Winfried,
You make many points in your last message to me on this subject.
Let me deal only with what I think is a misunderstanding of "Occam's
razor," and perhaps another regarding the thinking of Ken Wilber.
>Reading Ken Wilbers final article in The Holographic Worldview (my
>translation of the german title) was a real pleasure for me. But Ken did
>not apply Occam's Razor. He just stated that applying quantum physics to
>human spirit is a categorical error. The holonic structure and processes
>ARE the same.
Occam's razor teaches: do not multiply entities unnecessarily. That is,
shave away all concepts that add nothing to understanding, or that seem to
explain while actually doing nothing but weaving webs of language.
I look at a troubled university department, for example, trying to find
the source of the troubles. Someone says that the trouble can be located
with the help of the concept of "entropy." I try to use the concept to
help with the department, and find that it not only does not explain
anything, but it creates new complexities: now I am trying to find and
measure something called "entropy," as well as find the troubles.
So: I use Occam's razor, shave away "entropy," and find I have removed
nothing useful, but have actually gotten rid of an unnecessary linguistic
burden.
Now, what is your warrant, your evidence for asserting that the "holonic
structures" of the "spirit" and "quantum physics" are the same?
Can you cite a single scientist of repute that supports such a contention?
Even F. Capra, who seemed to be saying that, has recanted.
Einstein, Schrodinger--the geniuses--called such thinking "sinister",
Winfried. Not Ken Wilber: Einstein.
To the extent that I follow you, your thinking goes something like this:
"Spirit" exists. Since it exists, it has form and content, and like all
substances that exist, it has the "holonic structures" of all other
existents, and these are the structures of "quantum phhysics."
And thus "spirit," and by extrapolation the "spirit" of a "learning
organiztion," has form and content, and conforms to the laws of physics,
including the laws of thermodynamics...like "entropy."
I don't know if I have accurately repeated the belief structure you and At
share, but whether or not I have it indeed a serious error that begins
with the wanting to believe that the laws of physics somehow apply to
working of the human mind, and spirt, and forms of organization.
One problem is this, Winfried.
In matters of faith, we do not insist on empirical evidence: we do not ask
for proof that God exists, or that the resurrection took place.
In matters of science, we do.
Is your belief that the "holonic structures" are same in physics and
spirit science or faith?
If you say that you are speaking as a scientist, we have a right to ask
you for proof, for evidence.
If you are not speaking as a scientist, but as a believer, that is of
course another matter.
Be well.
Steve
--Steve Eskow <dreskow@corp.webb.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>