativity is not a "one-to-many-mapping".
But the reason may rather be that we still have to find that "one"
definition by which we will explore the "many"=all-facets-of-creativity.
After many investigations I myself now believe firmly that creativity is a
"one-to-many-mapping". The cosmological problem of creativity is then to
find that "one" which will allow us to explore the whole of creativity.
Many religions claim to have solved this cosmological problem
by supposing a
"OneCreatorGod-to-ManyOfCreation-mapping".
However, in each of most of these religions it is also claimed
that the religion's own version of the
"OneCreatorGod-to-ManyOfCreation-mapping"
is the only correct one so that people from the many other
religions will have to accept it. Consequently these religions
reversed this "one-to-many-mapping" of Creation into a
"many-to-one-mapping" of religion.
Wherever this happened in a religion, an astounding intolerance towards
other religions ensued. Just as worse an intolerance ensued to creativity
and authentic learning in that very religion. Consequently I think that we
have to seek for another "one" than the OneCreatorGod to avoid that
intolerance. Is it possible?
Yes. I also firmly believe that OneCreatorGod created this
"one-to-many-mapping" in Creation itself so as to bear witness to the
"OneCreatorGod-to-ManyOfCreation-mapping" within Creation itself. It means
that within Creation there is a "one" by which we may explore the
"many"=all-facets-of-creativity. After dozens of years of search and
contemplation, I am now reasonably sure that this "one" is "free energy
change with entropy production". Thus creativity is the result of "free
energy change with entropy production". This strange conclusion may very
well serve as another definition for creativity.
However, to say and to do are two different things. Will the saying
"creativity is the result of free energy change with entropy production"
do as a definition for creativity? No, because the saying will be
incomprehensible to the vast majority of humankind, leaders and followers
alike. Yet, according to the other definition "creativity is the novel
connection of two or more seemingly unrelated thoughts into a novel idea"
it should have worked. The two thoughts connected here are "creativity"
and "free energy change with entropy production". Thus we have to conclude
that the novel idea must not be too novel. Some strange spareness
("quantity-limit") is involved here.
A small minority of humankind have encountered the concept entropy. Most
of them have been informed that entropy measures chaos. However, since the
discovery in the middle of the nineteenth century of this numerical
quantity and the law governing it, some thinkers tried to give a
description of its essence in words. Here are a few expressions: the
maximisation principle, the arrow of time, the unavailability of energy,
the dissipation of energy, the propensity of nature, the probability of
existence and the measure of chaos. What an incredible
"one-to-many-mapping" in meaning of LEP (Law of Entropy Production)! LEP
is better known in the world of simplistic thinking as the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
Perhaps because of these many different meanings, the only one which
remained after a century is that entropy is a measure of chaos. Nobody
even suspected that entropy is also a measure of order. Any claim to this
extend would have been shot down -- how can entropy measure both chaos and
order when chaos and order are opposites to each other? However, even
though a most tedious process, the entropy of hundreds of chemical
compounds have been determined. These values show clearly that as the
ordered structure of the molecules in the compound increases, so does its
entropy.
Few leaders and followers alike have heard little, if anything, of free
energy changes and its associated entropy production. But a vast majority
of leaders and followers alike have expressed themselves many times with
"create order among chaos". This "create order among chaos" is exactly
what "free energy change with entropy production" can do. We use it, for
example, in the construction of a building. But it can also do the
opposite, namely "create chaos among order". This happens in the
demolition of a building.
Should we say that "creativity is the result of free energy change with
entropy production", then it becomes obvious that we have to distinguish
between constructive creativity and destructive creativity. This is a
shocking thought since most people think of creativity as something
positive and desirable. However, leaders will have to comprehend the
distinction between constructive and destructive creativity as well as how
to promote constructive creativity while avoiding destructive creativity.
This comprehension will be crucial to leadership in the third millennium.
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.