Dear Organlearners,
Bill Harris <billh@lsid.hp.com> writes in answer to my:
> > I see it more general. Putting something on paper is merely one of many
> > creative activities. What we should do, is try to become creative in as
> > wide as possible manner in those faculties in which we are still very much
> > inferior.
>
> I'll buy that. For me, though, it has to be a creativity linked closely
> enough to the issue I'm addressing and to my reflection on my situation so
> that I can begin to draw insights or inspiration, and words meet that
> criterion for me. I guess that's called 'creativity'.
>
> Once upon a time, I used to do some (music) composing for my own amusement
> (amazement?). I'll have to think about whether that provided (or could
> have provided) me any similar benefits. It certainly fulfilled an
> emotional want.
Bill, there are so many ways in which we can become creative. What is
important, is to realise that we have to find ways to be creative. If we
suppress our creativity, we will die mentally. We will become a chunck of
protoplasm.
> > One of the question is whether organisational learning and individual
> > learning is the same thing. If I would answer that question it would be a
> > simple no. However, although they are different, scapegoating is a common
> > symptom when neither of them happens.
>
> I've been learning about individual learning from our exchanges (not that
> you've only been focusing on that; that's just what I'm learning). Not to
> want to stray too far into the "Can organizations learn" thread which I
> have only had time to skim, have you had successes in applying these ideas
> to understanding how nations (or any organizations, for that matter)
> transform themselves into a higher degree of learning? In your model, it
> would seem to have something to do with the generation of entropy and it
> would seem to involve pushing further away from equilibrium (concepts that
> I can spell much better than I understand). Once one gets far enough, it
> would seem that bifurcations are inevitable. Those seem messy; it would
> seem important to have safety nets when one approaches one.
Bill, I have read through your post several times on many days before
answering it. It each time when I get to your "messy", I chuckled for many
minutes. No my friend, bifurcations are always messy. It is because an
emerge from a bifurcation depends on the sebem essentialities. In other
words, we try and try and try again while the bifurcating conditions
exist. Each time we learn something more to accomodate in the new attempt.
Eventually, by making many attempts, we succeed. It is then when we
experience such things as bliss and curiosity which go with an emergence.
It is these things which make us emergence junkies.
But you are right. Bifurcations are messy. Before we finnaly experienced
the emergence, we may experience immergences. The very far from
equilibrium conditions which favour emergences, also favour immergences.
Thus we need to upheld those requirements which favour emergences. They
are a becoming-being, wholeness, sureness, effectiveness, limitedness,
varyness and openness.
Yes, we have to move away from equilbrium by producing much entropy to let
new things emerge. However, these ermergents are bare - they have only
qualities, they are not yet embodied quantitively. We must also allow them
to grow. And for this we have to move away from the edge of chaos, back to
CLOSE to equilbrium, but not equilbrium itself. In other words, we do not
only need drama, but also serenity. We need the thunderstorms, but also
the tranqul sunshine afterwards.
> So, can you help me clarify my thinking and then understand how one
> practically and pragmatically adds entropy (actually, I care today more
> about organizations than nations, since they seem more approachable) in
> productive ways, and how one manages in the vicinity of a bifurcation?
There is only one organisation more encompassing than nations, and that is
the human race itself. Up to now, the learning of the human race had been
very slowly. However, with the advent of internet, the learning of human
race itself will accelerate beyond recognition.
> Are there ways to progress through a bifurcation which are less messy? Is
> progress seemingly better when one blasts through those bifurcations
> rapidly or when one tries to progress smoothly and incrementally? I
> recognize an implicit self-contradiction in a smooth transition through a
> bifurcation, but I see great possibility for pain in being "a bull in a
> china shop" (both for the bull and the (owners of the) china).
There is not such such a thing as a smooth, incremental transition during
a bifurcation which result in an emergence. The change which the emergence
brings about, is always more than the changes by which the bifurcation had
been reached.
Bifurcations need to happen rapidly. The reason is that the entropy
production, which is then still manifested as chaos of becoming, has to be
driven to the saturation (bifurcation) point. If the rate of entropy
production is too low, all the entropy will be dispersed to the rest of
the universe. It is very sad to expect emergences when the entropy
production is to low. Firstly, it consumes the sources of free energy
unnecessary. Secondly, immergences through ablative actions (slow
withering away of the present order) begin to happen.
On the other hand, if the rate of entropy production is high enough to
reach the saturation point, but one or more of the essentialities are
impaired, the emergence will also not happen. Apart from ectreme ablative
immergences, we will also have to cope with possible explosive
immergences. This is where your "bull in a novelty shop" comes in.
The correct way to ensure that an emegence is the least messy, is to
ensure that the seven essentialities are fully operative. But our
knowledge of these seven essentialities comes through emergent learning
itself! Thus our understanding of these essentialities themselves can
become a very messy business! This is the real reason why I had to chuckle
at your wish to avoid messyness.
Take merely one of these essentialities as an example, namely wholeness
("associativity-monadicity"). Wholeness plus emergence is better known as
holism. Have you ever worked through all the possible literature on
holism? Believe me, it can become very messy. The pinnical of the
messyness is when one has to accomodate contradictories such as emergence
and immergence, God and devil, believer and athes love and hate, learning
and ignorance, friend and enemy, past and future, etc. Reality is one
whole. As soon as we cut some part of reality away to suit ourselves,
wholeness gets destroyed and thus our hope of emerging to higher orders.
With Christmas so close, we have once again the opportunity to see how
people react tacitly to the seven essentialities of creativity, how people
allow others their emergences in a brief moment of time. I wish you all a
very emergent season with hapiness and prosperity as its adjoints.
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>