At,
I thank you for your long and thoughtful explication of your beliefs and
your position. I wish that we native speakers of English could express
ourselves with your clarity and force in that tongue.
You and I, At, live in different lifeworlds, different mindworlds.
Realistically I see little hope of a meeting of those minds. Useful
exchange, yes, as you try to make your "truth" clearer, easier for the
resister like me to understand. But meeting, no. You have made it clear
that you are willing to help others learn to see your truth--but you
yourself have achieved, after a long struggle, truth, and you have little
left to do but polish that truth and help others grasp it.
You are then a great classic type, the true believer, the prophet who has
found the truth and who spends his life trying to bring others to the
light he has found.
So: you will be patient and kind with me and others, who for reasons of
their own can not or will not grasp your "truth": but you will continue to
believe that the rest of us have "mental models" while you have none,
since your vision is not a mental model but the "truth."
You say:
>I am not sure what you are assuming. If you assume that the "seven
>essentialities" form a mental model, then you are incorrect. I discovered
>the seven essentialities while trying to make sense out of something in
>another discovery (1982-83). That former discovery was that entropy
>production also shapes the abstract world of mind and not only the
>physical world of matter and energy. It was an empirical discovery, the
>details of which I will document in my book so that others can repeat the
>experiment.
So, with little hope of changing anything, here goes.
The seven essentialities are neither essential nor the empirical truth:
they are a mental model.
Entropy is a mental model. Its shaping of the physical world is in doubt:
and there is no value in trying to export the physicalist notion of
"entropy" to the "world" of "mind." Mind, world, and entropy are all
linguistic constructions that you have formed into a house in which you
dwell happily: but your house is a house like all others, a dwelling for
you, and not the "truth."
Literature--and your narrative is literature of high quality--is not "self
organizing," any more than a jigsaw puzzle is self organizing. Entropy and
self-organization did not create the theory, or the model, or the fiction,
of the seven essentialities: a man named At, a creature shaped by the
language and "paradigms" of his time who took the pieces of language
available to him and rearranged them in a new story called The Parable of
The Seven Essentialities, which he finds interesting and useful and
accurate, and thus, in a remnant of that piece of his heritage which is
Cartesian, "true".
So: I repeat again that in one sense we in this forum all illustrate the
problems of the "learning organization".
We ourselves are often in the powerful grip of our own constructions of
reality, and refuse to acknowledge that they are no more "real" or "true"
than those models held stubbornly by those we try to change.
I admire your construction, At, while continuing without hope to want you
to understand that it is indeed a construction, a story shaped by a mind
rearranging the stories that it has inherited from the past.
All the best.
Steve Eskow
--"Dr. Steve Eskow" <dreskow@magicnet.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>