Dear Organlearners,
John Gunkler <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> writes:
>That said, I would appreciate some help. I try, within the
>limits of my time, to contribute helpful ideas and experiences
>to this list. Am I successful? I would appreciate it if someone
>could help me communicate better. I get quite frustrated when
>my attempts to clarify result in responses such as the two I
>mention above. Please help me understand why my quotation
>of Simon's analogy invited such a detour into ant navigational
>systems. How might I have communicated my point better so
>as not to have triggered such off-track responses? Do I really
>need to "explain the punch line before I tell my joke" in order
>for people to know what I'm trying to say? Did others on this
>list think I was talking about ant navigational systems?
>Thanks for any guidance.
Greetings John,
This not the first time that something like this has happened to you on
this list. It also happened several times to me. It also happend to many
others on several occasions on this list. It is serious problem which
jeoparises all learning, individual and organisational.
I reported to the list how much my two months old diabetes condition had
to with the "Parable of the boiled frog" (under that subject). It parable
is one of the learning disabilities which Peter Senge lists for LOs.
Somebody wrote to me in private that I cluttered the list with tripe on
diabetes. Thanks to Rick, he made an exception and allowed the
reproduction of the letter and my reply to it. In this reply I identified
the problem which you are refering above to with "the tyranny of the
experts".
I think it is now time to understand how this problem (Tyranny Of The
Experts or TOTE) works and to find a solution for it. Neither
organisations , not individuals can learn where TOTE abounds.
One of my delights (sometimes painful) is to observe "the creative course
of time". After I have reported on my diabetic condition, Dan Chay asked
me to tell something more about my concept of "digestion". This triggered
a dialogue on the subject "The Digestor". It is a model which I have
created to understand irreversible self-organisation close to equilibrium
where the rate of entropy production is very low. It is based on the
Ostwald digestion process between crystals. This model complements
Prigogine's model called the Brusselator. He created this model after
having studied the complexity of biochemical cycles. Each cycle is
necessary in living organsims to let one or more new biochemical compounds
emerge which are essential to the organisms. Prigogine created this model
to understand irreversible self-organisation at the edge of chaos where
the rate of entropy production is very high.
I will use the Digestor to explain how TOTE works. The URL to the
introduction on the Digestor is:
< http://www.learning-org.com/99.04/0167.html >
The graphs which I refer to in that introduction, are available at
< http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/9904Graph1.GIF >
< http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/9904Graph2.GIF >
< http://www.learning-org.com/graphics/9904Graph3.GIF >
In that introduction I challenged Dan:
>Once you understand the dynamics of the Digestor, you will
>be able to deal with the "tyranny of experts".
I hoped that Dan would respond to this challenge by trying to show how the
Digestor explains the dynamics of TOTE. I know that Dan will try to meet
this challenge, but I also know that it will take considerable time to do
this. Neither digestive learning nor emergent learning happen
instantenously. We can buy a mature plant from a nursery, but do we know
how many years of cultivation are needed to produce this mature plant? Dan
is a careful nursery person.
Please remember that the following explanation of the dynamics of TOTE in
terms of the Digestor is like buying a mature plant from a nursery. To
recognise your own tacit knowledge in this explanation is like buying a
mature plant. But to increase and articulate self your tacit knowledge is
like cultivating a plant for many years from producing the seed to
enjoying the mature specimen, observing it flowering, giving it away or
selling it as the situation requires.
The darker coloured areas on the graphs are the regions where the system
will spontaneously digest the food (information, Ba++ and SO4-- ions)
which the system SY and the surroundings (environment) SU have to share.
If we look at this digestion through the metal models of prey-predator or
competition, the darker coloured areas are the region where the system SU
will become the predator or winner. The lighter coloured areas are the
region where the system will become the prey or loser.
(Winfried Dressler is now one of the few who has articulated that he does
not want to look through these mental models (predator-prey, competition)
at evolution (self-organistion close to equilibrium) any more. He rather
wants to identify himself with the whole, acting as predator and winner or
prey and loser as the situation requires.)
In these graphs three quanitites play a role, namely /_\F, m and M. The
quantity /_\F is the change /_\ in free energy F for the universe UN, i.e
SY + SU. Any system (the universe SU, the system SY, the surroundings SU
consisting of all other systems and each of these systems) will act
spontaneously when that system's free energy F decreases, i.e /_\F<0. In
the Digestor this is the darker coloured areas on the graphs. The quantity
m indicates quantitatively the size in lower order of any system in the
universe. The quantity M indicates qualitatively the range in orders of
any system in the universe. The quantity m is extensive while the quanity
M is intensive.
(How many fellow learners realise that I had to present these graphs from
the viewpoint of the predator or winner. Almost all people want to be a
predator or winner. Few want to serve by becoming the prey or loser. I
have presented the darker coloured areas from the viewpoint of a predator
or winner. In the case of serving others I should have reversed the
colouring. But I wonder how many would have been able to follow this
paradigm shift.)
When we look at any particular graph, we see that the darker coloured area
widens as both mSY and mSU increase. But if we now look towards the mSU
axis so that we enlarge our scope to all its possible values, we will see
that the darker coloured area increases as the system's own lower ordered
size mSY increases. In other words, as the system increases quantitatively
in size, it becomes more powerful in acting as predator and resisting
predation by its surroundings.
In each particular graph, the values for M (Msy and Msu) remain fixed.
This is the picture. But as we move from graph1 to graph 3 the value of
Msy increase while the value of Msy decreases. This is the movie.
(Remember that entropy is like a picture while entropy production is like
a movie.) In other words, the system can also improve on its acting as
predator and resisting predation by increasing its own Msy ^^XOR^^
decreasing the Msu of the surroundings. This changing of the digestion by
changing the qualities M is quite dramatic as the movie hopefully
portrays. It is as if something takes the surface graph at its tip
furthest from the origin and pull it downwards.
Now for this ^^XOR^^ (exclusive or) used in the previous paragraph. By
increasing its own Msy, the system has to follow the path of constructive
creativity which involves emergences. However, by decreasing the Msu of
the surroundings, the system has to follow the path of destructive
creativity which involves immergences. How?
Consider as an example the roar of a lion, the king of all predators.
When it roars within 100 yards from people, even in daylight, many will
dirty themselves with their own s***. But should they have carefully
observed all the prey of the lion in their vincinity, none of these
species would have done the same. Yes, the roar of the lion gets their
attention, they look around and usually move away, often walking slowly
and quietly. But not those humans. They run and scream for their lives,
even right out of their shoes! Do not tell me that it is a lie -- I have
seen it happen.
Why does it happen to those humans and not the other species? They are
preoccuppied with the mental models of predator-prey or competition
because they have to deal with it many times a day in their own culture.
In this culture destruction plays a leading role. So when the lion roars,
they destroy themselves many of the quailties which they have, thinking
only of one thing "I am becoming the lion's food". It is setting up the
TOTE problem, acknowledging king lion as the expert in predatorship. This
is the destructive way of life.
It is like taking the graph at its tip and pulling it upwards.
But when a person has developed through learning (emergently and
digestively) that quality which allows him or her to harmonise through
understanding with nature, that person will react very differently to the
lion's roar. First of all, the person will not dirty himself or herself.
Secondly, that person will quietly walk away from the lion. Thirdly,
after laughing at one or two of these incidents, that person will try to
understand why the majority of other people behaved destructively, so
differently to all other forms of live. Fourthly, that person will learn
to differentiate between the roar of a lion pleased with himself and a
hungry lion telling all the prey (except the ignorant) to flee. This is
solving the TOTE problem, acknowledging that the universe meanders
progressively on a path between evolution and revolution towards greater
complexity. This is the constructive way of life.
It is like taking the graph at its tip and pulling it downwards.
Its very interesting to observe the reaction of baboons to the lion's
presence. When they hear the lion's roar, the mothers usually grab their
young and keep them close by, pinching them so that the babies scream like
sirens. A daring male (often the future leader) will take a quick poke at
a female close by since the leader's attention is elsewhere. The sentinals
will often make signs (sometimes as obscene as some of their human
counterparts) without the lion even being close enough to see what they
do. The present leader of the troop of baboons himself also issues a
chilling bark and then run to his troop of baboons. Like any other species
who takes care, the pack of lions carefully listen to it. But suddenly,
seeing their leader appear, those sentinels making signs will stop with it
and begin to hoard the troop of baboons in a close pack like their more
serious colleagues. They know that in a few seconds the leader will be on
them, biting them left, right and center for not doing their job.
If a hungry lion, desparate enough, can lay its paws on some lone baboon,
that baboon has a last trick to protect itself. In less than a second its
bowel will loosen up -- nothing to beat the stench of the droppings of an
omnivore. The baboon will attempt a salto to cover itself with its own
dirt. This is enough for even a hungry lion to defect from its purpose.
It is like taking the graph at its tip and pulling it up and down,
creating illusion upon illusion. The only species to beat the baboons in
this strategy is humankind. Can they shake this world upside down into a
gigantic puzzle!
How is it possible to take the graph at its tip and pull it upwards?
Humans usually do it through a process which we know better by the name
intimidation. In order to become a predator or winner, the human has to
denigrate the quailties M in the prey or loser. Upon judging that such a
denigration has succeeded, the prey or loser inflicts immergences on
itself, decreasing its M value. With a lower M value, its easier to reduce
its m value through digestion.
Which qualities have to be denigrated? Any quality can be denigrated, but
the best results are obtained by denigrating those very qualities which
differentiate between emergences and immergences. They are the seven
essentialities. For example, consider sureness
("identitity-categoricity"). Tell the person with pseudo explanations that
he or she cannot make a categorical identification. This is illustrated by
the case of the ANT which you refered to. Consider another example, namely
wholeness ("associativity- monacidity"). Tell a person that his or her
associations are useless because they are not monadic. What about "the
plant HAS roots" incident?
Obviously, the despicable art of denigration is to go for all seven these
essentialties. Learning as the first order emergent of creating depends on
them. Believing as the second order emergent also depends on them. Thus
denigrate another person's knowledge or religion and become the prime
predator or winner. It usually begins by denigrating the orther person's
birth or something related to it like "you mother f******." Eventually, as
the science of complexity grows and complexity thinking becomes more
common, it will be aimed directly at technical terms related to emergences
such as "bifurcation" (intimately related) or "digestion" (complementary
related).
With this I hope I have provided a solution to the TOTE problem.
John, you ask "How might I have communicated my point better so as not to
have triggered such off-track responses." My own belief is that one can
imbetter one's own communication ability through spontaneous
self-learning. To force another person to imbetter his or her own
communication ability is futile if that person is not dynamically ready
(spontaneous, /_\F<0) for such learning, no matter how much work one puts
into it (/_\F<W). Apart from usually causing immergences rather
emergences, it is not permanent. Stop with that work and the other person
will go back to his or her old ways. A far better way is to set an example
and learn from others who critisize your examples constructively.
I am also very sure about another thing. As soon as we begin to judge
other people, we destroy all communication with such people. I have tried
to explain it in the topic "The deemster problem" some months ago.
John, you also ask: "Did others on this list think I was talking about ant
navigational systems?"
Yes and no. As the topic evolved, my own thoughts were rather complex. I
will list those which I can still remember.
(1) I thought of other insects for which different navigation systems
rather than leaving a chemical trail has been proposed. For example, the
navigation of bees using the angle of incidence of sunlight. This
mechanism was proposed long ago when navigation with a sextant was much
more familiar to people.
(2) I thought of the navigation systems proposed for birds like homing
pigeons. Since they are able to navigate even in the night with an
overcast sky so that they cannot see the light of stars, it cannot be in
terms of light beacons. Nor can it be in terms of chemical trails because
the winds will blow them away. My own pet theory rests on the Onsager
reciprocal relationships concerned with entropy production. The
reciprocal coefficients are symmetrical to all the intensive quanitities
(close to a hundred of them since my last counting), except the magnetic
induction field B. This quantity induces an extraodinary asymmetry in
these coefficients.
(3) I thought about the work in artifical life which guys like Chris
Lampton (my memory is failing me now) at the Santa Fe institute are doing.
They use computer simulations to model the behaviour of insects, using
mathematical formulae consisting of long strings of non-linear functions.
I have seen these simulations and they are very, very striking. However,
the big problem is to "translate" these strings of non-linear functions
into more comprehensible language with its metaphoric power. Where is that
Rosetta stone?
(4) I thought about the dynamics of creative systems. Should the ant act
spontaneously, it can only navigate itself along a path by which its own
free energy will be decreasing. (Leo Minning will immediately think of a
meandering path and what that means to him.) However, when the ant
backtracks that path, the free energy will be increasing if we focus on
the path. Thus the ant is doing something non-spontaneously, something
which will never happen if not forced by external work. So, what agency is
doing the work on the ant? Or should we focus on something else rather
than the geometrical path? And what about elephants? Since it is
impossible for them to look at their back side when backtracking and since
their size often prevents them from making a U turn, how do they manage
this back tracking? Some people say it is because of the size of its brain
-- much larger than that of a human. That is why we have the saying in my
mother tongue: "That person has a memory like an elephant".
(5) I though about a suggestion which I once made to readers of this list.
Eugene Marais is a famous name in the history of my mother tongue
Afrikaans. This man, if there ever was a genius, managed to develop almost
single handedly an ortographic system for Afrikaans so that speach in it
could be supplemented by writing. I know of no other person in the history
of all langauges who even came close by, including Shakespeare. I once
submitted a poem of Marais to this list -- the very poem which served as
catalyst helping Afrikaans speaking people to become empowered in the
writing of their languages. Anyway, Marais also wrote among many other
things an extraordinary book with the title "Die siel van die mier" (The
soul of the ant) after have studying ants for many years in the wild.
(John, you should see what modern etymologists do to this book.)
Anyway, this book appeared more than half a century before Senge's book
"The fifth discipline". The suggestion which I have made, is that fellow
learners should get hold of this book and decide for themselves if it is
not a magnificent metaphor for the Learning Organisation. Since the LO
concept was articulated by Senge and not Marais, we cannot say that Marais
taught us about Learning organisations. But on the other hand, what is
wrong by articulating the concept of a LO with "The soul of the ant"?
John, I appreciate your efforts to elucidate the concept of a LO, even
when it concens the ANT.
By now all of you fellow learners must wonder once again why I have spent
so much time in creating such a long contribution. It is to make you aware
of the intimidation by the complexity of reality -- all the m's and M's of
reality. This intimidation by complexity causes most of the destructive
behaviour of humans. Other living species do not behave in such a manner.
But once we are aware of it, we can take effective measures against it if
we really want to. So in my long contributions there are always very short
messages to overcome this intimidation of complexity. Have you noticed the
following one?
Learn and believe to transform each looming destruction into a
construction.
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
