Dear organlearners,
JAMES CARRINGTON wrote in LO14745:
> It appears that we are looking at two aspects of the same question.
> At de Lange looking for the origin and Doc saying it was always there.
I think the meaning of my question might begin to run into a new
direction. Before I asked the question, I gave examples of
sructure-process (being-becoming) in all walks of life. I then asked my
question in the sense of this structure-process evolving as an essential
pattern of reality. It is in this sense that I refered to the origin of
structure-process.
I asked the question, hoping that all of you would provide your own
answers to it so that I could compare them with my own answer. I promise
here solemnly that I will not riducle any answer, but will try to make
positively the most of it.
> I read Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden
> Braid" many years ago and there are a few quotes that I have kept with
> me these many years, the relevant (to this discussion) one being:
This is definitely an intrigueing book, recursion being its main theme.
> At, what is your theory? Is there an origin to find? Although I
> thoroughly enjoy the Metaphorical Fugue (apologies to Hofstadter) in
> your posting I have to say I personally subscribe to the recursion
> theory, that all structure is a development on chaos and the more
> developed the structure, the more chaotic it is (or appears, when
> observing the interactions required to support the structure).
It took me 250 pages to set out the theory in my forthcoming book. Do do
it a paragraph or two is impossible. I will rather use a dynamical icon to
refer to the essence of theory. The theory represents reality as a ragged
vortex (vortex = lifting spiral).
A vortex (like a fractal) has recursion in it as one of its main
properties. But a vortex also has another main property the irreversible
progression to higher levels. The raggedness refers to immergences
complementing emergences.
There is an origin to structure-process. However, I prefer not to answer
my own question, but rather wish to compare your answes to it. (The answer
is given in chapter 4 of my book.)
You say "all structure is a development on chaos". Now allow me another
question: "on what is all chaos a development of?". Please, do not think
that I try to be clever. The answer to this question is vitally important
to get the picture of a vortex in your head.
> As an aside do either of you think it possible to have an origin, but
> no end? As a line in space that extends infinitely in one direction?
Why do you worry about the end? I should rather worry about the
raggedness. What if humankind is already on one of the rags, but not yet
at its end?
> At writes:
> <Those who believe in God will say that God is the origin. But God
> <said that He images himself in His Creation. So the believers will
> <also have to find the origin in His image, namely Creation. Thus they
> <will have to do exactly what the atheists will also be doing.
>
> (incidentally, most Christians are taught NEVER to ask of Gods'
> origin)
In most religions the adherents are taught not to ask disquieting
questions. It is not peculiar to Chistians. Thomas Kuhn showed us that it
is even common to sciences. During the "normal" stage of a science, the
would-be scientists are taught not to ask certain questions!
The Bible tell that God is the Creator. The Bible ask a serious question
which few try to understand: how can the pot (creation) know the potter
(creator)? The Bible do answer this question in its own way.
To explain an origin, we need a vortex of connected structure-process
events which we can trace backwards until we reach the origin. I am not so
sure that I can go backwards to the origin of this Creation, but I am
definitely sure that I cannot go beyond that origin to the origin of its
Creator. The simple reason is that time is part of Creation. As soon as I
try to go beyond the origin of this creation, time does not exist any
more.
> If the answer to my last question is no, then we must make a choice
> based on our faith or the lack thereof. If the answer is yes, then we
> have the fundamental block of faith established.
We have to distinguish between faith and dogma. Faith is something which
even a child can understand. Dogma is like any science - it cannot
override revolutions.
> I look at this way; human babies are not created. They are a form of
> life that develops from the union of two organism (is this a good
> example of being-becoming?). Is (was) life then ever created? Or
> merely a constant state of being-becoming?
When two gametes (eg sperm and egg) unite to form a sigote, it is
obviously a being-becoming. The one gamete (eg sperm) should never be seen
as a becoming and the other one as a being. Taking a snapshot of the
sigote shows the being. Taking another snapshot a few minutes later, shows
another being consisting of two cells. Taking a video from the first to
the second event allows us to observe the becoming.
> Is all this to heavy for this list?
Not for me. I find it immensely stimulating. But what about the rest of
the organlearners? Do their intuition tell them tthat there is a strange
connection between structure- process and Learning Organisation?
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>