Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
>As long as I have the guts to do it, I will.
>
>What really puzzles me is, whether you have the guts to
>understand. Because if not, I better keep my mouth closed.
>
>When you say:
>
>>Thank you for contributing to our learning here.
>
>you nourish my hope that I add to your guts indeed and don't
>drain (intimidate) them. And that is really good to hear.
>
>(At, do you expect more of an answer to your "Guts? LO23049"?)
Greetings Winfried,
No, your answer is sufficient, thanks to Leo's contribution in "Guts?
LO23157".
You and Leo make a wonderful team. You two also work beautifully in a
complementary manner! (I will get comment on this later on.)
Furthermore, you two had the guts to respond to "Guts? LO23049". By
making use of that guts, you both have succeeded in creating entropy in
the minds of fellow learners. They will not be aware of this entropy
production, but they will certainly be aware of its first manifestation.
What is this first manifestation? Chaos - confusion - perplexion -
questions - ....
One of the points I often stress is one which Prigogine merely states as a
matter of fact -- a self-organising system has to produce its entropy
self. The reason is that I am much more sensitive to the construtive or
destructive outcomes of entropy production from close to equilibrium all
the way to the edge of chaos. Why? Because having discovered the seven
essentialities myself I have the insight how they determine the
constructive or destructive nature of these outcomes.
Why do I make this point? Both you and Leo have shown that you have
produced entropy yourself by using your own guts. You have shown it in
some earlier contribution, but my mind fails to remember which one. Leo
did a remarkable job of showing it specifically in Guts? LO23157. He even
distorted the Gibbs equation simplified by Helmholz as F = E - TS into E =
TS, forgetting about F or making it zero for all times, using U rather E
(which the Europeans are very fond of doing).
There will certainly be some other fellow learners who have also produced
such entropy themselves because they themselves had the guts to take up my
challence "Guts? LO23049". They are the ones who will eventually also
benefit by the learning which will emerge from such entropy production.
How? The mental chaos which they have worked upon themselves will be
followed by the second manifestation of the entropy which they have
produced. What will this second manifestation be? Order -- creating the
answer to the challenge in "Guts? LO23049" -- getting insight as to how
the dialogue on "Guts? LO23049" is evolving.
But what about the other fellow learners? What about those who avoid
reading the contributions on the topics "Guts?" and "Entropy"? Why are
they doing it? Are they not avoiding them being flooded by entropy
produced outside themselves? Are they not avoiding the first and automatic
manifestation of that produced entropy into chaos? Are they not aware how
that entropy and thus its chaos have a destructive rather than a
constructive outcome on them? Why? Do they not impair at least one of the
seven essentialities to avoid that deluge of entropy? Which essentiality?
Liveness - suppressing their becoming? Sureness - relying on their past
identity? Wholeness - not participating in the dialogue? Fruitfulness --
prevent making effective contact? Spareness -- rather doing urgent tasks?
Otherness -- making entropy too different? Openness -- guts is guts and
nothing else?
My questioning in the previous paragraph is on negative things so that we
may easily conclude that they are acting wrong. So let me ask? Do they
act wrongly? No. Every self-organising has to protect itself from deluge
of entropy from the outside where it has been produced. For example, when
a building is on fire, ordinary people will avoid going into it. When a
fireman goes into it, he wears a protective suit. Not all of us can be
fireman.
But sometimes so many buildings catch fire that there are
not enough firemen to do the job. Sometimes a building catch
fire with no fireman close by to rush to it and do the job.
Sometimes the ordinary person have to open him/herself up
to this deluge of entropy. This requires bravery -- guts! So
where does the wrong gets into the picture? When we stand
far away form a burning building, thinking
* it is foolish to make even the smallest fire
* it is foolish to construct buildings which may catch fire
* it is foolish to go near the buiding on fire
* it is foolish not ever avoiding such buildings on fire
* people who get themselves caught up in buildings on fire
are fools
* firemen who gets paid to fight the fire are fools
* ordinary who go into buildings on fire for whatever reasons
are fools
* reasons such as bravery and love are the values of fools
* I love myself and all my valuable assets too much to be
drawn into anything on fire.
I have written that the complementary team which you and Leo form is
beautiful. Why beautiful? Because you afford me to illustrate once again
complementarity. What comple= mentarity? Implicate vs explicit, (tacit vs
articulate). That complementarity which is already working on the level of
atoms and which is known as the "measurement problem" of quantum
mechanics. It is not really a problem so that a description without the
word "problem" in it would be "advanced reduction of the wave packet by
explication".
Leo gave in "Guts? LO23157" the explicit formulation of what it
is to have guts to do something. He did it by writing the formal
expression
/_\G << 0
In fact, creative as he is, he stressed that the spiritual
"free energy" G has to decrease by writing "<<" rather
than merely "<" (which means "is maller than"). It is almost
as if jhe is trying to say that /_\G (the change in free enegy)
"must be very smaller than" zero. (Any change smaller than
zero is a decrease.)
Terrible is it not? Using such maths without any shame, making
all the fellow learners who fear maths to flee as far away as they
can. Flee from what? The "advanced reduction of the wave packet"
which is symbolised by
/_\G << 0
Should Leo not get his mind read for doing such a foolish thing?
No, because he warns us right at the beginning with
"One has guts, if one is aware of one's vulnarability"
Sometimes we read a sentence of which its sheer wisdom we recognise
immediately. Sometimes we read a sentence which needs some contemplation
before we recognise the wisdom in it. Sometimes we read a sentence
expressing such wisdom that we cannot recognise any wisdom in it until we
have made a paradigm shift ourselves. Leo, your sentence is to me one of
the latter kind of sentences. How many fellow learners know that your
sentence involves four logical cases of which only one is not true? How
many know that it is false to infer that a person being aware of his/her
vulnerability has no guts?
Where Leo, apparently foolish, reduced the wave packet to the
explicit form
/_\G << 0
and hence doing what is for many fellow learners the "dirty deed",
Winfried wisely "shut his mouth" on such formalities. He did not
even gave his answer under the topic "Guts", but under the topic
"Entropy". Why? He gives the answer himself:- not to "drain" the
guts of you fellow learners.
Do you know what is the unprofitable task of a teacher? To coach learners
to "drain" their guts at a certain rate and to coach them to "fill" their
guts at faster rate so that their overall guts gradually increases. Since
there is no profit in this task, money can never make up for it. Thus the
teacher may find his/her overall guts becoming drained too. However, it
will not only happen when his/her guts is continually replenished by the
emergent of highest order depending on guts. I will not articulate its
formal name.
Since this ### is a bridge as I have argued in some earlier contributions,
it gets amplified by all people belonging to it. When all the members in
any organisation belong to this bridge, that organisation has finally
emerged into a LO.
PS Have you ever though how foolish it is to pay an organisation money to
become a LO?
PSS. Winfried, since you and Leo have both solved the challenge in "Guts?
LO23049", you will have to share the price. Fortunately I had the
foresight to double the prize should you do it on both levels.
Unfortunaly, I was foolish in thinking that one person would do both
things. I did not have the foresight that a team may come forward, the one
member doing the one thing and the other member doing the other thing. It
shows you that I lack faith in the power of a LO.
Thanks guys, you did a wonderful thing. One question. Did you team up
knowingly?
PSSS. What I love about this list which our host Rick maintains, is the
guts of everyone participating in its dialogues. I think that seeing all
these guts getting into action helps Rick to keep up with the hosting.
Thanks Rick.
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>