Dear Organlearners and Winfried,
Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de> asks some serious
questions which I will try to answer as follows:
> >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"?
I have checked my typing - it is correct what Smuts have written: "an
unfolding of inner potentialities, a movement from the external to
the internal". Thus the "whole" in this respect behaves like the
fundamental forces and not contrary to them.
Let me illustrate it by a simple example. Think of a plant as a
whole. It takes things (chemical food and energy) externally from the
soil, air and sun in order to grow and hence flower and fruit
(unfolding its potentialities).
Physicists tend to think of the four fundamental forces as
independant forces since they are so much different. However, they
are much like the seven essentialities: they act in unison. We can
think of irreversible thermodynamics as the study of their common
outcome.
It is easy to see how the whole can be a "universal manifesting
force" once we know something more about irreversible thermodynamics
and its key concept "entropy production". Unfortunately, nothing of
this was known to Smuts. Irreversible thermodynamics is a post WWII
development.
Entropy production has a seemingly dialectical, but actually a
complementary, outcome. At first it tends to spread (disperse,
dissipate) energy. But as it increases, it may eventually concentrate
energy into more complex structures employing the existing
structures.
Entropy is produced by force-flux pairs. The more such pairs, the
more the entropy produced. The less we fragment the whole, the more
(in number and diversity) force-flux pairs we have to take into
account.
> 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.
Yes, my thoughts had moved among the same lines.
> Regarding Associativity:
>
> What is the difference between "to connect" (from "connect - beget") and
> "to associate with"?
We will come to the fourth essentiality "connect-beget"
(fruitfulness) in due time. But your anticipation of a possible
confusion has to be dealt with. Although an association can invlove
only two members, it usually involves more than two members.
Furthermore, an association refers to a "network of connections"
which already exists. On the other hand, fruitfulness refer to a
connection which still has to be made in terms of an underlying
association. It usually involves only two members since making
contact simultaneously between three or more entities become very
complex and thus precarious. An association is the result of a series
of connections and not the other way around. Connections happen in
terms of a lower level of association through which a higher level of
asscociation will emerge.
> 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 .
We must take care using words. In mathematics X * Y = Y * X
expresses the axiom of commutativity, not commutation! When I use the
word "commute", its closest synonym would be "share". Thus in
(X * Y) * Z = X * (Y * Z
the Y is the sharer (commuter). Unfortunately, the word "share" has a
dubious meaning. It can mean "to enjoy together", but it can also "to
divide into parts". (The word in Old English "sceran" which means "to
torn apart". This is still the case in my own language Afrikaans in
the word "skeur".)
The term "quantum mechanical commutator" represented by the
expression [X * Y - Y * X] with X and Y being "operators" does pose a
semantical problem. Note that anly TWO entities X and Y are invloved.
The word "commutator" here was selected in analogy to the axiom of
commutativity! However, physicists also used the term commutator much
earlier in the sense of "making contact between two by means of a
third". I refer here to electrical DC (direct current) motors making
use of a "brush" to commute current between two adjacent splines on a
commutator.
> >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.
I have used "higher" here in the sense of "more complex". For
example, the monadicity of my body is at a higher (more complex
level) than that of my individual organs. I agree with you that
"individual" and "social" are different categories, the "social" not
merely an extention of the "individual". Yet there is an intimate
relationship between the two, namely that of "emergence". Although
the "social" emerges from the "individual", the "individual" does not
obtain control over the "social". Although the "individual"
influences the "social" ("forward-action"), the "social" also
influences the "individual" ("back-action").
We here in South Africa once again experience the relationship
between the "individual" and the "social" through the hearings of the
Tructh and Reconsilliation Commision (TRC). The majority of white
people places heavy emphasis on the "individual" - individualism. The
majority of black people places heavy emphasis on the "social" -
socialism. What appears to be right in terms of individualism often
appears to be astoundingly wrong in terms of socialism, and vice
versa. The actual problem is that "individual" and "social" are
considered to be dialectical opposites - exclusive thinking! The
"individual" and the "social" are not antitheses of each other, but
rather complementaries.
> 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.
Winfried, I am sorry. I sometimes use "level" and "dimension" as
synonyms which is wrong.
The question is "How will individuals manage to reach the level
of systems thinking?" Is it possible without the emergence of the
"social" (level) and its "back-action" on the individuals? I do not
think so. The "back-action" elevates the potential energy of the
individuals to increase their capacity for "social" involvement.
And as you have noted below, this growth in capacity happens
digestively (close to equilbrium) and not emergently (far from
equilbrium). Once we realise this, we can take effective meausres
against both "social intimidation" and "individual intimidation".
> 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.
Note the word "without" which makes my sentence a complex one.
> 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.
Wow, you already think very deeply about these things. I like it very
much and I am used to reading German thinking. But I fear that we
are losing other readers here. Let me try to put it differently, but
not necessarily better. The past is that which has been manifested.
It is the highest level of the whole as we have experienced it. It
differs from the present because of possible emergences happening
now, thus pushing the present to one level higher in oneness. But as
the past has emerged to the present, the present may also emerge to
the future. This makes the present intermediate to the past and the
future - the commuter (umlomo, sharer) between the past and the
future.
Winfried, this line of thinking is fitting when constructive
creativity abounds. But when a spirit of destructive creativity has
taken control (by denying one or more of the seven essentialities),
the present is feared and the future is hopeless.
> 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.
Winfried, it is not different with me. Remember that I have
discovered the seven essentialities by finding correspondences
between mathematical creativity (abstract) creativity and chemical
creativity (material). I had no say in the way in which the
mathematical mind thinks or the chemical system operates. I merely
acted as an commutator (umlomo, intermediate) between the two.
But as soon as I understood that these seven corresponding patterns
are essential to constructive creativity, my struggles began. First I
had to relate these patterns to my own experiences. For example, I
became aware how little of my own tacit knowledge I had articulated
previously - how much I denied myself in the whole. Then I began to
relate them to the experiences of others. Among other things, I
became aware how in a dialogue we each actually talk with ourselves
rather than with others - how we rely on the meaning which we each
gives to language rather than the shared meaning - how much we deny
others in the whole.
You are quite right "it starts to become difficult to be understood
by others". I am experiencing it myself. I cannot deny it, nor make
any excuse for it. But I try to understand this phenomenon as best as
I can. I admit that the following explanation sounds terribly blaise
and hubric:- I am experiencing how I am "emerging to a new level
of consciousness".
As for you - you are doing fine. Do not place so much emphasis on how
I articulated these seven essentialities. Rely much more on your own
creativity in the context of your own "world-of-living" to manage the
complexity which you are becoming conscious of. Up to now we tended
to "socialise" creativity too much, neglecting the "individuality" in
creativity.
> 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?
Winfried, when I read this sentence the first time, I was laughing
loudly. Even now I am smiling. Do you still remember the difficulty
you had with Snuts' sentence "an unfolding of inner potentialities, a
movement from the external to the internal." And now you are
articulating exactly the same thing!
> 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.
In my opinion you are trying to "become" too fast in a crippled
cultural environment . And I have deep empathy with your urgency
because the same happened to me once I began to realise the
incredible complexity I have to work through. The best advice I can
give you is to
1) make better connection with pristine nature, advice which other
people like Jean J Russouw, Jefferson (I think - it was one of the
first presidents of the US) and Jan Smuts also gave.
2) take things one at a time in business (at work). Rome was not
built in one day.
Thank you once again for a deep response. I admire and appreciate it
very much.
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>