Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to all of you.
Are we able to distinguish an emergent phenomenon when our learning is
also in the emergent phase? Will the chaos in the phenomenon for its
emergence to happen and the chaos in the mind for emergent learning to
happen, not be too much of a chaos? Will we not give up while saying that
it has become too mystical for us to understand?
Let us find out. In what follows I am going to describe and explain
several emergent phenomena. Since many of you have not studied these
phenomena before, you will have to learn them emergently. Since you do not
have physical examples in front of you, please imagine them by using my
descriptions. Let us then see if you can bear the chaos upon chaos so as
to come to a better understanding of emergences.
Yesterday evening during our Bible study session we went deep
into 1 Pet 2:9 -
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, peculiar people of God, that you may show forth the
wonderful deeds of Him who have called you out of darkness
into His marvellous light."
What is this "light of God"? We were struck by how much
elsewhere in the Bible light and life were associated with each
other. For example, in Genesis 1, even before God created
sources of light and then life, He created this "light".
I asked fellow Bible students why specifically light is used as a
metaphor. One said that light, even that coming from a small candle, can
be seen in the dark night from very far. That is how the life of a
believer should be -- unpretentious, but beckoning. Another said that
light cannot be overcome by the darkness. That is how the life of a
believer should be -- positive in a negative world. A third said that
light shows up the path we have to walk. That is how the life of a
believer should be -- showing the path of love.
Several other wonderful answers came up, all true. I came
deeply under the impression how they used the physical
metaphor light as their "umlomo" (mouth piece, interface) in the
associativity pattern of wholeness:
observer * physical-metaphor * spiritual-subject
But the one answer which I wanted to hear, did not come up.
So then I asked what is characteristic of all life. Again some
wonderful answers came up, all again making use of the pattern
observer * physical-metaphor * spiritual-subject
But that one answer which I also wanted to hear in this case,
again did not come up.
Both the physical metaphors "light" and "life" worked so good as "umlomo"s
that fellow students were not able to look at them and find out what they
have in common. They were transparent metaphors. Looking through a
transparent interface to something else makes it very difficult to become
even aware of the properties of the transparent interface self! It is like
the lenses in front of our eyes. Please see figure 1.
http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/LO27947_1Lighteye.gif
The lens in the eye has the important function to focus the light coming
from an object outside onto the retina in the back of the eye. We become
aware of the outside object, but not of the lens up front in the eye. Only
when, for example, a cataract begins to develop over the lens or the
protective cornea in front of it, will we become aware that something is
wrong with the sight of that eye.
I then began to realise that the two answers which I wanted, were actually
cataracts in my own understanding. In my training in physics some forty
years ago, we had several courses on optics. This enabled me to look at
light itself as the subject. I studied its "identity". But this training
was fragmented from the biological sciences where light serves as a
vehicle for pure free energy and for communication. It was also was
fragmented from the humanistic sciences where physical light often serves
as metaphor. Hence I did not studied its "categoricity". Only yesterday
evening did I learn that it is such a perfect, transparent metaphor. I
still have to learn a lot on sureness ("identity-categoricity").
After my formal training in physics, I began to do research on soils. Here
I came into contact with life to be studied as an object too. I did not
had any formal training here, but had to learn self from my daily
experiences and information sources the "identity" of life -- microscopic
life, plant life and animal life. I am still learning, trying to mend the
fragmentary presentation in these sources of information. I am still
composing the categorical context of life by matching the physical with
the spiritual. But again, like for light, I learned only yesterday evening
that life is such a perfectly transparent metaphor. Like light it is also
incredibly rich in sureness.
What makes physical light and physical life such perfectly transparent
metaphors for understanding spiritual subjects? Should the spiritual
subjects have something which these physical metaphors lack, then both
metaphors would be opaque like a cataract rather than transparent! But it
may be even worse since should these metaphors might have that something
which the spiritual subjects also do have, but the person is ignorant to
this thing in the metaphors, then the chances are very good that the
person will remain ignorant to it in the spiritual subjects too!
This means that we have to study carefully like scientists the metaphors
we use and not merely use them like artists, transparent as they are. We
will have to look at all things in them, especially the things which we
might easily oversee! We need sureness in them, its "identity" as well as
its "categoricity". For example, I was trained in physics that white light
is not really a colour, but a mixture of all the colours of the rainbow.
If I wanted to know why I "see" the "white colour", I should then had to
get training in physiology and especially ophthalmology, telling me that
it is the way in which the neurological system (nerve cells and brain)
works. But I suspect that even there I would not be told that this "white
colour" is an emergent phenomenon at the ridge of chaos as I tried to
explain recently with the colour wheel. Why not?
It has to do with holism or "increasing wholeness" -- the whole is MORE
THAN the some of the parts. The training in physics is usually fragmented
from the training in physiology as well as the training in art. It happens
too much in academy (which is the sum of its parts like physics,
physiology and art) that the MORE THAN does not emerge anymore. Academy is
not anymore a whole which is MORE THAN the sum of its parts. Therefore
academy has become blind to this MORE THAN which ought to have been its
distinguishing feature.
How I wish from the deepest realms of my spirit that academy would reform
itself! Academy has to work with the "founded order" of the universe,
namely information. Academy contributed much to the creation of such
information. But academy cannot reduce the universe to the creation of
such information because that will deny the "hidden order". Creation
cannot be known completely through the creation of information.
Information management (knowledge management) cannot detect what is not
known.
The Law of the Veracity of Complexity (LVC) requires that we should go
beyond our simplistic, one-dimensional, linear measurements or comparisons
of the past upon which the "founded order" had been based. They cannot
detect all the beauty of the "hidden order" beyond the "founded order" It
is a beauty which wholeness and the other six 7Es give me a glimpse of. So
let us explore this beauty in light since light follows the path of the
beauty.
The interaction between light and matter has many emergent properties. For
example, think of the role which the lens plays in the eye and the camera.
Please refer to figure 1 above and figure 2 below for illustrations
http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/LO27947_2Lightcam.gif
Do we see any "increasing wholeness" in them and thus probably an
emergence? Not yet? Let us explore them further.
In a course on geometrical optics in the distant past I had to
learn how to derive the formula for connecting the distance "ob"
of an object before a concave lens to the distance "im" of its
image behind it by means of the focal length "fo" of the lens.
Please refer to figure 3 where these distances are defined.
http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/LO27947_3Lightdef.gif
The formula is
1/ob + 1/fo + 1/im = 0
We then had to apply this formula to various setups in calculating
one of these three optical distances, given the other two. But we
never were told of any wholeness in the application.
Today I can clearly spot the associative pattern X*Y*Z of wholeness in the
formula, the focal length "fo" acting as "umlomo". But as for the
emergences of "increasing wholeness" -- the whole is MORE THAN the some of
the parts -- I cannot spot anything in the formula. Perhaps there is no
emergence at all in the functioning of the formula. But perhaps there is
something more subtle going on in the sense of Bohm's "implicate order" or
Polanyi's "tacit dimension". What if the measurements and the formula
based on them cannot ever reflect the emerging phenomenon so that we have
to look at the "hidden order" from a different paradigm than one involving
measurements and calculations?
Let us look at figure 4 where I will try to show how the image
look like.
http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/LO27947_4Lightfoc.gif
I have drawn a human figure to serve as object. Imagine some light falls
upon this figure. The light is reflected in all directions. Some of that
light passes through the lens. Behind the lens is a screen upon which it
falls. A blurred image is formed at any position closer than "im" to the
lens. As the screen is moved further away from the lens, the image gets
into focus at the position "im". As the screen is moved even further
away, the image gets blurred again. Only at position "im" is the image not
blurred. Is it not perhaps at "im" where the sought after emergence
happens -- where the whole become more than the sum of the parts?
Let us look at figure 5 to see if we can spot this emergence in
terms of the whole which becomes more than the sum of its parts.
http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/LO27947_5Lightwho.gif
Imagine the whole of a source of light. The light goes in all directions
as if to reach out to the whole universe. Please note that the arrow -> on
the light rays indicates this dynamical property. Some of the light reach
the whole figure. This light is reflected in all directions, i.e., it is
parted into many rays. On figure 5 it is shown for only a part of the
figure, namely the head. Some of that light rays pass through the lens.
Think of rays a, b and c as some parts of this light. We can clearly see
how their sum (at the head of figure) parts from one point. These parts
diverge. Because of the properties of the lens (which I will not explain
to make it too lengthy), the ray b going through the centre of the lens
does not change its direction. But rays a and c change in direction when
going through the lens, always bending towards the direction of the
horizontal optical axis. In other words, the parts bend inwards when going
through the lens so that behind it they begin to converge.
At any position shorter than the image distance "im" they have not yet met
each other to form a sum. Hence the image is blurred. But the three rays
keep on converging. At exactly position "im" they meet each other in a
point to form a sum exactly like where they left the figure as object.
Here the image is in focus. In other words, a replica of the object
emerges. Then they begin to diverge beyond that position. The three rays
do not form a sum anymore. Thus the image is again blurred.
When the vision of any of you fellow learners is in focus while looking at
some object, please try to remember that this "vision in focus" is an
emergent phenomenon on the retina in the back of the eye. The difference
between a natural eye and an artificial camera is profound. In the eye the
image distance "im" is fixed. Hence the focal length "fo" has to be
changed to get objects close by or far away (different object distances
"ob") into focus. This happens by small muscles making the shape of the
lens more or less concave. Thus the eye changes the "umlomo" of the
associativity pattern of wholeness object*lens*image
1/ob + 1/fo + 1/im = 0
In a camera the focal length "fo" is fixed. The "umlomo" cannot adapt
itself. Hence, to accommodate differences in "ob", differences in "im"
have to be made. This is done by moving the lens closer to or further away
from the film where the image is formed. Since the focal length as
"umlomo" is fixed, the camera can be (mis)used to make surrealistic
snapshots.
Just as light has many emergent phenomena when it interacts with matter, a
living object also has them when it interacts with its environment. Think
of a living seed. (Baking the seed will kill it.) Imagine placing it in
dry soil. Nothing happens because there is no interaction with soil, but
merely contact with its particles. Imagine adding some water to the soil's
surface. It permeates through the soil until it reaches the seed. The
water molecules are much smaller than the soil particles. They are so
small that they can move into the seed. They do move into the seed because
they have much more molecular chaos than the soil particles at rest. The
seed is now making effective contact (the essentiality fruitfulness) with
its environment.
It begins to swell, its hull breaks open and a "finger" like protrusion
comes out, called the hypocotyl. This hypocotyl soon forks (bifurcates)
into two, one part going down and one part going up. These forking parts
look the same, but they are already different. The part going down
develops gradually into a typical root while the part going up develops
gradually into a typical stem. As the stem emerges from the soil, its
first pair of leaves (for dicotyl seed) usually also begin to emerge. But
inside the stem and inside the root hundreds of different chemical
compounds are rushing up and down, almost as if in a confusing chaos. It
is most remarkable that compounds produced in the roots go up while that
produced in the leaves go down, all feeding the other part of the whole
plant. This directed chaos sustains the chain of emerges laying ahead with
the emerging of the flowers near the end and the emerging of seed
completing the chain.
How much does the vision of an organisation needs to function like a lens
so that its members and outsiders work with images in focus? How much does
its vision needs to function like a forking hypocotyl so that its members
like the stem and the outsiders like the root serve each other? It is
answers to questions such as these we will have to seek in the Shared
Vision of a LO (Learning Organisation).
I think we need some lessons from art to get some answers to these
questions. Let us look at the visual arts. One of the great works among
the master works of all times is the Last Supper of Leonardo Da. Vinci. In
the days before technology became the master, he painted 13 people along a
table, six to the right and six to the level. The announcement has been
made by the prophetic figure in the centre. Emotion to emotion propagates
from the centre to the left and to the right. His bold use of light makes
this depiction of the spectrum of emotions among humankind awesome. The
differences between these emotions become such great entropic forces that
they beg the question: "Will I be responsible for it?"
Da. Vinci laid great stress on sureness in most of his artistic paintings
as well as his scientific drawings. He often accomplished this by
staggering contrasts in colours and hues. Rembrandt van Rhijn, on the
other hand, laid great stress on openness. His subjects always flowed into
their surroundings and vice versa. Furthermore, the high lighted parts of
the subjects flowed into the dim lighted parts and vice versa. Every
border was neither completely closed (by contrast) nor completely open (by
blurring). Thus through openness ("open-paradigm") he managed to bring
profound life into his pictures. Trying do the same with a camera which
captures images exactly like the objects is impossible. But Van Rijn
managed to capture the "hidden order"of the subjects. It is life, rich in
emergences and digestions.
When we come to Vincent van Gogh, it is almost as if he asks: "Do you
still rely on your eyes to convey the hidden order to your brain where it
will emerge?" Unlike Da. Vinci and Van Rhijn, he uses colours and
intensity in the superlative sense. "Are you not aware of your spareness
'quantity-limit' " he seems to cry out picture after picture? Often the
same happens with Goya. It seems as if he cries out "Get a grip on
yourselves because life respects the finite". Great are the artists with a
vision to one or more of the 7Es (seven essentialities of creativity).
I want to ask fellow learner Andrew Campbell to answer the perhaps
impossible. How do painting artists make us aware of the 7Es, each in
his/her peculiar manner? It is very difficult for me to tell in words what
they tell in pictures. The best which I can do is to say that with light
and life they trace what is beautiful and needs to be loved. Should
Andrew's words come out as mysticism, for me it would be because words
cannot paint like a picture does in unfolding the "hidden order".
I feel sad that I have to leave out the audio artists out of this essay.
For example, composers like Mozart, Beethoven and Rachmaninov say in sound
ways what light waves cannot say. Light waves are too fast. Yet all these
composers hint to an "hidden order" which we ought to become aware to.
Most profoundly, they do not try to vulgarise this hidden order by saying
that all of it can be articulated with music. They seem to tell: "Through
what we present, hear that in yourself which we never can present." For
light, life and art seems to do the same thing -- follow the path of true,
good, right and beautiful, the character of Creation and the Creator.
Great is the struggle to tell this character in words and futile is it
when it fell upon deaf ears.
One of the greatest works of art for me on the chair of the chemist is
that invisibly small molecule called chlorophyll. It connects the light
from Father Sun to the life of Mother Earth. It took chemists many
centuries to decipher its structure and the process whereby it captures a
light photon of energy. Its structure looks like that of a flower shining
in bright light, inviting bees and butterflies to visit it -- the
culmination of light, life and art -- the culmination of love in the
"hidden order".
Have a look at this molecule which I painted digitally in figure 6.
http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/LO27947_6Lightclo.gif
The N=nitrogen, C=carbon, H=hydrogen, O=oxygen, Mg=magnesium and R=alkyl
group. The strange pattern with 4, 5 and 6 angled figures in it is called
the porphyrin structure. Both chlorophyll of plant life and haemoglobin of
animal life have this porphyrin structure. In chlorophyll the centre is
occupied by a magnesium ion Mg++ whereas in haemoglobin it is occupied by
an iron ion Fe++. Some of the alkyl groups R also differ. Many other
chromophores, giving all colours of the spectrum to living things, also
have this complex porphyrin structure. It contrasts the simple molecules
used by humans in artificial paints of different colours.
I have drawn the molecule as if it has petals to suggest that it looks
like a flower to me. It even has a stem which consists of a chain of some
twenty carbon atoms. It uses that stem to anchor it in the "root" of the
cell, a tiny organelle known as the chloroplast. I have drawn the molecule
in black and white. To do it in colour would look rather drab. Why?
Because it absorbs all colours of white light except the green colour
which it reflects. Yes, it is a completely green coloured flower!
Can we see this molecule with the naked eye? No, to the naked eye it is
part of the "hidden order". Then how can chemists tell us that it looks
like depicted in figure 6? Because they make use of complex instruments
(like MNR, MS and GC) which each generates a complexity of data. They have
learned how to picture in their mind the structure of the molecule out of
this complexity of this data, step by step along hundreds of steps. It is
they who imagine a whole which is more than the sum of its parts. Their
instruments cannot do it because these instruments only describe the parts
with a complexity of data. It is us who have to do the same. What we have
to do is to paint with information available the beauty of the "hidden
order" as light, life and art do it.
Academy still runs by paying tribute to those who create information. For
example, the vast majority of lofty Nobel prizes witness to this. But
information always refer to the parts of a whole. What we need in the
future is for the sum of these parts to become a whole which is more than
the sum. Although it happens in the "world-outside-me", it also has to
happen in the "world-inside-me" for us to become aware of it. An increase
in wholeness as with an increase in all of the other six 7Es have to
happen in the "world-inside-me" to discover this "hidden order" in the
"world-outside-me". This is what Da. Vinci and Goethe taught me. This is
what I want to taught to you dear fellow learners.
Were the chaos upon chaos too much? Did your emergent learning match the
emergences in light, life and art?
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.
