At de Lange wrote (about two weeks ago):
> Winfried, you now do something which I do not understand.
snip
>But what I cannot understand is how the form of stages 2 and 3 becomes
>content in the same cycle.
(This mail is not making a special point, although I think I reached some
nice places to rest and have a look at the landscape. It is more of a
sightseeing tour.)
Dear At,
Nor do I. I didn't mean it, yet you have read it out of my paragraph and
knowing that you are a very careful reader, especially when you don't
understand, I have to look at what I did:
>>What about the content of observation? Isn't the observed the
>>same as its content? Reviewing the seven essentialities as
>>form, I tend to believe that all observed is primarily observed
>>form, not content. Where does the content of scientific observation
>>come from? I guess it also is created by speculation and
>>falsification. These two provide for something (can I call it
>> "expectation"?), which introduces an element of entropic force
>>leading to the process of observation as entropic flux.
When I ask "Isn't the observed the same as its content?" my intended
answer was "No! The observed is mainly observed form." But I think, I made
that clear in the sentence followed by that question.
Aha! The clue is in your "...in the same cycle." It was too obvious for me
that I was talking about speculation/falsification PREVIOUS to observation
that I didn't make it explicit. I should have written:
Where does the content of scientific observation come from? I guess it
also is created by speculation and falsification, BUT OF THE PREVIOUS
CYCLE. This links the cycles together, so that a natural process of
coevolution of form and content emerges, in one word: learning.
And so I arrived at:
>Fortunately, you have followed it up with a real gem
(thank you for the beautiful comparison with your brothers diamond).
Later, you write:
>>Thus impaired essentialities, and at its roots the essentiality wholeness
>>as I guess, build the constraint.
>
>Yes, yes, yes.
>You stressed: the constraint
>Wholeness <>cracks
>
>Let me complete all the stressing constraints:
>Liveness <> rigid
>Sureness <> hazy
>Fruitfulness <> infertile
>Spareness <> inefficient
>Otherness <> prosaic
>Openness <> isolation.
I wish to object to: "all the stressing constraints". I object because
when thinking about constraints, I have the image of a chain in my mind.
The constraint is, what limits the strength of the chain. And this is the
weakest link in a chain. The weakest link is one link and not seven. I
think that the image of a chain fits well to describe, what is needed at
the bifurcation point: With the seven essentialities as the links, each of
it need to be strong enough so that the chain does not break. If the chain
breaks, this corresponds to immergence. This is equivalent to saying that
if only ONE essentiality is impaired or not mature enough, immergence will
occur.
May be, we can agree by saying: Each of the essentialities can be the
constraint. In a given situation, it will be, at the roots, one of them.
On various occasions you explained how you do exactly this, when helping
students with their creativity: Find the constraint-essentiality and help
to develop it further.
>>I am not going to accept impaired wholeness as a general part
>>of human nature.
>
>That is the spirit. I do it for all seven essentialities.
Yes, so do I (at least as an intent). The point is, that based on my
observations, I speculate that wholeness is the constraint-essentiality.
This speculation is NOT neglecting the other six, which would lead to
holism. Falsifying this speculation means to strengthen wholeness.
Falsification can occur in two ways: a) Observations change. This means,
that the constraint is sufficiently strengthened and another essentialtity
became the new constraint. (Falsification by means of becoming) b)
Observation do not change. This means that I got the wrong essentiality.
(Falsification by means of being).
>But being a teacher makes me careful. Do not confuse an impaired
>essentiality with the growing understanding of an essentiality.
Thank you very much for this distinction. In fact, I didn't want to say
that wholeness is irreversibly impaired, but the least mature
essentiality, threatening the upcoming global bifurcation most. The
problem with strengthening wholeness (falsifying my speculation) is, that
in such attempt, wholeness is easily fragmented from the other
essentialities, which would have the opposite effect: weakening wholeness
- a huge inconsistency, or "crack" in the form, as I called it.
I think that you are so aware of this problem, that you are not sure
whether I (or other readers) can avoid this trap when I put wholeness too
much in the center (calling it THE constraint). On the other hand, one
cannot strengthen wholeness without strengthening all the other
essentialities, because it is WHOLENESS. As such, it is a great candidate
for speculating to be the constraint.
In terms of the tyranny of experts, I could also say, that wholeness is
the weakest expert. On the opposite side of the expert scale, sureness is
the strongest expert. In the historical struggle between wholeness and
sureness, which you have written about on some occasions (Smuts and Herzog
for example), wholeness was finally weakened because of the trap of holism
- wholeness tried to fight with the weapons of sureness.
So there are two ways of strengthening wholeness: 1.) Taking care for all
seven essentialities and guiding ways to recognize how they build together
one whole (Onsager relationships, all together are necessary for
creativity, leaning, emergences...) 2.) Rejecting the tyranny of experts
tendency inherent in sureness. (Not being too excited about RTL, making
the tyranny of experts recognisable like in It Hurts, Digestor, Logical
Thinking...).
>>So Alonso Church's thesis in logic refers to what I called RTL -
>>relation of terms logic. Giving a name is an explicate statement
>>on how this name relates to others. The implicate possibilities
>>have been reduced to one actual name and meaning.
>
>This is exactly why am not too excited about RTL -- too much of the
>"meausrement problem". I have explained what the "measurement >problem of quantum mechanics" is, namely the reduction of the implicate
>information (wave) packet by explication. This reduction is
>necessary, but if we leave it at that (fragmentation), it kills the curiosity of >the learner because it destroys wholeness.
Here you have described how RTL contribute to the tyranny of experts of
sureness, destroying wholeness. On the other hand, sureness is still an
essentiality, a necessary condition for creativity. Instead of writing
"...not too excited about RTL" you could have written "... not too excited
about sureness", because the measurement problem is the same. You offer:
>What we ought
>to do to solve the "measurement problem" is to trace how a scientific
>term is manifested in all walks of life by ordinary folk once that
>term has been established scientifically.
Isn't this digestive, convergent learning? A once created explication -
the scientific term - grows to maturity while manifesting in all walks of
life. If it goes well, all essentialities are participating. Considering
the evolution of terms (which includes the essentiality liveness), it
becomes difficult for sureness/RTL on insist on expertise. The web of
terms obeying the rules of RTL is by no means fixed. Sureness - yes: the
web of terms need to meet the rules of RTL. Tyranny of experts - no: those
rules are far from sufficient to justify a specific web as the only
possible one.
I suspect that any emergence requires a change, a re-creation of the
existing web, while the digestors task is to redefine the old terms into
the new web. It's a matter of M (purity) and m (size). The emergence is
caused by "clouds at the horizon", as I called it for the dawning of
modern physics. While the old web grows (knowledge on classical physics)
the limits of M - the clouds - become more and more troubling. Until
someone will come and succeed to create a kernel of higher M - the
emergence. I think it is the degree of M which limits the possible m.
Extrapolating to the unreachable "ideal" would lead to perfect, zero
defect M and infinite m - the theory of everything. ("ideal" only in the
eyes of sureness - what would become of liveness or openness?)
It is fun and pleasure to drive the car! I feel much of being a test
driver. For me, its especially the tuning of the cruise control system,
the essentialities, which is so exciting.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried Dressler
--"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>