At de Lange pointed out the meaning of the Law of the Excluded Middle for
classical logical reasoning.
>Finally, what point did I wish to make with the long contribution
>above? The Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) holds for most simple
>systems. I am even willing to make the conjecture that LEM is the
>defining logical property of simple systems. But as soon as we move
>from simple systems to COMPLEX systems, the LEM becomes >complexified
>itself. We cannot think about LEM in a simple manner anymore. I am not
>willing to make the conjecture that whenever LEM fails, we have to do
>with a complex system. I have always been able to find LEM acting on
>some lower leavels of the system
Dear Learners,
I am going to share a real learning experience, which I had about 9 years
ago. It is about how I learnt to go beyond the LEM without loosing the
sense for sense and nonsense. It may be helpful for all those of you, who
are currently thinking: "Impossible". After reading this, you may give it
a 50% chance...
The LEM was an important part of the solid ground from which I attacked my
father (just normal adolescence opposition) who was a theologist. It
seemed to me that theologists don't care too much about logic when they
make their points and I went to seek for some solid ground. Also a reason
why I studied physics.
One day after some discussions, my father gave me a textbook on the system
of classical logic. He told me, that it seemed to him, as if I am
interested in what is written there and that it already helped him to
clarify his thoughts as a student. I read it and was fascinated. It was
the first time that I read a nonfiction textbook, which I could follow
sentence by sentence nodding, without the need to guess what the author
tried to say and to what he was commenting, which I didn't know of.
But I was also puzzled. My father knew all about this. He knew what I was
talking about and also could recommend to me the right book. Yet it seemed
to me as if he wasn't applying what he knew. One day he said to me, that I
must look beyond the LEM. He said that the LEM does not help people to
live their lifes.
This is about 15 years ago. I couldn't follow my father at that time. I
couldn't leave the solid ground of the LEM, because I didn't know how to
distinguish sense from nonsense otherwise. All what my father could say to
me was, that I should try to understand the bible and find where the LEM
is excluded and how exactly this property help people to live.
Six or seven years later, I just finished my university study and started
to work in a business environment (we use to say: to jump in the cold
water of real life), my father gave me another book. He didn't hold it
back for me, it really was just published. A book written in german
language by a japanese author, Seiichi Yagi. It was about what Yagi called
"front structure". He explained that structure in a beautifully simple way
on the first few pages and it was clear to me, that he has discribed the
way one should exclude the LEM while still sense and nonsense are kept
clearly apart.
Imagine two rooms A and B separated by a wall. The role of the wall is to
separate the two rooms AND to connect them. To assign the wall to only A
would make B incomplete and vice versa. As being A, the wall is B. As
being B the wall is A. The balance between A and B is established by the
separating/connecting property of the wall. In this (and only this) SENSE,
the wall is (A and B) and (neither A nor B). Complete nonsense for
classical logic, and so simply true in the example of the front structure.
To avoid the classical nonsense, one may prefer not to express the example
in terms of classical logic at all.
Yagi expanded the example to a person watching a tree. Where does the
person end and where does the tree start? Where does the tree end and
where does the person start? Such questions are imposed by classical
logic. They are fallacies. The person asking above questions is NOT
watching a tree. Watching the tree is equal to becoming aware of the front
structure between the person and the tree. A requirement therefore is to
leave the ground of LEM.
What does awareness of the front structure mean for organisations? Isn't
this what Peter Senge wrote about in his Fifth Discipline? Senge wrote
that he regularily meditates. What else is meditation than to leave the
solid ground of the mental model LEM to open ones mind for the experience
of the front structure?
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>