Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
> Wow! This is a difficult essentiality for me.
Winfried, thanks for this honest reply.
Part of the difficulty, I think, has to do with "judgment" which
relies heavily on this essentiality. In order to ccreate, we must
postpone judgement (or validation). We cannot judge or evaluate
something which has not yet been created. Likewise, we cannot be sure
of sureness until we have created what sureness may entail, sure and
unsure. How do we then make sure what is sureness about? By viewing
it from each of the other six essentialities! For example, by viewing
it from "becoming-being" (liveness) we have to decide whether
sureness is a
being, or a
becoming, or
both, or
none of them.
Note that by listing these four possibilities, we have made use of
another essentiality, namely "quality-variety" (otherness).
I also have "unfair" advantages. First of all, I discovered these
essentialities by searching for isomorphisms (adjuctions) between a
material and an abstract example of creativity. I did not have the
discovery of the seven essentialities in mind. Only after I found
seven such isomorphisms, did it occur to me that they were the seven
essentialities of creativity.
Secondly, the history of the twentieth century of my country South
Africa is very much related to two of its prime ministers - generals
JBM Herzog and JC Smuts. They became generals in one of the most
tragic wars of this century - the Anglo-Boer war (1899-1902). This
war became a blueprint for WWI and WWII (guerilla warfare,
concentration camps, disinformation, .....).
There was a special bond between these two generals because both have
studied abroad in law, Herzog in Amsterdam in the Netherlands and
Smuts in Cambridge in England. Both showed as students that they
were intellectual giants. Both showed during and after the AB war
an intense compassion with their own people. Both upheld the Rule of
Law as the keystone for South Africa's emergence.
But somehow their ways parted. They become political opponents. Not
because of the political system, but because of what they have become
sensitive to and the difficulty to express it in words. Herzog became
sensitive to "identitity-categoricity" (sureness) in politics whereas
Smuts became sensitive to "associativity-monadicity" (wholeness) in
politics. Smuts managed to wrote the famous book "Holism and
Evolution", establishing himself as the father of holism (wholeness +
emergence). Herzog, if he had been relieved of his duties as prime
minister, could have easily written a book with a title (conforming
to that of Smuts') "Positivism and Evolution" - (positivism =
sureness + emergence). But he did not write such a book.
I have studied the histories of these two men extensively. It is a
drama of two leaders trying to lift their country from its knees -
Herzog from the angle of sureness and Smuts from the angle of
wholeness. The successes of both were immense. But their
failures haunted them - and especially the fact that they were
political opponents - despite having so much in common. When I
discovered the seven essentialities and how these essentialities
contributed nutually to emergences, the picture became clear to me.
They were thinking exclusively - Herzog favoured sureness whereas
Smuts favoured wholeness. Fortunately for South Africa, bith were
also extremely sensitive to a thrid essentiality, namely
"quality-variety" (otherness).
> But I wish to share two thoughts which popped into my brain when I was
> reading this lesson:
>
> I found the 2+2=4 joke instructive.
> 2+2=4.
> But 1+3=4 as well.
> Who is right? Of course both.
>
> But you cannot compromise: 1+2 is not 4, neither is 2+3=4 or 1+2+2+3....
Winfried, there are some subtleties involved - all having to do with
sureness!
For example, 1+2 can only be 4 if the "sign" looking like "4" is
used to indicate what we indicate traditionally with the sign "3".
In this case we do not upset tradition - so we use 3 for 1+2 and 4
for 1+3. However, we work with respect to a decimal system.
In a binary system we will write 1+2 as 1+10 with the answer 3 as 11.
Thus (in binary notation) 1+10=11. This result, when viewed from
a decimal system, seems to be legitimate. But when we write 1+3
(decimal) as 1+11 (binary) with the answer 4 (decimal) as 100
(binary), it becomes clear that we are not following a decimal
system, ie, 1+11=100 is nonsense in a decimal system.
In 1+10 = 11 we have a magnificent example of sureness.
In a decimal system we will read it as "one plus ten is equal to
eleven". But in a binary system we will read it as "one plus one-zero
is equal to one-one". To ensure this distiction, scientists would
write add in the decimal system the subscript 10
1 + 10 = 11
10 10 10
or add in the binary system the subscript 2
1 + 10 = 11
2 2 2
Using brackets they would write
1(10) + 10(10) = 11(10) (decimal, the number eleven)
1(2) + 10(2) = 11(2) (binary, the number three)
Scientists have become very fond of using subscripts and superscripts
and even brackets to convey additional information to increase
sureness. Unfortunately, these subscripts, superscripts and braces
seem to confuse people from the humanities trying to make sense out
of the scientist's "heiroglyphs".
> This reminds me of the question: Which religion is the right one? Or in
> the terminology of this essentiality: How can one be sure of ones own
> ground, if other ground claims for its right as well? You must and must
> not judge!!(?).
Winfried - there you have said it - you must judge and not judge.
Maybe we should think a little bit about science in general (and not
merely the basic natural sciences such as physics and chemisrty).
Science has two basic methodologies:
1) to express/describe phenomena as faithfully as possible
2) to falsify by experimentation any inferences/conclusions based on
their descriptions.
In the "expression methodoly" the scientist do not judge what should
be described and what should not be described. The true scientist
only describes, irrespective of how other people would react to such
descriptions. In the "falsification methodology" the scientists do
not prescribe what should be judged and what should not be judged.
The true scientist only falsifies, irrespective to how other people
would react to such findings.
To handle this problem of "not to judge and to judge", scientists in
the basic natural sciences have developed their concept of an
"empirical theory". An empirical theory is not only descriptive, but
also allows them to make inferences of which most will withstand the
test of falsification. Quantum mechanics is an example of such an
emprical theory. Unfortunately, fragmentation (see below) is the
Achiles heel of their empirical theories.
Maybe, when dealing with different religions, we should think more of
the ability of each religion to describe and to falsify the
religious dimension of our life.
> I also like the process of analysis and synthesis as a metaphor for
> sureness. I recognised, that our strategic process is exactly this
> (strategic analysis - strategic design). It is always impaired when one
> cannot stop analysing or when one tries to design a strategy without
> "solid ground". And what is the purpose of strategy? Of course to provide
> sureness to the actions of the company!
Scientists have proceeded even further. In the beginning most of
their analysis were based on destructive immergences. However, they
have developed more and more non-destructive methods of analysis
resulting in measuring instruments with incredibly complex
technologies involved. Consider , for example, of the tomograph which
is now revolutionising the world of health care. But your comment
still applies - somewhere the analysis have to stop and then be
reversed into synthesis to make sure where you have been to. The
tomograph will revolutionise health care in a first world country,
but not in a third world country. There people have still to learn
about the basics of a healthy diet.
> May be, this essentiality is so difficult for me, because it is so close
> to the "red wire" in my life (dealing with safety products - vehicle
> braking systems, and strategy).
I think you are right. When we come to the essentiality
"associativity-monadicity" (wholeness) you will understand why.
We cannot have sureness (even about sureness) without wholeness.
People from the world of science-engineering-technology (and I was
one of them) have a sense of sureness based on their fragmented
dealings with life.
For example, when a phsyicist says that an increase of entropy can be
interpreted as an increase in chaos, he is very sure of what he is
saying. Newtonian, relativity and even quatum mechanics do not result
into increasing chaos. Thus the physicist is also very sure that the
laws of physics are reversible (not entropy producing). But
physicists have fragmented themselves from chemistry.
The founding stone of chemistry is the chemical reaction. Chemical
reactions are essential irreversible (entropy producing). Complex
chemical substances in our bodies (like DNA) are the result of
chemical reactions. Thus, when somebody with a background in also
chemistry (like Prigogine) begin to say that an increase in entropy
can also be interpreted as an increase in order, the physicist is
"sure" that this must be a falacy and a denigration of their
reversible laws.
Judgements made from a position of fragmentation (limited wholeness)
can become very scary. The production and the use of the nuclear bomb
is an instructive example.
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>