Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> wrote 4/21:
"The problem is not that the system feeds on the surrounding while digestive learning,
increasing its free energy. The problem is whether the system is AUTONOM
in choosing the path which it follows while incorporating such free energy
- - transforming it / producing entropy, including choosing the rate at
which this is going to happen."
Earlier, At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> wrote 4/18 in "Towards a new experience of time? LO21339"
"In a world in which most humans are coersed to act faster, you can imagine
what effect this "race against time" has on the decisions of people. They
are experiencing more and more the "destructively creative course of
time"."
and in closing
"Terry, thank you very much for reminding us about "dwell time" or whatever
we may want to call it. If we do not experience this "constructively
creative course of time" in addition to looking at our watches, keeping up
with schedules, will we be able to resist in becoming inhumane? Will we be
able to make the right kind of decisions? What do you fellow learners
think?"
Good afternoon, Winfried, At and other list members:
I found your Master-Slave discussion focusing on freedom of choice very
interesting. Also, looking back to At's response about time, please let me
express a tentative conclusion that I'd appreciate your and other's
reflections about.
As a result of these and other recent contributions, I was searching for a
thread to hold on to, to shake. To see if one existed that if I shook it,
something fundamental would happen. As I was doing this, the one thread
that I think I got hold of was "time", but only indirectly. I thought that
(re: Winfried) if a Slave had enough time to maneuver or (re: At) a person
had enough dwell or "constructively creative course of time" - even in the
fast paced world we live in, that sufficient conditions would have
occurred - by definition - to permit the seven essentialities to be fully
realized with the resulting emergence.
I fully recognize that "how much time is enough" is unknowable. Yet, if
more available time is generally better (higher entropy, more free energy
- with all things else remaining constant), then, what could be done to
increase available time for any path or paths a person - or group of
persons - may be on?
The first thought that occurs to me is to take time to-be-spent away from
something else; essentially refocus what energy I have on the task at
hand. If I'm multi-tasking (which is usually the case), this can only be
done so far. Essentially, I'm running as fast and as individually smart as
I can.
The second thought is to ask for help - to spread the load, and also to be
possibly stimulated or inspired by my helper(s) into an earlier emergent
position (i.e. two heads are better than one). This possibility benefits
from community and networking, increasingly important as complexity grows.
The third is somewhat similar to the second, but with a higher amount of
leverage from a "helper". It's also not exclusive of either the first or
second thought - rather complementary. This would be to simulate
appropriate contributions of the helper in ways more effective than can be
expected from the set of helpers available.
Following this thought, with an effective simulation process one could
develop a faster rate for accumulating experience, thereby reducing the
total clock time required for the path. Is, then, a faster rate of
relevant experiences a determining factor in what's required for a
"constructively creative course of time" to occur? Is this one definitive
way that we can improve our chances to "be able to make the right kind of
decisions" that we've been seeking? And what might the others be?
Thanks for listening.
Best Regards,
Terry Priebe
Decision Support Associates, Inc.
mailto:insight@de-sa.com
http://www.de-sa.com
--"Terry Priebe" <insight@de-sa.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>