Dear Organlearners,
Steve Eskow <dreskow@corp.webb.net> writes:
>Winfried,
>
>Because you are so open to challenge and disagreement, I
>want your help in dealing with my belief that the importation
>of concepts and "laws" from physics into the realm of the
>human and the institutions humans have created to organize
>their lives is a serious error, and one that obscures and
>confuses rather than illuminates.
Greetings all fellow learners,
This reply will be very long because it will involve a lot of
learning.
I am not going to answer for Winfried. However, Steve makes
some very important points in his email from which we may
learn many things. Overall I sense the following:-
"If a person speaks in a tongue which cannot be laid out,
then it is better for that person to shut up so as not to
confuse other people".
Thus I will try to focus in my comments on "entropy PRODUCTION"
so as to help laying out a picture which otherwise may never get
done.
Furthermore, Steve writes on "entropy" (note the abscence of
the "PRODUCTION"): "I get no new insights, no help in forwarding
our work." Thus it will make me sad should these comments on
"entropy PRODUCTION" remain a closed book to Steve.
Metaphorically speaking, I can bring him to the water, but I
cannot make him drink. I can tell him that the journey ahead will
have some thirsty stretches for all of us, but I cannot make him
understand it.
I am deeply aware that it is a closed book to the far majority of
you fellow learners also. Let us assume that roughly twenty out
of two thousand of you understand more or less the viewpoint
from "entropy PRODUCTION". Then it means that 99% of you
fellow learners do not understand this viewpoint. So what is the
sense in me bringing you to this water when I cannot make your
drink or make you understand why you ought to drink yourselves?
On the one hand, all of you are learners. Thus all of you have the
POTENTIAL to learn explicitly things which you now know at
most tacitly through experience. Thus the figure of 99% may
decrease as a result of such learning. Each of you may do it
to a large extend alone as I had to do it, crossing pristine places
in the mind. But we may also tell each other about such places
while crossing them together. In that case comments from the
viewpoint of "entropy PRODUCTION" may be helpful to the
edification of all of us.
On the other hand, "entropy PRODUCTION" happens everywhere
in the universe. It is the principal way in which the universe
unlocks its potential future. However, the more the "entropy
PRODUCTION" decreases, the more the future will stay the
same as the present. Since "entropy PRODUCTION" will
happen in any dialogue and even when the very topic is "entropy
PRODUCTION", any reduction of discussions on this very topic
will reduce the unlocking of the future from the present. In other
words, the less I say on "entropy PRODUCTION", the less we
all will know about the future.
Can we learn anything from Steve's acknowledgement to
Winfried that he is "open to challenge and disagreement" by
exploring specifically the role of "entropy PRODUCTION" in it?
Yes -- challenges and disagreements involve DIFFERENCES in
opinion.
Now, some differences are closely tied with "entropy
PRODUCTION". Which differences? Those differences in
intensive properties. What properties are intensive? All systems
have measureable properties. When a system gets gradually
bigger or smaller, those measureable properties which stay
the same are intensive while those which get gradually bigger
or smaller like the system does, are extensive. As we learn
gradually, our opinions seldom change likewise. They stay more
or less the same for long stretches of learning. But at certain
stages they suddenly change drastically, far more than our
gradual learning. This behaviour (resistence to change modified
with excesive changes) qualifies opinions as intensive properties
Hence differences in opinion are examples of differences in
intensive properties.
Difference in intensive properties are known as entropic forces.
Do they have any use? Every entropic force, when accompanied
by its corresponding entropic flux, will produce entropy. We can
think of such a force to which its corrsponding flux is responding
as an OPEN force. So what is useful in the newly produced
entropy? This extra entropy will firstly always be manifested as
chaos before it perhaps secondly can be manifested as order
also. Many people would like some more order in their lives, but
few want the preceding chaos or realise that it is necessary.
In the case of differences of opinion as the entropic force, we
may think of the flow of information on mental models as the
corresponding flux. This means that the exchange of information
on mental models as a result of differences in opinion is going
to produce much chaos (confusion) among all fellow learners
before it is going to produce order (understanding) among some
fellow learners. Those who try to avoid chaos but wish for more
order will often get infuriated when "differences in opinion on
viewpoints" and "flow of information on mental models" begin to
operate as an entropic force-flux pair. Why?
It is because their learning has to move from near equilibrium
towards the edge of chaos. Digestive learning (and rote learning
as a poor approximation of it) happens cose to equilibrium. But
at the edge of chaos they will need emergent learning. In it the
seven essentialities of creativity play a paramount role. One of
them is wholeness -- all things are connected into one reality.
How much do the educational institutions care for wholeness
when they cut reality into many unconnected pieces? Should
these educational institutions care very little about these seven
essentialities they cannot promote emergent learning, nor
prepare the learner for it. Since it is common among animals to
fear the unknown and thus often respond aggresively and
furiously to such unknowns or fleeing from them, these
unprepared learners will act similarly when confronted with
emergent learning. Just put the concept of "emergent learning"
before anyone (teacher/lecturer and pupil/student alike) in the
traditional educational system and see how they react to it.
Then explain it to them and observe again how they react to it.
Steve writes that the "importation of concepts" from one system
(to which physics belongs) into another system (the realm of the
human) is a "serious error" which "obscures and confuses rather
than illuminates". There is tacit truth in what Steve is
articulating. Can something, produced in one system, become
dangerous for another system when imported to that system?
Yes, think of carbon dioxide produced in our electricity generators
fueled by fossil fuels. When released into the atmoshere of living
organisms, it causes the so-called "green house effect". The
production of carbon dioxide is but a tiny facet in the production
of entropy in all its manifestations. Let us focus just on the
entropy production and not also on its manifestions.
When a system produces its own entropy by entropic force-flux
pairs, it can only go as far as its development in the seven
essentialities (liveness, sureness, wholeness, fruitfulness,
spareness, otherness and openness) allows it to go. As result
of increasing the "entropy PRODUCTION", the system may
proceed to the very edge of chaos. One way to describe this
chaos in the mind is to use words like "obscure" and "confuse".
It is at the edge of this chaos where the order of the system
will change through a bifurcation.
Bifurcation means that the system may emerge constructively
into a higher order or immerge destructiveley into a lower order.
The more mature the seven essentialities, the easier the
system will get to the edge of chaos. Furthermore, here at the
edge, the more mature the seven essentialities, the more the
constructive emergences rather than the destructive
immergences. In the case of "chaos of the mind", a typical
constructive emergence will be a "new insight".
The system will not be able to get SELF by its own "entropy
PRODUCTION" to the edge of chaos when one or more of the
seven essentialiites are seriously impaired. However, the
system may be forced to the edge of chaos by a sufficient
deluge of entropy fast enough from the surroundings where it
is produced. Thus the system will again have to bifurcate.
Since one or more of the seven essentialities in the system
have been impaired, the system will immerge destructively
rather than emerge constructively. In other words, the mind
will fail to shift to new insights, but rather produce fallacies
even worse than those already flying around.
When we exlude any topic which assist others in learning
from our dialogue of learning because it is not useful to
ourselves, we force any "entropy PRODUCTION" on such a
topic OUTSIDE our own "useful" system. But others to which
such an excluded topic is dear, will get involved with it come
hell or highwater. Thus they will produce entropy on the ouside
of our own "useful" system. The entropy so produced by these
learners outside our own learning system will flood our system
at the slightest opening up of our own system to accomodate
any new topic other than those which we have banned. In other
words, we initiated the flood of entropy production by our own
invoking of exclusivity. Thus we will have engineered our own
destructive immergences by excluding ourselves from certain
learnings. In other words, the price to pay for making ignorance
a virtue is self-destruction.
Steve continues with:
>As support I begin with the work of one the thought leaders
>of the mystical and the religious in the US, Ken Wilber, who
>says this of such movements of physics into such realms
>as creativity and religion:
>
>"This is a colossal error. Physics is a limited, finite, relative,
>and partical endeavor, dealing with a very limited aspect of
>reality. It does NOT, for example, deal with biological,
>psychological, economic, literary, or historical truths..."
How do we distinguish right from wrong in any issue? To mention
the opinion of a "thought leader" like Wilbur is but one of
many different ways to do so. Let us again see if we can learn
anything from "entropy PRODUCTION". The seven essentialities
of creativity are, strangely enough, also necessary to promote
"entropy PRODUCTION". But they can also be used to
distinguish seven basic ways (neglecting combinations of them)
to categorise between right and wrong. Let us discuss these
ways.
Liveness. When we speak on issues, we speak symbolically
by using symbols such tokens, icons and metaphors. All these
symbols are entological of nature, i.e, they are "beings". To
make them representative, we have to complement them with
actions, i.e "becomings". Thus words with deads become alive
so as to help us discerning between right and wrong. We need
not follow the advice of people saying one thing, but persistently
doing the opposite thing.
Sureness. We can make use of tools like empirics, statistics
(including voting in a democracy), logic and ethics. These tools
have been designed to increase our sureness. Each of these
tools, although not infallible, has a domain in which it is useful.
We have to improve continously on these tools and our ability
to use them.
Wholeness. In order to reflect how all thinks link together, we
make use of disciplines such as philosophy and systems
thinking. In these disciplines we try to reflect on all kinds of
mental models so that we do not use merely our own to judge
between right and wrong. To understand any thing through learning
is to place that thing in the web of reality. Such understanding is
much more valuable than judgement based on a restricted viewpoint.
Fruitfulness. Our formal explications emerge from our experiences
which feed our intuition (tacit knowledge). Common experiences
thus leads to much implicate common sense of which we have
expressed only a tiny bit formally. When we discuss the right or
wrong of any issue formally, we also have to make sure that it
corresponds with our common sense. Obviously, novel experiences
lead to knowledge which may transcend common sense. Thus we
cannot make an unerring appeal to common sense.
Spareness. Not all of us can know everything on anything. Thus
we have to observe what authorities who have studied the issue
have to say on it. But we know that authorities may be wrong.
They are usually wrong when they have not been aware of their
own limitations. Authorities may also have different viewpoints
on the same thing. This does not necessarily mean that one
is right and all the rest are wrong.
Otherness. Here we create a picture as diverse as possible to
remind us of things which we may have forgotten or considered
as unimportant. Again we have several tools available to do this
like NLP and Lateral Thinking. Debono has designed the "six
thinking hats" as a special technique based on lateral thinking
to ensure a mature rendering of diversity before our judgement
snips it prematurely.
Openness. After employing many ways to distinguish between
right and wrong, we may believe that we finally have arrived at
a just conclusion. However, we have still one last test to perform
by opening outselves up. We have to make the issue a part of
ourselves like getting in the shoes of the other person or assume
that we also are capable of clinging to that wrongs. To do so,
requires love without any requirements.
Steve cited an authority to distinguish between right and wrong.
I have discussed the seven basic ways to do so based on the
seven essentialities. It almost seems as if I have forgotten that
the topic is on "entropy" and that I wish to draw your attention
to "entropy PRODUCTION". Such a perception is plausible. It
is difficult to see how the seven essentialities contribute to
"entropy" (as state quantity or "being"), although it can be done.
However, each of these seven essentialities plays a vital role in
"PRODUCING entropy" (as process or "becoming"). To see
how, we have to go into the very guts of the formula for "entropy
PRODUCTION". It can be done, but then you will to think in ways
never done before, reaching into depths which may make you
numb.
>If Wilber is correct--and I , for one, have no doubt that
>he is--"entropy" and other concepts imported from physics
>and the other sciences can not deal with the psychology of
>creativity or the dynamics of human organizations, including
>learning organizations.
The opposite is also possible, namely importing psychological
and organisational concepts into physics and the other physical
sciences like chemistry, geology, biology and geography. There
is nothing wrong with it because we have to proceed from our
closest and oldest human experiences into the sciences
concerning the physical world. But when we do so without
qualifications such as observation, speculation and falsification,
we fall into the grave of anthropocentric thinking. By this we
place human perceptions on a pedestal to which the physical
world cannot make any appeal. Thus we destroy the very essence
of our five senses, namely to allow the physical world to make an
appeal to our consciousness through effective contact with our
sense organs.
Importing concepts from "physics and the other sciences" in the
"psychology of creativity or the dynamics of human organizations",
or doing vice versa, have to do with the interactions between the
physical world to which the brain belongs and the spiritual world
to which the mind belongs. In other words, what we have to
contemplate here, is how much does each world influence the
other word, if any. Let us again see what we can learn from
"entropy PRODUCTION".
On the one extreme these two worlds are completely
impermeable to each other. In other words, no one of them has
any influence on the other one. The one world is then often
believed to be actual and the other one virtual. But is this the
case? Do we not live in an era in which we have many physical
drugs acting on the physical brain which ultimately influence
the workings of the mind? On the other hand, what of
compounds such as fullerene, teflon or artifical hormones which
were originally imagined creatively?
On the other extreme these two worlds are completely
permeable to each other. Everything from the one world can
enter the other world and vice versa. Will the the fearful boogy
man of our imagination not materialise and wreck our physical
lives? Will material spiders of which so many of us are afraid of
not enter our dreams and so poison or devour our spirits?
In the case of completely impermeable worlds we may have
entropic forces, but no corresponding fluxes of any kind. In the
case of completely permeable worlds we may have entropic
fluxes, but no corresponding forces of any kind. Between these
two extremes we find many kinds of semipermeable interactions.
Resistance can be associated with each kind of semipermeability.
It is the ratio between an entropic force and its corresponding
entropic flux. This resistance is generally non-linear for every
entropic force-flux pair. Here may think of electronic components
of which only ohmic resistors have a linear relationship.
Let us now describe some examples of semipermeable boundaries
by which the one system (physical or spiritual) can influence the
other.
The boundary may be open to the flow (with a low, but non-zero
resistance) of some entities to the one side, but not the other
side. Here we may think of one way mirrors, osmotic membranes
and electronic diodes as examples.
The boundary may also be open to the flow of some entities to
both sides, often with some deformation associated with it. Here
we may think of frosted glass, sieves with pores greater than the
diameter of molecules and electric conductors.
As a last example we may think of borders open to the flow
of entities of some kind in one direction and to the flow of entities
of different kinds in the opposite direction.
To generate new examples of boundaries, we merely have to allow
regular transformations in the Onsager matrix of reciprocal
relationships between entropic foces and fluxes. There are many
kinds of regular transformations possible.
Although the description of all these semipermeable interactions
may sound like Zulu to you fellow learners, it is intended to tell
one thing. A complete impermeability or a one way semipermea=
bility (spiritual to physical but not physical to spiritual) are not
the only possible kinds of interactions between the physical and
spiritual worlds. There are definitely more than two cases to be
considered before we can make up our mind.
Most important of all, we have not yet given attention to the role
which content-form play in this interactions between the two
worlds. Should we neglect this role, we will continue groping in
the dark despite all the possibilities we try to contemplate. But
we begin to see the light when we struggle with questions such
as
Is the spiritual and physical world permeable to each others
content?
Is the spiritual and physical world permeable to each others
form?
Steve also writes:
>To illustrate, we might take any topic or theme discussed in
>this listserv, and ask if the concept of "entropy" helps us to
>illuminate, much less "measure" what is going on.
As I have noted in the beginning, about 99% of fellow learners
know very little, if anything, on "entropy PRODUCTION". Thus
there is no much difference between them and most scientists
of the the phsyical sciences who know something on "entropy"
but very little, if anything, on "entropy PRODUCTION". Why?
"A lack of holism" Smuts would have said. While busying
themselves with one discipline, they fail to observe how many
disciplines put together emerge into something more that their
sum. They know nothing of Prigogine's breathtaking work
(opening up irreversible thermodynamics) which was awarded
with the Nobel prize. For them irreversible thermodynamics
is just another one of many disciplines.
In other words, bring "entropy PRODUCTION" into the dialogue
of any topic will be like asking fellow learners to participate
fluently in Zulu, metaphorically speaking. They will not be able
to do so unless they learn how to communicate in Zulu. They
need at least one Zulu speaking person to help them expressing
themselves fluently in Zulu. So what I am really doing here, is
metaphorically to speak in English and Zulu, translating between
the two as our dialogue develops.
You fellow learners may ask what value is there in learning Zulu
so as to speak on a topic from a different language (i.e. viewpoint).
Although Zulu is the Banthu language (one of eleven) spoken
most by black people in South Africa, it is used seldom outside
the borders of South Africa. Likewise has the language of
"entropy PRODUCTION" been restricted to irreversible
thermodynamics. In it Prigogine has managed to show how
entropy (the arrow of time according to Eddington) is related to
time through "entropy PRODUCTION" (entropy dissipation). It
took him decades to understand how "entropy PRODUCTION"
drives the evolution of physical entities through time (See his
book "Order out of Chaos".)
Let us now go far beyond Prigogine and think of the evolution of
all things, phsyical and spiritual. Let me refomulate the question
by not using Zulu as metaphor, but English. What is the value
in learning English so as to speak on any topic. You will quickly
answer that it is not only a very expressive language, but also
that it is the most widely used lingua franca on the globe. We
use it to speak on all topics, physical and spiritual. But let us
now look at the evolution of English.
English is a language which has developed in England through
three distinctive phases. Only during the third phase did it
become a lingua franca. Even as such it remains to be a natural
language. What about technical (artificial) languages which we
also may use? As such none of them has yet (like English in
phase three) attained the status of a technical lingua franca.
How sure are we that none of these technical languages will
ever become a "lingua franca"? How sure are we, given the
possibility that such a "technical lingua franca" will emerge,
that "entropy" and "entropy PRODUCTION" will play only an
insignificant role in it?
Do we want to act the role of a prophet? If so, then we have
master the art of prophecy by beginning with our gift to
prophetise. So what is the art of prophecy? To articulate one's
tacit knowledge on "entropy PRODUCTION and its manifestations"
by some of its already existing manifestations for some other
future manifestations still to happen.
Furthermore, Steve writes:
>Take the discussion of "linear thinking," which by now has
>moved to attempts to mathematize thought (another possible
>intellectual mistake), distinctions between "form" and "content,"
>and so on.
Because mathematics is used so much in the physical sciences,
many people tend to think that mathematics itself is a physical
science. It is true that by restricting mathematics to describing
physical phenomena, much of its beauty gets lost. But to do so
does not mean that mathematics is a physical science.
Mathematics is rather the queen of the subjects in the spiritual
world. Creativity and logic play essential roles in it.
Many, many people struggle with mathematics because of how
it has been taught by rote learning, a kind of learning which
cares nothing for creativity, logic and the beautiful emergences
of form out of content. Many students who have a deep love for
what are studied in the physical sciences, had to give it up
because of the immense role which mathematics plays in it and
their seemingly zero talent for mathematics. Should those who
have mastered this "fearful master" not try to give fellow learners
a smell and taste of mathematics can be?
If the word "linear" in "linear thinking" does not refer to the
abstract concept of a "straight" stringing of thoughts, then what
does this "linear" refer to? Why have the word "linear" entered
the description of some kind of thinking as "linear thinking"?
Are we not confusing it with sequential thinking? How much
mathematics remain after I have translated some mathematical
properties of straight lines into descriptive phrases such as
"monotonous obsession with a pet topic" and "no dance to
changes in thinking"? What other non-mathematical concepts
can we use to describe linear thinking? Right brain thinking? Is
this not an importation of something from the physical sciences
(physiology).
>Does the idea of "entropy" help us to understand the nature of
>that discussion? Help us to "measure" the discussion? Help us
>to get to the roots of the differences of approach and opinion?
I have little hope for "entropy" itself, but much hope for "entropy
PRODUCTION". The difference is as great as standing next to a
lake ("entropy") or a rushing river ("entropy production") which
begins at a fountain and ends in the lake. The difference is as
great as kissing a corpse ("entropy") or a playing child
("entropy production") who may end up in physical death or even
worse, spiritual death. The difference is as great as citing a
declaration ("entropy") or pleading a prayer ("entropy production")
to deliver us from the bondage of claims. The difference is as
great as viewing a picture ("entropy") or a living through a movie
("entropy production") which links many pictures together.
If we are insensitive to the essentiality liveness, we will be
insensitive to the difference between "entropy" and "entropy
PRODUCTION".
We can definitely learn a lot from "entropy PRODUCTION" on
linear thinking if we are willing to learn about it like anything
else completely unknown to us, for example Zulu. By the way,
I have tried to avoid commenting on linear thinking from the
viewpoint of "entropy PRODUCTION". Using one thing (which
we know little off) to learn more about another thing (which we
want to know more about) is like trying to learn in a language
which we cannot speak.
By avoiding "entropy PRODUCTION" on linear thinking, it may
have appeared that "entropy PRODUCTION" has indeed very
little to say on linear thinking. A challenge to do so may seem
to be a good opportunity to kill two flies ("entropy PRODUCTION"
and "linear thinking") with one swipe. But the challence may
turn out to be bringing fire to dynamite of which the very explosion
depends an extremely rapid "entropy PRODUCTION". So let us
see what we can learn from "entropy PRODUCTION" on linear
thinking. Let us bring these two unkowns together.
"Entropy PRODUCTION" requires free energy to feed the
entropic force-flux pairs. With respect to the change in free energy,
we can think of two of three cases realted dierctly to linear
thinking.
The case /_\G>0:
"Entropy PRODUCTION" tells us that if the free energy G is
too low to produce entropy, then changes will not happen
spontaneously. If our free energy cannot decrease when learning
any topic, then we will not be able to learn that topic
spontaneously, even if it is the topic of "linear thinking. But
we can still be forced by external means to learn about it
through rote learning (memorisation and regurgitation) as is
now happening to such a large extend in our educational
institutions. But such rote learning will not last because the
system has not produced the entropy. As soon as the forcing
stops, the rote learning's outcomes immerge into trivialities.
Furthermore, in this state of immergence the rote learner will
find any learning other than rote learning also trivial from the
very viewpoint which he/she has based on these self-created
trivialities.
The case /_\=0:
"Entropy PRODUCTION" tells us that when we have very little
free energy available for any netto change, then such changes
will be very small as a result of very little "entropy PRODUCTION".
The system will act very close to equilibrium in a seemingly
reversible manner. Furthermore, since these changes are so
small, their higher order effects are orders smaller so that the
change is almost linear. (This can be shown mathematics by
means of a Taylor differential series where only a first order
change is significant.) In the limit, when the free energy cannot
change any more, we have no entropy PRODUCTION", no
changes, a fixed equilbrium and finally linearity reduced to a
mere point. Learning is a form of change. With very little free
energy ("guts") for learning, there is little confusion as a result
of "entropy PRODUCTION", little change to transcend this little
confusion, a little increase in knowledge in a linear manner and
an overall sense things staying the same -- equilibrium. With
zero free energy for learning, linear expertise will dwindel to a
mere point.
>Wilber demonstrates that all of our greates scientific minds
>deplored such attempts to use, say, quantum physics to support
>mystical and religious and other nonscientific aspects of human
>existence; Einstein called the attempt "reprehensible"; Schrodinger
>called it "sinister."
Einstein, Schroedinger and many other great scientists warned
against SUPERFICIAL extensions of laws and concepts of
one domain of science to another. None of them ever claimed that
scientific findings had nothing to say for the humanities or vice
versa. They also persistently warned against sweeping
generalisations since they each has experienced how difficult it
is to get rid of them even though these grand fallacies cannot be
sustained.
An interesting example is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (UP).
People claimed superficially that since this principle holds in
quantum mechanics, it holds in every other subject. In other
words, everything in reality is uncertain -- enter modernism.
However, the UP has much more in it than suggested by the word
uncertainty.
The UP says that when one quantity is measured and its value is
very certain, then there is one and only one other quantity of which
the value will be very uncertain despite all our measurements on
it. In other words, the UP applies only to complementary pairs of
quantities. The UP also says that as the mass (indicative of its
complexity) increases the uncertainty decreases inverse
proportionally.
In other words, the UP becomes most observeable in simple
systems. Despite the fact that uncertainty, complementarity and
complexity are woven into one web, people extended only the
uncertainty part of it, ignoring complementarity and complexity.
Warning against sweeping generalisations does not mean that
humans need no extraordinary, yet sound, generalistions.
Einstein spent a life-time in generalising his special theory of
relativity into a grand unified theory. Schroedinger spent a life-time
in generalising quantum mechanics so that it could also
accommodate simple organisms and not only the molecules in
them. Both, like many others, failed to repeat their initial success
in their follow-up generalisations. Why? Among other things, they
were not willing to make unfounded, sweeping generalisations so
as to contribute to a practice which they try to avoid. Furthermore,
they needed far more SOFT guidance from philosophy and
psychology than the little HARD evidence which they got.
Again we cam learn much from "entropy PRODUCTION". Making
generalisations is one of many ways of Digestor action close to
equilbrium. To pursue Digestor action ad infinitum is futile since it
has to be complemented by ordinate bifurcations at the edge of
chaos in order for evolution to proceed.
>Some of us learned about "Occam's Razor" in our introductory
>philosophy classes, and used the razor to slice away
>unnecessary--and unrewarding--concepts.
Steve did a very good thing to introduce a thinker of many
centuries ago (William Ockham, 14th century, scolastic
philosophy). Thus he helps us to broaden our perception of
thinking with respect to time so that we can become aware of
evolution in thinking. Occam, the "Invincible Doctor", used the
razor as metaphor to cut away unneccessary tailorings
(add-ons) in our concepts. The first person to use such a "razor"
effectively, but not describing it as Occam, was king Solomon
22 centuries earlier than Occam. Then followed Socrates 5
centuries later, surprising everyone with his deft in using it.
The evolutionary path takes us beyond Occam to Husserl 5
centuries later who excelled in using it, opening up the
discipline phenomenology.
How will we use the "razor"? Will we learn only from Occam?
Or will we also learn from many thinkers other like Solomon,
Socrates and Husserl. Three scientists from whom we can learn
much of the "practice of the razor" rather than its theory, are
L Pasteur, E Rutherford and GN Lewis. I urge you to read more
about the life and accomplishments of these two outstanding
persons to see what Occam's razor can do in the hands of a
deft and wise person.
A "practice of the razor" without a "theory of the razor" can be
very dangerous. If we had no compassion for apes, we could
give one of them a razor and observe the outcome. Fortunately,
but also sadly, we can like Solomon observe humans who will
behave like apes -- much practice, but little theory. Here are
few comments which will have to be reflected in any theory on
Occam's razor. We cannot use it to cut reality into a number
of isolated subjects. We cannot use it to create a less diverse
environment for subjects, thus destrying their fields. We cannot
use it to severe those connections which makes us aware of
severe problems . We cannot use it to hide our dispositions.
We cannot use it to seal our identity. Like firearms or barbed
wire, OCCAM'S RAZOR CAN NEVER MAKE THE WORLD OF
EACH OF US A SAFER PLACE.
But how much can we learn from "entropy PRODUCTION" on
Occam's razor. The manifestations of "entropy PRODUCTION"
has an innate dialectical feature. Close to equilibrium for low
production it leads to a prey-predator relationship -- some
crystals grow by feeding on other crystals. At the edge of chaos
it leads to bifurcations -- constructive or destructive outcomes.
In the case of a physical razor the macroscopic, mechanical
force exerted by the cutting edge is converted into microscopic
friction forces. The high "entropy PRODUCTION" of these forces
breaks intermolecular (Van Der Waals, Debye and Keesom)
forces so that the body fells macroscopically apart in two
pieces.
So what about the spiritual tool which Occam refered to as
a razor? It also severe any mental creation into parts by
entropy "PRODUCTION", now happening in the abstract world.
We can use the tool to severe any mental creation in smaller
pieces. Although we intend to use it to cut away superfluous
pieces, we may cut off essential things. Worst of all, we may
cut off the seven things essential to our creativity like liveness
suerness, wholeness, etc. For example, we may cut liveness
into two separate things which need not to be related
harmoniously, namely "being" and "becoming". We may end
up with ontology for being or ontogeny for becoming and even
be proud of our result. But what is pride when it towers over
the ashes of creativity?
Let us take notice of another philospher wo lived even a century
before William of Ockham, namely Roger Bacon. He insisted
that philosphy will only begin to advance in its physics (in those
days physics was still a discipline of philosophy) when
philosphers base their speculations on as perefect as possible
observations, using mathematics to express their speculations.
What peculiar insight this man had because only FOUR
centuries later Isaac Newton vindicated his insight. But since
philophers did not want to understand his insight (Bacon was
even jailed for it), physics began to move out of philosophy --
Occam's razor in practice
Again we can learn much from "entropy PRODUCTION" on
Bacon's insight. To observe is to allow a greater flow of
information than before, i.e, to increase an entropic flux. It is as
if we must point our ears to listen to other languages than
the ones which we know. It is like doing your best to listen
to Zulu when you do not know even a single word in it. Then,
Bacon says, give form to whatever the hearning of Zulu has
generated within you. I will give you the following example.
Please try to pronounce it aloud with as low tone in the back
of your throat as possible -- do it over and over again and listen
to your own sounds.
Uthando luyimbali yakho konke okuqhumayo
okungokwakho kuwukguguka kwesimo
okuyizimpande zakho --- Ngiyanithanda nonke.
If you do it correctly, the first part will sound like the distant
thunder of a storm rolling over you. The secon part will sound
like a mother calling her children into the house. What does
this expression in Zulu mean?
Love is the flower of all emergences of which
entropy production is its roots --- I love you all.
Steve finally writes:
>When I look at this discussion, or what goes on in any of the
>organizations I belong to through the lens of "entropy" I get
>no new insights, no help in forwarding our work.
>
>What would happen if we merely used Occam's razor to get
>rid of "entropy" in our discussions of human creativity and
>organizational life together?
I am not the only one who writes on the role of "entropy
PRODUCTION" in the world which humans have created for
themselves. But perhaps I have written more on this role than
all other people put together. (Note, I exclude the nature here
from culture. My contribution thirty years ago to the
self-organising role of "entropy PRODUCTION" in soils is but
a drop in the bucket.) Thus it is easy to picture that world
without "entropy PRODUCTION". It is 99.99% of the world as
it now is. I am not ignorant as to how many people I bring to
the water and how many of them actually drink from it. So
what will happen if we use Occam's razor to get rid of
"entropy PRODUCTION" in the world which humans have
created for themselves? That world will go on very, very much
like it is now doing.
Most of my contributions have been to this listserver because
of four things -- its well ordered archives, its open dialogues,
its spirit of learning and its metanoia. The rest of my
contributions have been to listservers on complexity, creativity
and languages, but very little has been written there which I
have not written about here also. Is it probable that Occam's
razor will be applied to this list? Well, I live in South Africa
where death can struck very easily. Like anybody else I
can also have mutated genes which my immunological system
cannot track down and destroy. Hence this contribution may
easily be one my last ones. As for the previous ones, Rick will
have to delete them. So what will happen is Occam's razor is
applied to this list?
Who will still write on "entropy PRODUCTION" and how it
relates to entire reality of Creator and Creation? Let me paint
a bleak picture. "Entropy PRODUCTION" has a dynamical
or phsyiological side to it concerning its contents and a
mechanical or morphological side to it concerning its form.
One seventh of its form concerns wholeness. Another
South African, Jan Christian Smuts, acquired incredible
insights on wholeness. He created the term "holism" for it
and published his book "Holism and Evolution" in 1926. After
having studied it, Einstein (special realtivity 1900, general
relativity 1916) said that two scientists of this century and one
from the previous centuries will shape this and the next
centuries: Darwin, Smuts and himself. Jan Smuts was
honoured all over the world with 27 Doctorate degrees for
this work.
Perhaps Einstein was too zealous for we also have to think
about Planck, Gibbs and Prigogine. But let us think about
Smuts. What do you know about him? Six weeks ago I
gave a lecture to some fifty South African students produced
by the mill of South African education. Every one of them knew
about Einstein and that he discovered that mass has energy.
A few knew what holism meant. A few others knew that Jan
Smuts was the former name of the Johannesburg airport. No
one knew that Jan Smuts was a premier of South Africa as
well as the creator of "holism". No one knew that he offered
wholeness as the power behind evolution in the physical and
spiritual worlds.
There is much money to make out of celebrities. People do
it every where, even in the world of management. Einstein
is a celebrity, but Smuts not. Nelson Mandella is a celebrity
also. Sometimes a few people contemplate in sober moments
who or what was responsible for the miraculous transformation
of South Africa out of apartheid into a multicultural democracy.
Others wonder why South Africans cannot keep up with the
good work when thinking of the present explosion in crime,
violence and corruption. Exlore the life and legacy of Jan Smuts
and you will get new insights into the many South African
mysteries. Make him your celebrity and you will have more than
enough to handle.
But what will happen to this list and fellow learners when
applying Occam's razor on it to cut out "entropy PRODUCTION"
as something irrelevant? Only some of the few who have tasted
the water will want to drink it again. Only for them life and its
changes will change in a unique dance -- the dance of the
desert. I have tried to bring you to some water with the name
"entropy PRODUCTION" on it, but I cannot make you go there
and even less make you drink that water. I also will not do it.
But I do have a suggestion. Begin walking yourself a spiritual
desert, becoming thirsty yourself and then discovering water
to drink from yourself. There is little change for that water to
have the name "entropy PRODUCTION". But it will definitely
be possible to give that water a well descriptive name. Do not
stay with it too long because it may dry up when you are
least prepared for it.
I have to end. Before I do so, I have to warn against reading
this contribution in a linear fashion, thinking that since I have
focussed on what we can learn from "entropy PRODUCTION",
I am monotonously obsessed with it. My shouting of the
word "production" in "entropy PRODUCTION" may have helped.
But I have shouted it so as to help you to see more than the
"entropy" which Steve often uses.
Jesus said that He is the water and that who ever drinks from
Him will never become thirsty again. I wish there is a forum
where I could tell how much I have learnt of "entropy
PRODUCTION" from Jesus -- and of all the other prophets
of the Bible.
But then, we have linear thinkers all around us, trying to box
us in with straight lines (three for a triangle, four for a rectangle,
etc.) As a teacher it is most important to me guide people
how to free themselves forever from the regular boxes in which
other people try to put them, and often succeed with. Since
few people are able to live in desert, you will not find any fences
there to box you in. The only thing which does force a boundary
on the desert, is civilisation. However, the desert determines
this boundary to be like fractals rather than civilisation which
would like to have it linear.
Perhaps you will find new life by beginning to explore what
seems to be a wasteland with fractal borders to so many
others. I have found in some wasteland the "tree of emergences"
with entropy production as its roots, creativity its stem, learning
its branches, believing-hoping-expecting its leaves and love its
flowers. I do not expect you to find the same tree because a
wasteland has not any defined paths to follow. Every path leads
to different kinds of extraodinary life. Sometime, when I want to
revisit the same plant discovered previously, I do get lost. But
eventually I find it again with a little clear thinking while keeping
my fear under control.
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>