Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
> At de Lange asked, based on a chain of being-becomings
> >[raw material]---innovater creativity--->[technology]--....
> >...--user creativity--->[complex culture]
> the following question:
> >have you noticed the pattern X * Y * Z? What can we
> >say about technology acting as an umlomo ("mouthpiece", commuter)?
>
> I like to answer with following scheme:
>
> past-----------------------------present-----------------------future
> [cause]---causality----->[effect]<-----teleology---[goal]
Winfried, your pattern is most interesting.
It may seem as if we are discussing a deep philosophical issue here.
But the word "goal" in your pattern indicates that the issue is
directly related to learning and organisational activities. I intend
to show you all how and why.
Let us first talk about time. This is how I think about time:
Time has an irreversible arrow. The past became the present while the
present becomes the future. Time cannot be reversed, neither in the
material world, nor in the abstract world. We can create only with
the present. We cannot go back into the past to create with anything
from it. So what about our memories? We also cannot go into the
future to create with anything from it. So what about our visions
(some which concern goals)?
Well, I cannot go too deep into memories and visions themselves,
otherwise we will wander too far off Winfried's message. However,
this I will say. Both memories (eventhough about the past) and
visions (eventhough about the future) belongs to the present and only
the present. Furthermore, since the present changes forever (remember
"becoming-being"), also our memories and visions change.
Unfortunately, too often we are too afraid even to admit it to
ourselves. Yet we applaud changes in present tecnology. Strange, is
it not?
Note that Winfried, well knowing how important the irreversible arrow
of time is to me, challenges me by drawing an arrow going backwards
in time. He also uses the word "teleology" for this arrow. He knows
that the concept teleology has been shot down by most western
philosophers. He seems to be a daring fellow. He seems to be even
more so when he writes:
> With this, I offer a definition of technology (which I learnt from Seiichi
> Yagi, a japanese christian and buddhist theologist):
>
> Technology comes into the game, when using causality to achieve goals.
> Technology applies knowledge - causal knowledge. Thus technology
> transforms causality into teleology.
>
> This is a very general definition of technology and not restricted to only
> IT or EBIT.
The fact that he brings present technology as one possible effect
into the picture, is even more daring. How dare he imply that
technology pulls the future back into the present? Dare we infer that
Windfried's arrow goes even further backwards, that technology pushes
the present into the past? And what about visions and memories? Do
visions pull the future into the present while memories push the
present into the past? Can we actually reverse the arrow of time?
Or is there a second arrow of time going backwards which does not
cancel out the first irreversble arrow, but complements it? If this
is the case, then time has a categorical identity? (See the
essentiality sureness.)
Or does time have no arrow? This is how Newton, Einstein and most
physicists have thought about time. Time is omnidirectional. It flows
equally into both directions. Should time have two arrows, one
forward and one backward, they cancel each other out perfectly. If
this is the case, then time has an arrowless identity.
Which of the many cases will time be? Look for the clue --
"two" arrows!
Here are a couple of examples which I want you to consider very
carefully. I will use "two" strange acronyms LB (Lower Bound) and UB
(Upper Bound) in them. I will use these examples as metaphors to
explain why time also seems to have a second arrow going into the
backwards direction. (To get your thoughts roaming: the concepts LB
and UB are very important in the algebraic modelling of logic. But be
assured, I will stear away from logic itself.)
Here is the mechanical metaphor. Think of traveling by car. The LB
is that the accelerator pedal must be pressed in to move forward. The
deeper we step on the accelerator pedal, the more partially combusted
and obnoxious gases are produced. The UB is that the pedal must be
pressed in as little as possible to go as far as possible.
Here is the biological metaphor. Think of eating in order to live.
The LB is that we have to consume food. The faster we eat, the more
the unwanted side reactions like regurgitation and getting
overweight. The UB is to eat just enough to maintain a healthy weight
and lifestyle.
Here is the business metaphor. Think of buying and selling to make
a living. The LB is that we have to make a profit. We have to buy at
the lowest price, then add economical value in a diversity of ways
and finally sell at the highest price. The UB is to honour values
(like truth, moral, faith, hope and love) which cannot be valued by
money.
Now let us do some systems thinking on the strange two acronyms LB
and UB.
One of the reasons why "system thinking" has replaced "systematical
thoughts" (philosophy) to a large extend, is the role of "feedback
loops" in system thinking. We can have either a positive feedback
which amplifies or a negative feedback which controls. For example,
in a jetplane its ramjet works with a positive feedback while its
autopilot works with a negative feedback.
Think of the examples above. In each the LB (lower bound) concerns
the positive feedback while the UB (upper bound) concerns the
negative feedback. Sometimes the words "positive" and "negative"
create connotations for some people opposite to those intended. In
such a case, try to replace positive with "lower" and negative with
"upper". If this does not work, try "left" for positive or "right"
for negative. If this also does not work, use any other two antonyms.
Likewise, when we think about time, we must think about its LB
(positive, left) as well as its UB (negative, right). The positive
(LB) arrow of time is from past-to-present-to-future. This positive
arrow of time amplifies time. The negative (UB) arrow of time is from
future-to-present-to-past. This negative arrow of time controls time.
Time is thus one of the most extraordinary examples to test our
systems thinking on feedback loops. (Those of you with a
mathematical, physico-chemical or engineering background: the
positive feedback refers to the first time derivative d/dt and the
negative feedback refers to the second time derivative d2/dt2.)
Do some of you not have that uneasy feeling that too little has been
described? A jetplane with a ramjet and autopilot has passed by, but
we did not even had a good look at it.
Let us (X) then have a look at the jetplane time (Z). I have used the
X and Z to remind you of the associative pattern X * Y * Z of
wholeness. Thus we need Y (sensor, "umlomo" or mouthpiece,
consultant, facilitator, mediator, teacher). What will Y be? Pick
your choice from any subject of the academcial spectrum (theology to
mathematics), any language (natural or technical), any object
(living, dead or inanimate) or people of whatever intelligence,
personality and character. Whatever our choice, the jetplane seems to
leave that choice behind. It becomes history because it does not move
together with the jetplane.
What will we do? Look for clues.
Time itself is a physico-chemical quantity which can be measured by
instruments called clocks and expressed in units such as the second
and year. There are many other physico-chemical quantities such as
length (meter), mass (kilogram), temperature (celsius), electrical
current (ampere) and energy (joule) to mention a few. Why not use one
of them as the umlomo? Well, Newton set the trend and many have
followed it. Einstein even made a major correction to it. On the
other hand, Schroedinger the father of quantum mechanics, had to get
rid of time to get any quantum solutions at all. So it seems that
humankind have had no luck here also.
Not quit true. One man, the cosmologist Arthur Edington, made a bold
claim. I can recall his claim, but I cannot ever give myself out for
knowing how his mind worked to have made this claim. The mind is the
very thing which I still try to understand desparately. Thus, let me
rather tell how I am now thinking before I recall his claim.
I have to use another quantity as my "umlomo" (mouthpiece, teacher).
But I must be very careful when selecting this "umlomo". I must not
allow my mindset to dictate my choice, nor allow the complexity of
the chosen to dictate me. I must select my umlomo creatively. For
example, the essentiality liveness tells me that both being and
becoming should be evident. The essentiality sureness tells me that I
cannot rely on luck or good fortune (serendipity). The essentiality
wholeness tells me that I have to consider all quantities known to
us. (In the LO series on the essentialities I have not yet discussed
the other four so that I will stop with these three.)
Ok, so I have selected "a" quantity, but not yet "the" quantity.
Anything more? Yes.
These two quantities have to very closely related. They must be like
twins (but not clones). In Quantum Mechanics (QM) such a close
relation between two quantities is known by the concept of
complementarity. When two quantities are complementary, they define
an uncertainty relationship. It means that I cannot know something
about the one quantity unless I know something about the other one
too. My knowledge has to concern both.
(Skip this paragraph if you want to.) Call the mysterious quantity S.
Should I know nothing about S, how can I expect to know all about
time? Since I want time and S to be complementary, QM says it will
definitely be a case. But QM also speaks of probabilities. It is
highly improbable that I will know all about time while knowing
nothing about S. This is one "pure state" (lower bound). The other
"pure state" is knowing nothing about time and all about S (upper
bound). However, if I know less than all about time, then I need to
know more than nothing about S. This is a "fuzzy state" - a mixture
of the two pure states - position between the two bounds. There are
uncountably many "fuzzy states". The probabilty for knowing all about
time+S is much better for "fuzzy states" than for anyone of the "pure
states" (bounds). Herein lies my strength, the reason why I should
not panic when trying to learn something about S.
So what will my umlomo be? I have not decided yet. My choice must not
only be rationally sound, but also be emotionally and religiously
sound.
I observe people and how they react to time. Time is dreadful to
the majority of them. Some have to look at their watch and time
schedules every few minutes to see if they correlate. Others cut
their time without regard to the costs. Some even drench themselves
with drugs to escape thoughts about time. Many laugh at me because
for more than 20 years now I do not carry a watch. What is even
worse, many pity me because I believe in God. He, who opened eyes to
see, opened lips to speak and sheared the curtain to unveil the holy,
did he not say: "If these people do not tell about Me, the rocks will
do so."
I have made my choice. I had to challenge this choice several times
in my life. Other people are also challenging me whenever my choice
becomes clear to them. My choice is expressed by the famous claim of
Sir Eddington: "Entropy is the arrow of time".
The name of the umlomo is ENTROPY. Yes, it is the other dreadful
quantity. Its complexity is immensely intimidating, so much so that
our first impression of it is also our last impression of it. The
impression? Chaos!
The first thing which I have to do, is to decribe this umlomo better.
The word "entropy" is not enough. Nor is it enough that scientists
represent it (convention) by the symbol S. The best description I can
give, is "the CHANGE in entropy S of the UNIVERSE". See what has
happened - again the associativity pattern X * Y * Z of wholeness.
You have learned (although you dont know why) through the stressing
of two words that when you have to think about entropy, you also have
to think of "Change" (C) and "Universe" (U). But you have to think of
all three of them as ONE thing (the monadicity of wholeness). And you
have to make very sure (sureness) that you think of this things as a
BECOMING (liveness). Let us represent this becoming by the acronym
CSU (Change in entropy S of the Universe).
Since we now have the jetplane CSU itself in sight, we are ready to
have a closer look at it.
An incredible diversity of futures are possible, given our limited
comprehension of the universe U. Only those futures are possible for
which the CSU is POSITIVE . It means that for every possible
future, its SU (entropy S of the Universe) must be GREATER than the
SU of the present. No future is possible for which its SU will be
SMALLER than the SU of the present.
You have just learned something new about entropy. The paragrapgh
above describes what is known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I prefer to call it the Law of Entropy Production. One of the things
which this description of this Law tells us, is that it generates
diversity! A positive change in SU (entropy of the universe) is the
ramjet of diversity (positive feedback). The increase in SU is the
lower bound of diversity (primordial cause).
But how does the "present know" which one of the many possible
futures "to choose from" at a later moment of time? This question is
the same as the following one:
OK, SU has to increase, but how should it increase?
The answer is astounding! It has to follow that route along the many
possible choices such that SU always increases LEAST. This means that
any change in the increase (itself a change) of SU has to be
negative. A negative change in the change of SU is the autopilot
(negative feedback). This is the upper bound of diversity - lean,
moral and wise changes. This is how the arrow of time "reverses"
itself.
The jetplane CSU can also be called "minimal entropy production".
Again we have the X * Y * Z pattern. The umlomo in the centre is the
word "entropy". The amplifying ramjet with its positive feedback
(lower bound) is the word "production". The controlling autopilot
with its negative feedback (upper bound) is the word "minimal".
But remember - we have spoken about the change in entropy S of not
just anything, but that unique thing which we call the universe U.
The universe is THE system. It consists of many (sub) systems. The
diversity among these systems is such that not in our lifetime will
we be able to count or classify them fully. Since we have to work
with so many of these systems, we seldom have time to contemplate
the universe itself.
But never should we ever confuse A (any) system with THE system.
There is only one THE system -- the universe. In THE system the
ramjet (positive feedback, lower bound) and the autopilot (negative
feedback, lower bound) works in perfect harmony (ubunutu). The lower
and upper bounds become one bound. It is if the lower and upper
eyelids join so that we cannot see. It is as if the lower and upper
lips join so that we cannot speak. It is as if a veil has been drawn
to isolate the universe. Thus we can only think. The universe is ONE,
the monad.
Whereas the universe itself is ONE , its systems are many. Whereas
the universe is isolated, some of its systems are open, some closed
and some almost isolated. Whereas for the universe the two bounds
coincide, for its systems these two bounds spread out to allow for an
incredible diversity. Some systems function close to the lower bound
-- the amplifying ramjet where time seems to go faster. Some systems
function close to the upper bound -- the controling autopilot where
time seems to go slower. Some systems meander between these two
extremes. However, in this "open space" between the two bounds all
these diverse systems have to LEARN how to ORGANISE harmoniously. In
other words, the universe is THE Learning Organisation.
Where does the seven essentialities of creativity comes into the
picture? Think of the universe and its one bound (the union of the
lower and upper bounds). This bound is not like a one-dimensional
line, or a 2-dimensional surface, or a 3-dimensional solid, but like
a 7-dimensional figure. The essentialities describe this figure from
seven viewpoints or sides. Inside the universe the bound opens up to
form a "open space" enclosed by the lower bound and upper bound.
However, both these bounds is still decribed by the seven
essentialities. To go close to the lower bound, we have to apply the
ramjet fully. The entropy production causes bifurcating conditions.
But then we may loose sight of the upperbound - the autopilot.
However, the seven essentialities help us to regain control. The same
applies when we go close to the controlling autopilot, the upper
bound. Here the seven essentialities helps us to regain amplification
-- entropy production.
Now study the three metaphors described earlier. I have identified
in each of them the lower bound and upper bound. See if you can
understand in each case the lower bound as the ramjet (positive
feedback, amplifier) and the upper bound as the autopilot (negative
feedback, controller). Try to think how you will increase either the
harmony or the cacaphony in each example. Hopefully you will now
understand a little more how the law of "minimal entropy production
of the universe" works. I know from my own experiences that it is a
difficult thing to understand, but please try your best.
Now let us get back to Winfried's daring answer. The only thing which
he can call in to substantiate his arrow pointing backwards, is
the "minimal" of minimal entropy production. Whereas the "production"
is the heart of causality, the "minimal" is the heart of teleology.
This "minimal" is also the reason why we can have in the present
visions about the future and memories about the past. Visions (even
goals) and memories whcih do not reflect this "minimal" (the upper
bound, the controlling autopilot) are worthless. They cannot follow
the teleological arrow of time. It is better for us to change them as
quickly as possible.
But Winfried does more than bringing teleology into the picture. He
also brings technology in the picture. To see why, you must remember
what Winfried wrote about himself in his "intro" a few months ago.
His formal training was as a physicist. Thus, unless he makes special
efforts, he may easily use machines (technology) as a mental model.
There is nothing wrong with it. What is wrong, is to insist on only
machines as a mental model, not that Winfired has done it.
Let us see why there is nothing wrong by connecting teleology to
technology, i,e, why technology pulls the future back into the
present.
I will now have to use a technological example. Assume a computer
mother board works from a 6 volt power supply and draws approximately
2 amps. The entropy production at room temperature will be the watts
(6Vx.2A) divided by the room temperature in kelvin, say 300K (27C).
Thus the entropy production is 0.04 watt/kelvin. But let us plug
foolishly the mother board into a, say, 12V supply. It will draw a
higher current, say, 4A, for a split second. By then something will
have blown up. The entropy production in this short lived case will
be 0.16 watt/kelvin, much higher. The mother board has blown up
because it has never been designed for such a higher entropy
production.
Technology works because we design the "production" (ramjet) of
entropy into it. But if we do not also design the "minimal"
(autopilot) into it, it becomes too expensive, clumsy or dangerous to
be used effectively. If we neglect the harmony between the lower
bound and upper bound, we cannot expect anything else than a
cacaphony. We may then also never set eye on the jetplane.
Winfried's example is technology. Let me give you another example
which concerns a living system. Yes, living systems also produce
entropy. (On Doc Holloway's homepage an article can be found in which
I try to make this clear. The URL is
<http://www.thresholds.com/journal/articles/delange.html>). But
living systems also have autopilots keeping the production within
bounds (minimal). A better known word for these autopilots is
homeostasis.
Me and a friend of mine from South Africa were walking in the deep
Amazon with two Brazilan friends and two local guides. We had to walk
roughly 20 kilometers in dense, pristine forest with an ambient
temperature of roughly 32C (body temp 37C) and humidity. (Why we were
there and had to travel through the forest, is another story.) The
two local guides, small in stature, afraid of pumas (we did not know
it then), walked fast in almost a straight line for them. But me and
my friend with our big frames had to walk a zig-zag, up-under course.
We had to burn our ramjets whitehot to stay close to them. Soon we
were sweating profusely. We walked for three hours. I thought it
would never end, fearing that my ramjet would fail. I never even
thought of the opposite, that my ramjet would get out of control.
Eventually we reached our destination, a clearing at some small
river. By then I was very anxious. I knew that I and my friend had
developed heat-stroke. Our ramjets were working full blast and could
not be switched off by the cooling effect of evaporating sweat. The
differences between the ambient tempearture as well as humidity and
that of our bodies were to small for enough evaporation. I knew I had
to act before my mind shut off -- death by either heat-stroke or by
piranhas in the river. I tested the water and its temperature was
about 28C -- enough difference to regain homeostasis. I took my
clothes off, made sure that I had no open wounds, and walked into the
river. The rest cried out: "Piranhas, piranhas. Come back."
After a few minutes and still no feeding, they all took of their
clothes off and headed for the river. It was my turn to shout back:
"Make sure you have no open wounds". After about 30 minutes we left
the water and washed our clothes. We could put on only our underpants
because nothing became dry, not even our bodies. We became very
aware of homeostasis - our autopilot. Three hours later, after having
met another amazon faciendero called Juan, he invited us to catch
piranhas with the bloody remains of a bush pig. We caught them right
there in our swimming pool - about 12 of them in less than 30
minutes. Piranha meat is oily and untasty. But when cooked in a
watery paste of ground brazil nut, it becomes delicious.
Winfried's last remark is:
> I hope it makes as much sense for you as it does for me.
The same here. I am sorry for the length, but the harmony required it
because we had to look at the universe and a tiny bit in it.
I love you all.
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>