Dear At,
Although the concept is quite clear for me this time (not like sureness,
which was so difficult), a few questions remain:
>In that manuscript Smuts explained the evolutionary
>process as "an unfolding of inner potentialities, a movement from the
>external to the internal".
(I think it should read "...from the internal to the external")
and
>Eventhough he carefully argued the differences between the
>"whole" as a "universal manifesting force" and the fundamental forces
>of the universe such as gravitation and electro-magnetism
I am wondering, what a movement from the external to the internal could
be. Is this the difference between the "universal manifesting force",
driving the movement from internal to external and "the fundamental forces
of the universe such as gravitation and electro-magnetism", driving the
movement from external to internal? Can you explain a little bit more
about the "carefully argued differences"?
Physicist usually don't accept the idea of an "universal manifesting
force" by pointing on the 4 fundamental forces, while popular esoteric
authors usually stress, that they are in accordance with modern physics to
fetch additional authority for their writings.
Regarding "ism" in "Holism":
This chapter opened my eyes. Even Monotheism can be a trap like
creativism: Let me build this association with your sentence. (I am sure,
some will judge this as an "unholy whole". I apologise and refer to the
next chapter "Wholeness and associativity" in At's contribution)
>Thus we must even extend
>creativity into at least two directions XXX and YYY so that this new
>"association" (XXX, creativity and YYY) affords yet another way to
>look at the whole! Here it depends on the unique wholeness of every
>person what XXX and YYY will be.
changes to:
Thus we must even extend the Monotheistic God into at least two directions
XXX and YYY so that this new "association" (Jesus, Monotheistic God and
Holy Spirit) affords yet another way to look at the whole! Here it depends
on the unique wholeness of every person what "Jesus" and "Holy Spirit"
will be.
With Abraham or Moses, God became clear. With the historical Jesus,
"Jesus" became clear. With the gospel, "Holy Spirit" became clear. By
building a dogma (impair "liveness" by stressing "being" and neglecting
"becoming"), the church managed to hide them again.
Regarding Associativity:
What is the difference between "to connect" (from "connect - beget") and
"to associate with"? And while explaining (X * Y) * Z = X * (Y * Z), you
call Y the intermediate member or "commuter". So how does the concept of
commutation fit in here? And finaly: Is there a relation to the axiom of
commutation X * Y = Y * X, and the quantum mechanical commutator [X * Y -
Y * X]? I would like to understand the relationship between "to connect",
"to associate" and "to commute", which are all central to your concept .
Regarding Monadicity:
>But humans have also higher levels of monadicity than the individual.
>Failing to realise this leads to individualism. There is also the
>social dimension of monadidity levels. The family is at a lower level
>than a community which itself is at a lower level than the nation.
I accept that the levels of monadicity have an individual and a social
dimension: A certain level must have been accomplished by a majority of
the indivuals to form a corresponding community. Individuals and community
evolve together.
However I cannot accept that the community is the higher level compared to
the individual. "Individual" and "Social" are two different categories and
to mix them in one hierarchy of monadicity is uncategorical and thus
impairs sureness! This is one of Ken Wilbers contributions to sureness
while thinking about wholeness.
Although you wrote above: "social dimension" and not "social level", later
with respect to learning organisation, you write:
>viewing "systems thinking"
>(intermediate level) to bond "learning individuals" (the lower
>level) into a "learning organisation" (the higher level of
>monadicity).
Instead, I would state that a prerequisite of a community, forming a
learning organisation are individuals, who managed to reach the level of
systems thinking.
In my eyes, the socialisation of individual achievements belongs to the
process of digestion of emergences: It becomes easier for other
individuals to reach such given emergences, and the collective sharing
stabilize the reached level until ordering all social interactions.
>It is important to understand that a higher level of monadicity
>cannot undo a lower level of monadicity or vice versa.without
>seriously impairing wholeness. It is because the hierarchy of
>monadicty levels has associativity. It is the task of the
>intermediate levels to bond (commute) the lower and higher levels in
>any such an association.
I think that a lower level of monadicity can undo a higher level: While
any higher level depends on the lower level, the lower level can exist
without the higher level. But you are right: This impairs the achieved
wholeness, leaving back a lower order entity with a lower order of
wholeness - a typical immergence.
What about emergence: We are at the border of the highest manifest level
of monadicity and the lowest potential level of monadicity. Wholeness
contributes to emergence when this highest manifest level becomes an
intermediate level (by means of entropy production, I guess) and reaches
out in the room of potentials where its grip may find something new to
associate with, getting the chance to manifest it, if the other
essentialities are ready for creation.
But here I leave the "form" of wholeness and start to look at the
"content" or dynamics of emergences.
At, up to now, I would have denied, that the wording of your findings is
very important. I thought, I could do it in my own words, if necessary.
But now I have to admit, that my findings become so complex, that they
rely on the wording of your concept. The more a get used to this language,
the broader the horizon seems to become. Now it starts to become difficult
to be understood by others. This is one danger I sense.
The other danger is, that I deal with these concepts only mentally. How
can I internalise the newly aquired knowledge, so that I can learn to also
act accordingly? I am getting quite a distance to the things I should do
for business and that I am payed for. Somehow "quality-variety" is getting
impaired. I think, I should appreciate both.
But now I have to follow my biological clock, leave this computer and my
office and go home and to bed.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>