Dear Organlearners,
Simon Buckingham <go57@dial.pipex.com> writes
> At, I am glad to hear that your views are sympathetic and convergent with
> my own. I hope the hairs are being raised increasingly because of "Oh yes"
> and not "urghh!".
Simon, I am sympathetic to your views because they occupy a majorportion
of my own views. But I am not convergent to you views because, as I have
explained, they form only part of a much greater picture.
> > However, by presenting your unorganisation theory as the full picture
> > ("unified theory"), you make it very difficult for others to understand
> > you. The simple reason is that they have a lot of tacit knowledge which
> > does not and cannot fit in with what you write. Much of this tacit
> > knowledge has to do with conditions close to equilbrium when the entropy
> > production is low.
>
> I don't know what tacit knowledge is, please explain this term. If it is
> situation and environment specific information then I would like to be
> able to transcend it. ...snip...
The tacit knowledge of a person is that knowledge which the person has
acquired through experiences which HAS NOT BEEN ARTICULATED BEFORE. (The
term "tacit knowledge was created by Michael Polanyi.) When another
person articulates your tacit knwoledge, you will immediately recognise
the truth in such an articulation as obvious. However, to articulate your
own tacit knowledge is one of the pinnicles of self-mastery. It is one of
the most difficult things to do.
> I don't know when something is near to equialibrium- what is this state
> and when does it arise? I am interested to find some limits to the theory.
Let us indicicate Near Equilibrium and Far from Euilibrium by the acronyms
NE and FE. Self-organisation NE and self-organisation FE happen in
completely different ways. When FE, large forces (tensions) act leading to
large fluxes (flows). Organisations (structures and processes) change
massively through emergences or immergences. The system and its
environment are connected in one giant changing entity. But when NE. the
forces and fluxes are very small. Organisations change in a seemeingly
disconnected manner, some growing and others declining. Twentieth century
communism is as example of organisational changes FE whereas twentieth
century capitalism represents organisational changes NE. In learning a FE
learning experience illicit "aha" whereas as NE leaning experience illicit
"hmm".
> > In fact, it will be very, very sad because, after all, we are of one
> > world. Although different regions of this world act differently, we are
> > all speeding to the great showdown or grand bifurcation in about fifty
> > years from now. It is our grandchildren which will have to keep a cool
> > mind in those days. And if we disqualify our insights by applying them
> > where they cannot be applied, they will have so much more confusion from
> > which to recover.
>
> We are certainly are one world- national specific factors are an entry
> barrier to getting ideas properly considered- people emphasize national
> specific factors, not realizing that underlying truths transcend those
> circumstances.
Yes, we are of one world due to wholeness (monadicity, holism). Thus
there are some thing which we share in common. No, we are of different
nationalities due to differentness (variety). The peoples of South Africa
will and cannot think the same as the peoples of, for example, Europe. We
have different climates, ecologies, cultural histories, etc.
> > What exactly will be the nature of this showdown? Nature complexifies
> > itself by the production of entropy, following the route of a MINIMAL
> > production. Human culture is also complexifying itself by the production
> > of entropy, however, following the route of a MAXIMAL production. The
> > showdown will be between nature and culture. Human culture will have to
> > give in - your unorganisation on a scale so vast that it sends shivers
> > down my spine. The sooner we realise it, the better it will be for our
> > grandchildren.
>
> Yep- I see some showdowns- not least of all the collapse of socialism and
> all its varients in Europe when the single European currency hemorrages.
> Then there will only be a viable choice between capitalism and
> technological capitalism, and I know which most people will prefer.
The showdown which I envisage, is of much greater proportions.
Capitalism, whether it be agricultural, industrial or technological based,
will be caught empty handed just as it was the case with Marxism,
communism and socialism. Both communism and capitalism run on routes of
maximal entropy production. Thus they both are in conflict with the rest
of nature, destroying diversity and polluting the environment through
massive immergences. They both promise the emergence of heaven on earth
while causing suffering which embodies hell for the majority of humans.
When capitalism finally acknowledges that it has no self-organised energy
sources (accumulated through millions of years, squandered in a few
centuries) left over, the clock will have struck midnight.
It is very important to see SO (Self-Organisation) NE and SO FE as a
push-pull pair. It is impossible to have either eternal SO FE or eternal
SO NE. The prime function of SO FE is the emergence of new orders. The
prime function of SO NE is the growth of such orders to maturity. Mature
old orders are needed to give birth to new orders. Bare new orders are
necessay to rejuvenate old orders.
> I look forward to hearing about tacit and also about close to equilibrium.
Please question anything which is unclear because of brevity.
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 -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>