At de Lange asked some questions:
>Perhaps most important of all is the fact that irreversible
>self-organisation (evolution and growth) is spontaneous. Why does nature
>avoid the path of non-spontaneous behaviour? What danger is there to
>irreversible self-organisation when it is forced to happen
>non-spontaneously? Is it possible for LOs to emerge non-spontaneously?
I am wondering how spontaneous and non-spontaneous relate to inside-world
and outside-world.
My first guess was that spontaneous is action that has its causes inside,
happening from itself and that non-spontaneous action has its causes in
the outside-world, so that the action is merely reaction to forces
outside.
But a lot of spontaneous happenings need a trigger from outside. A candle
will burn spontaneously after it has been lighted. Many reactions in
chemistry need a special amount of activation energy or a catalyst. And we
can imagine that very little will happen on earth, when we think that the
sun has been switched off - neither spontaneously nor non-spontaneously..
A second guess is that a happening is non-spontaneous, when energy has to
be added constantly to the system from outside. It is spontaneous when
available free energy within the system is converted into heat and may be
a new order. I think this is closer to what you mean when you write:
>Apart form the motivation, excitement and joy derived from spontaneous
>actions, there is also the issue of money. Non-spontaneous behaviour
>costs money because it has to be sustained by external energy resources.
>On the other hand, when something exhibits spontaneous behaviour, it
>can often be harnessed as a source of energy. In other words,
>spontaneous behaviour increases profits and investments.
But am I living non-spontaneously because I have to breathe and drink and
eat? Are my ideas non-spontaneous, because they build on a constant stream
of information from outside (reading books, participating in this
list...)? Of course drinking and eating as well as books cost money. But
to this cost, my earnings need to be added to get a saldo. This may be
positive or negative, depending on life-style and environment. This all
does not feel very related to the issue of spontaneity.
So this inside/outside seem not to be very helpful with respect to
spontanous or non-spontaneous happenings.
Yet, I think that there are important differences: When exposed to a
question, it is a big difference whether I read the answer
(non-spontaneous) or whether I create the answer by myself (spontanous).
To be exposed to a question only to get the answer taught is somehow
insulting.
Now, that I found out, that spontaneity may be closely related to
answering questions, I find your confirmation, that I am on the right path
in your last sentence:
>Some times, like today, I think I must pose the questions rather than
>answering them.
So I feel that I made some progress in answering your questions without
even answering one of them.
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>