As promised let us begin with the essentiality
"becoming-being" (liveness).
Let us refresh our memory by listing all of them:
LIST OF SEVEN ESSENTIALITIES
"becoming-being" (liveness)
"identitity-categoricity" (sureness)
"associativity-monadicity" (wholeness)
"connect-beget" (fruitfulness)
"quantity-limit" (spareness)
"quality-variety" (otherness)
"open-paradigm" (openness)
ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS
It would be foolish of us not to anticipate any questions.
I would have loved to answer ALL your questions as they arise (and
not in advance) because this is how emergent learning happens. But
then it would have been very difficult to maintain an archive for
future learning (emergent and digestive) purposes.
Thus I have taken the liberty to answer SOME of your questions in two
contributions:
"Creating a Passion for Learning LO17474"
<http://www.learning-org.com/98.03/0235.html >
It concerns the history of the discovery.of the essentialities.
"Essentialities of creativity LO17576 -Introduction"
<http://www.learning-org.com/98.03/0336.html>
It concerns the general nature of the essentialities.
For example, many of you would wonder why I use the akward double
barrel names in quotation marks (the seminal names) and not merely
the names in brackets (nominal names). This question is answered in
LO17576.
But, please, feel free to ask any question, even those which I have
anticipated. When it concerns one that I have answered, I will refer
you to the answer - unless you have a problem with the answer. Then
I must answer your question anew.
Let us never forget that the greatest tool ever invented by humankind
to elicit all seven the essentialities, is the QUESTION.
[Latin: "e-"=out, "lacio"=allure.]
WHAT IS "BECOMING-BEING" (LIVENESS) ABOUT?
Let me begin by quoting
> Martie Wagner <mawagner@netserv.unmc.edu>
who articulated this essentiality in the
> Subject: Charisma in Leadership LO17521
as follows:
> What I mean to say is that I do not believe that one can have
> right action without right being or right being without right
> action. They are mutually dependent. If you are looking fo
> the necessary ingredients for making the world a better place
> I suggest that these are the keys to transforming the world.
Bravo!
The only keys? How many other keys?
Martie also writes, concerning "action" and "being":
> As I see it, these are the basic prerequisites for a learning
> organization.
Let us see what Martie's vision leads to.
WHY IS BECOMING-BEING ESSENTIAL TO A LO?
Our host Rick Karash, following Peter Senge, describes a LO as
follows:
* A "Learning Organization" is one in which people at all levels,
* individually and collectively, are continually increasing their
* capacity to produce results they really care about.
In this desciption there are three words which together describe the
"becoming" of a LO: (are continuously) increasing, (to) produce,
(they) care. All three of them are verbs which decribe definitive
actions. It happens in terms of the meanings which we attach to these
verbs. What will happen if we deny in the description above any of
these verbs and even any other verb synonymous to them? We will
find it impossible to describe a LO. What will happen if we deny in
practice any becoming described by these verbs? The organisation will
never become a LO.
Here is a interesting task. Trace the three verbs "increase",
"produce" and "care" in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
BECOMING-BEING IN NATURAL LANGUAGES
Every natural language (such as Chaldean, Latin, English, Zulu) on
earth has verbs and nouns. Verbs are used to describe "becoming" and
nouns are used to describe "being". Should we deny any natural
language either its verbs or its nouns, that language will become
useless. This means that both the becomings (verbs) and beings
(nouns) are necessary to image reality, to speak about it and to
think about it.
Natural languages also have an exquisite commutation (interaction)
between their verbs and nouns. By commutation I mean the way in which
verbs and nouns interact with each other to produce more complex
entities of discourse like sentences and even whole speaches. They
join each other to form a web of becoming-beings by which we image
the web of becoming-being of the rest of reality.
To see this web of becoming-beings, use a word processor on one of
your compositions, substitute every verb (with its adverb) with an
arrow and every nouns (with its adjective) with a bullet. The web
will begin to appear.
BECOMING-BEING IN ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGES
When we get to the "artificial languages", serious problems
begin to appear. I consider an "artificial language" as any
specialised way of expressing some particular facet of reality. Every
subject of academy has its own artificial langauge. It consists of
its own standard terminology (such as economics and philosophy) and
often even its own symbolism (such as mathematics and chemistry).
Consider the following word pairs taken from these "artificial
languages". They are listed in an arbitrary order. These word pairs
suggest becoming-beings which ought to commute harmoniously:-
process-structure
physiology-morphology
time-space
method-principle
operator-operand
practice-theory
behaviour-norm
inference-conclusion
learning-knowledge
solving-problems
(assessment-certification)
methodology-system
revolution-republic
mission-vision
function-parameter
techniques-tools
But they frequently do not interact harmoniously. Why?
An important facet of harmonious interactions is balance. Whenever
we disturb this balance, our emergences may fail to happen and even
immergences may result. We can stress the "becomings" too much to the
detriment of the "beings". We can also do the converse by stressing
the "beings" too much to the detriment of the "becomings".
BECOMING-BEING AND LINEAR CHANGES
Let me illustrate this converse case with a contribution
> From: "Novick, David T" <David.Novick@West.Boeing.com>
> Subject: Complex Adaptive Systems & Essentialities LO17536
which I liked very much. (I am sorry David, if you got the idea that
I ignored you by not replying to your contribution. By the time your
contribution hit the list, Winfried and I were already planning this
project. I sensed in your contribution a beautiful example to
illustrate how we have to work with the essentialities.)
You wrote:
> My opinion is that in the de Lange model for creativity,
> nonlinearity is implicit and he has simply not felt it was a
> driving requirement. After rereading Priggogine, I am of the
> strong opinion, nonlinearity is an essentiality. I also feel
> becoming-being is the flux-force pair that defines the
> bifurcation point; cas, creativity or other nonreversible action;
> that is to say, it is not an essentiality itself but still, if all the
> remaining essentialities operate, emergence rather than immergence
> occurs.
>
> What is of further interest, when one considers becoming-being as a
> pair, becoming is nonlinear and being is linear.
First of all, you are absolutely correct by identifying
becoming-being with, among other things, flux-force pairs. The flux
is a becoming and the force is a being. Thus you have developed
(complexified) the seminal name "becoming-being" with one step
through your own emergent learning.
Your subsequent phrase "that defines the bifurcation point" is one
gigantic leap in emergent learning. You have sensed that flux-force
pairs lead to bifurcations (the "identity" part of sureness), but it
lacks the "categoricity" part of sureness). The flux-force pairs
rather define "entropy production" and the latter, if produced fast
enough, leads to "bifurcations". Thus, between the "flux-force pairs"
and "bifurcations" you neglected to articulate one of the most
important becomings of reality, namely "entropy production"
Secondly, you have made a most interesting remark in the last
sentence which I have quoted. You propose to consider becoming-being
as a pair - and on that I will come back to later. Then you
articulate your tacit knowledge that somehow they how to do with
linear-nonlinear. Why did you not persist with this self-learning,
because it would have brought you deep insight! Instead, you assumed
that "in the de Lange model for creativity, nonlinearity is implicit
and he has simply not felt it was a driving requirement".
Allow me to show how the essentiality "being-becoming" accounts for
nonlinearity. In other words, allow me to develop (complexify) this
essentiality one step further. Linearity emerges when we use the same
becoming to transform a being (set) of beings into a new being of
beings. Here is an example. The becoming "take the being, multiply it
by 3 and then add 5" transforms the being X = {4, 5, 6, 7, 8} into
the being Y = {17, 20, 23, 26, 29}.
Note that the beings in X differs constantly by 1 while the
corresponding beings in Y differs constantly by 3. This is what
linearity means. We can express this in the "artificial language" of
mathematics as follows. The mathematical formulation of the becoming
is Y = 3X + 5. It is the equation for a straight line. Using
infinitesimal calculus, we can clearly see that the principal
becoming dY/dX = 3. This becoming is a constant.
Now, since the being X has different possibilities, let us balance
it by employing a becoming which itself will have different
possibilities. The follwing will be a traditional example from
mathematics, formulated in its "artfifal language". Consider
the equation for a parabola, namely Y = 3X^2 +2. Its first derivative
dY/dX = 6X which shows how its first principal becoming changes.
The wording of this becoming would be: "take the being, multiply it
by itself and then by 3 and finally add 5". What we seldom perceive
in the "artficial language" is now clearly observable, namely that
the phrase "multiply it by itself" creates a positive feedback loop
into the becoming. This shows how nonlinearity is caused a feedback
(self-referance) loop. positive or negative.
Any nonlinear self-refering connection will do. Here is a novel
example. One of the most extraodinary nonlinear patterns is the
Fibonacci series of numbers: 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 17, 28, ... They
themselves are generated by the pattern 2+3=5, 3+5=8, 5+8=13,
8+13=21, .... They occur in nature in dazzling situations. For
example, the number of left and right spirals of individual flowers
in any flower of the sunflower family (Compositae) are always two
adjacent Fibonacci numbers.
Consider the following becoming: "take the becoming, multiply it
by the Fibonacci number corresponding to it in order and then add 5".
It will transform X = {4, 5, 6, 7, 8} into Y = {7, 11, 20, 37, 60}.
Check it as follows. The [ ] indicates the being X while the ( ) in
the becoming "x( )+5" indicates the Fibonacci number
[4]x(2)+5 = 13
[5]x(3)+5 = 20
[6]x(5)+5 = 35
[7]x(8)+5 = 61
[8]x(13)+5 = 109
Note that the beings in X differs constantly by 1 while the
corresponding beings in Y differs by amounts not constant. This is
what nonlinearity means.
Note that we used a correspondence based on order. This is what I
mean by harmonious interaction between being and becoming. A
harmonious interaction is never linear. It took the genius Bach
many hours of deep thinking to discover this truth in music.
David, I will not go so far as to say that "becoming is nonlinear and
being is linear" because in the examples above both X and Y are
beings. I have used the being X (with an internal linearity), but
have shown that Y can be internally either linear or nonlinear. It
all depends on the becoming between X and Y and how it harmonises
with X. A becoming is linear when it is constant. A becoming which is
constant behaves like a being. Thus a becoming is linear when it
behaves like a being, but nonlinear when it behaves like a proper
becoming.
BECOMING-BEING AS A PAIR.
David, I may have been over indulgent in my example above, but let us
recollect what caused this over indulgence. It was your comment
"when one considers becoming-being as a pair". It helped you to
articulate your tacit knowledge that somehow they were connected
to the issue of nonlinearity.
Allow me to say a few things about them as a pair. We can learn a
fitting word from quantum mechanics for such a pair. We may call them
a "complementary" pair.
Humankind never considered time and space as a complementary
becoming-being pair. But then Einstein came, showing us how to do so
by his Theory of Relativity. In his special theory he used light and
its constant velocity to combine space and time into a 4D geometry.
In his general theory he then tried to establish all the fundamental
laws of physics as constructions in this becoming-being geometry.
The First Law of Thermodynamics says that the energy of the universe
is constant. "Constant energy" is the primordial being of the
universe. The Second Law says that the entropy of the universe
increases. "Increasing entropy" is the primordial becoming of the
universe. Combining the being energy and the becoming entropy
as JW Gibbs did, we arrive at the concept of "free energy". The "free
energy" of a system is that part of the total energy of a system
with which it can create chaos and order.
The personal name of God in Hebrew, JaHWeH, refers to becoming-being:
"I am Who become".
In all seven essentialities I have used two words to define the
seminal name of each (akward double names). But only in one of the
seven essentialities do the two constituent words have exactly the
opposite meaning, namely in "becoming-being" (liveness).
Becoming and being are as asymmetrical and transitive as we can ever
hope for. Asymmetrical means that the one can never mirror the other
one perfectly, despite all our attempts. Transitive means that
becoming "results into" being and being "results into" becoming. This
"asymmetircal-transitive" property is a vital characterestic of all
emergences.
Sometimes a discussion will become very symmetric and reflexsive - a
ping-pong ad infinitum - a percussion and consussion. It happens
because at least one of the partcipants fail to learn emergently.
This happens because one or more of the seven essentialities were
impaired. To enable emergences, we need to check all seven the
essentialities. This takes a lot of time. We can save us a lot of
time we also sense linear thinking. The impaired essentiality in this
case will be "becoming-being".
BECOMING-BEING AND LINEAR RATIONALITY
In this past 8 years of this decade I have encounterd more people
rejecting rational thinking than during the rest of my life. Some say
it is the deconstructions of post-modernism taking their toll. But I
think it is something much deeper.
I cannot be brief here. There is gold to be found. I cannot leave
large gaps which many of you will not be able to jump over.
People sense intuitively that the reationality of humankind in the
present era cannot handle creativity of humankind any more.
Thus they force the rationalism of our present era to the edge of
chaos. They do it provocatively by denying any rational activity.
Thus "rational versus nonrational" becomes a very powerful entropic
force. They use this force to open up a corresponding flow of
arguments (the entropic flux). Hence entropy will be produced like
mad, manifesting itself as an explosion of chaos.
Now, why do our rationality fail our creativity? One organ of
rationality is propotional logic. We use propositional logic in, for
example, high school mathematics and computer programming. It is just
here where the pumpkin hits the fan - we develop an adversion to
propositional logic. We think it is something peculiar to mathematics
and computer science. Nobody tells us that we use it frequently in
our every day arguments about life. Nobody tells us that it has to do
with the way we link sentences (propositions, statements,
declarations) together. Nobody tells us that propsitional logic is as
natural to us as our mother tongue. Nobody tells us that the
majority of us can learn it ourselves.
Here is an example of an argument in propositional logic:
given "The CEO of our company has to be an employer of our company."
and given "John Smith is the CEO of our company."
thus "John Smith is an employer of our company."
Let us try to visualise an abstract form in each of these sentences
when comparing them to each other. The form is:
given P => Q
and given P
thus Q
The first premiss "P => Q" is called an implication. We may express
the form of the argument in one line as:
given P => Q and given P, thus Q.
We affirm the premiss P in the implication P => Q and then move from
the P in P => Q to the conclusion Q. Any argument with this form is
called Modus Ponens (Modus = mode, Ponens = affirm). Modus Ponens is
a valid form of argument. Therefore it is often also called an
inference rule.
Modus Ponense can also be misused as in the following argument:
given "The CEO of our company has to be an employer of our company."
and given "John Smith is an employer of our company."
thus "John Smith is the CEO of our company."
Its form is:
given P => Q and given Q, thus P.
It is an invalid argument of the form (type) Affirm the Conclusion.
(In Modus Ponens we affirm the premiss and then draw a conclusion.)
Thus this argument can never be used as an inference rule.
Mathematicians since the days of Frege studied propositional logic
extensively. They have developed systems, collectively called proof
theory systems, to deal in a powerful manner with propositional
logic. Proof theory systems work as follows. They begin with a few
basic beings called "axioms" and basic becomings called "inference
rules". Then they let these "axioms" and "inference rules" commute
with each other to create new beings, called "theorems" and new
becomings, still called "inference rules".
Here we see the first glimmering of underestimating becoming - no new
name for derived inference rules. Tens of thousands of theorems ahve
been created and proved. The same is possble for inference rules. Yet
only a handful have been created and proved. And among them modus
ponens is used the most. As we have seen in the previous section,
using the same old becoming over and over again does lead to linear
changes.
Let us go deeper into this underestimating of becoming in
propotitional logic. In proof theory systems all beings (axioms and
theorems) are linked to the value "true". while all becomings
(inference rules) preserve this value "true" when moving from one
"true" proposition to another "true" proposition. In an invalid
argument, we fall of this web of "true" propositions into an abyss of
"false" propositions. Since both "true" and "false" refer to beings,
neither "true" nor "false" refer to becomings. In other words, we do
not have any becomings "truefy" (make true) and "falsify" (make
false) in propositional logic. Since we do not have such becomings,
how will we then climb back from the abyss of "false" onto the web of
"true"?
The closest we can get is the argument with form
given P and given not P, thus Q
It is a valid argument form.
It looks like modus ponens, but it is not. Let us rewrite the
"given P and given not P" as the single premiss
"given (P and not P)". The premiss "P and not P" is called a
contradiction - a conflict in truth. A proposition "P" and its denial
"not P" cannot both be true. When the contradiction is denied, namely
"not (P and not P)", it is known as the Law (axiom, theorem) of the
Excluded Middle. The "not (P and not P)" can also be written as
P => P. In other words, the Law of the excluded Middle involves
self-implication. This means that denying self implication is nothing
else than a contradiction. Symbollically, "not (P => P)" is the same
as "(P and not P)". Thus, by writing the argument form as
given "not (P => P)", thus Q
we can see why it is not modus ponens. It denies self-implication
and affirm nothing else in order to jump to a conclusion.
I am going to write the argument form
given P and given not P, thus Q
slightly different as
given (P and not P) and given nothing else, thus Q
It is still the same valid argument, but I want to stress some
features of it. This argument is often employed in proofs called
"proof by contradiction" or Reductio ad Absurbum.
Eventhough it is a valid argument, it is also a horrible argument. It
tells us that we have to think in terms of black contrasting white
and nothing else, not even shades of grey, and from that conflict we
can select any other proposition and conclude that it is true. But
for this free selection based on conflict we have a price to pay. We
can fall back into the abyss with the same ease as we have climbed
out of it. Let me explain why
The following complementary argument is also valid with the form:
given (P and not P) and given nothing else, thus not Q.
In other words, we can also prove the negation of the proposition Q.
Thus, should we take both valid arguments together, we have the
argument with form:
given (P and not P) and given nothing else, thus (Q and not Q).
It means that once we accept a conflict as our only premiss, we will
end up with a conflict as our ultimate conclusion.. How often do this
not happen in all sorts of relationships (marital, labour, sports,
industrial, national, religiousetc.)?. The Bible warns against this
very vicious circle, but christians still fall vivtim to it. It is
this vicious circle which especially Shakespear and Goethe used to
great effect
Let us now think of the contradiction/conflict (P and not P) as an
entropy producing force-flux pair. In the case of
given (P and not P) and given nothing else, thus Q.
it leads to an emergence into the web of "true". But in the case of
given (P and not P) and given nothing else, thus not Q.
it leads to an immergence into the abyss of "false". Thus in
given (P and not P) and given nothing else, thus (Q and not Q).
the force-flux pair (P and not P) leads to (Q and not Q) as the
bifurcation.
By now it should be clear that the premiss "given (P and not P) and
given nothing else" is the reason why we cannot determine which case
of the bifurcation "Q and not Q" it will definitely be. I have
consistently written "and given nothing else" to stress that only
"P and not P" is needed as premiss. How is it possible to manage the
bifurcation? It is possible if we stop thinking of "P and not P" as a
simple linearity, consisting of "P" and "not P" joined by a "and".
How?
We have to think of "P and not P" as a complex premiss with many
hidden patterns in it. We have to uncover these patterns. This is
exactly what the seven essentialities do. They uncover the
uncountable many patterns hidden in "P and not P" and organise them
in seven different dimensions. For example, by letting P in
"P and not P" run over all the possible theorems of propositional
logic, we form the idea of wholeness. Another example, through Kurt
Goedel's famous incompleteness theorem we form the idea of openness.
Do you now understand why it is dangerous to play with "rationalism"
against "irrasionalism" with no other premiss. It may lead to an
emergence, but will definitely lead to an immergence if the emergence
does not happen. In fact, if we assume no other premiss and thus
assume that merely the conflict will do as a simple premiss,
immergence will be our future. In order to avoid this, it will do us
no good by condemning logic to the stake as was done to logical
thinkers during the middle ages. Our solution is to learn more from
logic than refusing to learn anything from it.
BECOMING-BEING AND PROCESS-STRUCTURE
Why did I use "becoming-being" as the seminal name for sureness and
not "process-structure"? For no other reason that we need a name for
the network of commuting processes and structures. We have names for
this network such as organelle, organ, organism, organisation and
organon - all beginning with the word "organ-". Unfortunately, the
word "structure" is often used in this sense of "becoming-being"
rather than "being".
Biologists have long been aware of this predicament. Thus, when they
refer to the structures of, for example, an organism, they will
rather speak of the morphology of the organism. When they refer to
the processes of an organism, they will speak of its physiology.
Not one of us is in a position to dictate how people should use
language. But it will do us all good to think carefully what we want
to express: becoming, being, or becoming-being.
It helped me a lot. For example, in the previous section I discussed
some aspects of Propositional Logic (PL). I mentioned that PL
concerns declarative sentences or statements. Thus PL is the basis of
all Declarative Logic (DL). But we do not speak only with declarative
sentences. We also speak with inperative sentences (commands) and
interrogative sentences (questions). What do we know of, for
example, Imperative Logic (IL).
IL concerns objectives (tiny commands), goals (medium commands) and
missions (big commands). Thus we use IL wherever we have to direct us
into the future, in our families, in our churces, in our schools, in
our businesses and even in our courts. Whereas logicians have
uncovered much about DL, they failed to make even a scratch in IL,
despite intense efforts. Why? It is because they did not think
careful enough about becoming/process, being/stricture and
becoming-being/organisation.
Once I realised this, I began to have success in creating Imperative
Logic (IL). Our commands, whether they are tiny like objectives or
big like missions, whether we use them to command ourselves or
others, concern structures, processes and organisations (processing
structures). Even the absent becomings "truefy" and "falsify" of
Declarative Logic are commands. I then began to express my tacit
knowledge in symbolic form, using symbols for process, structure
and organisations (processing structures).
As this IL began to unfold in front of my eyes, I began to experience
happiness, fondness and pryness as seldom before. The "laws of
teaching" were unfolding themselves in symbolic form - patterns
depicting the organistion of teaching and managing. I cannot show
these patterns to you here simply because this email editor is too
inferior to produce them. But I have given an account of them in
chapter 8 of my book. Thus, when I write: "it will do us all good
to think carefully what we want to express: becoming, being, or
becoming-being", I speak from experience.
But I feel like a preacher preaching to the converted. Of all the
forums (listservers) known to me, the partcipants on this server have
the most harmonious way of using becomings and beings, of using
processes, structures and organisations. I seldom have to struggle
over a sentence too stressed with beings, or too stressed with
becomings. You are alive!
BECOMING-BEING AND LIVENESS
When I have to select a nominal name for the seminal name
"becoming-being", the name "liveness" is obvious. But what is
obvious to me, might not be obvious to you.
Should we cut the heart, a living organ, out of a living organism and
place it in a dish with salt water, it will stop pumping after a
minute or so. What we then have, is the complex structure of the
heart. We can study the morphology of the heart. But the organ has
lost its complex process. It is no living organ.
We can model every physiological process in the heart on a laboratory
bench right in front of our eyes. We can even link them together into
one complex process of the heart. We can model the physiology of the
heart. But the machine in front of us do not even slightly have the
structure of a heart. It is no living organ.
"Becoming-being" pairs, commuting with each other on diffent levels
of order, are essential to living "organ..."s.
Finally, let us think of living reality. The accounts of philosphers
are to a large extend structural (morphological) . They even have a
name for it: the ontology of reality - the existence of beings. But
they have fallen victim to the trap of ontologism. They stressed
being to the detriment of becoming. Philosphy is for practical
purposes dead.
Enter the system thinkers. Their accounts are to a large extend
methodological (physiological). They do not yet have a name for it,
but we can call it the ontogeny of reality - the developing of
becomings. Will they not fall victim to the trap of of ontogenism?
Already some system thinkers had to sound the warning that system
thinking is dying.
Enter who next?
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>