Dear Organlearners,
Brian Gordon <briangordon@livetolearn.com> writes:
>I think we (humans, especially the scientifically-minded community)
>spend an inordinate amount of time trying to categorize people
>(and everything else). In some cases it is useful, in that it helps
>find cures for diseases, that sort of thing, but I don't see the
>value
>in drawing a line between being and becoming - I see knowledge
>as a continuum, and any line as somebody's artificial definition of
>expertise.
>
>Comments?
Dear Brian,
Thank you for your input.
I am also sensitive to excessive classification -- making many boxes out
of what is but one class. It often happens in the world of biological
species. Consider, for example, people collecting animals (like tropical
fish) or plants (like orchids). They often collect species which belongs
to only one family. That family may have, say, 30 species distributed in,
say, 5 genera, ACCORDING to the biologist. To get hold of these 30
species, the collectors have to buy them. After they have bought all 30
species, there is nothing left to buy -- no more money to make out of the
collector.
So the trade begins to create "new species" out of specimens in a species,
looking for specimens differing sufficiently from the norm (average
specimens) to fool the buyer. Given enough fools, the trade may sell
another 100 pseudo-species. Interesting, there exist recognised "boxes" in
biological nomenclature (but not in the classification system itself) for
such exceptional specimens. They are called "forma" (to be used for
naturally produced specimens) or "cultivars" (to be used for artificially
propagated specimens). However, these "boxes" have no value for
biological classification, i.e scientific merits. Thus the buyers who go
for collecting what science has to offer, seldom buy these "boxes".
Consequently the trade seldom deal in these "boxes", but rather misuse the
class of species deliberately.
This increase of 30 species to 130 "species" often gives the unscrupulous
among the biologists the opportunity to further their own "trade"! They
obviously have to reduce the 130 "species" to a scientifically acceptable
number. Whenever they sunk a few "species", they earn themselves a
scientific paper. But when they reorganise the specimens into new species,
they earn themselves some more papers, money, authority, fame. To do this,
they have to twist ever so slightly what is scientifically acceptable. And
does the trade not love such "explorations" in science?
In the chaos resulting from enlarging 30 species to 130 "species" and
then reducing the number of "species" again, only those biologists who are
extensively and intensively acquainted WITH THE WHOLE FAMILY AS IT OCCURS
NATURALLY, are still able to cope with these complications in the chaos.
Sometimes they manage to press the immense work and experience into one
life time, bringing order by publishing a monograph on the family. Such
monographs are usually jewels among all kinds of scientific publications.
Reading them gives the same kind kind of exhiliration as reading a great
classical novel. It also gives one great insight in the thinking which
enabled this taxonomist to actualise the transformation from chaos into
order. Once again one becomes aware in such monographs of the seven lights
illuminating the art of taxonomy.
Is it possible that this increase in the number of boxes to serve the
greed of those who trade in these boxes go beyond biological
classification? Let me explain the question. You fellow learners will have
to answer it for yourself.
Assume that in some walk of human society several "theory+pratice"s have
evolved so that a client has to choose one out of many. The original
reasons for the development of several "theory+pratice"s are not important
here, although they are extremely important trying to understand
"one-to-many-mapping". What is now important is to observe that the
client knows very little, if anything, about any of these
"theory+pratice"s. Is it not in the trader's interest to sell as many
"theory+pratice"s as possible? Not all at once, but one by one? Even the
trader need to know only so little of each "theory+pratice" as to clinch a
seemingly respectable deal. What the trader also definitely needs, are
some producers of "theory+pratice" who has made it their trade to
proliferate the original diversity of "theory+pratice"'s add infinitum
once the ignorant clients begin to buy them.
What will become of such a trade (producing and selling) in
"one-to-many-mapping" when the buyers get wise to it? What strategies will
the trade create so as to keep buers ignorant to the proloferation of
"thery+practice"s? Will buyers become wise to the trade when they begin to
understand through learning how to distinguish between good-true or
bad-false "one-to-many-mapping"s? Or is it better for the buyers to
assume that all "one-to-many-mapping"s are bad-false?
What does this have to do with entropy production?
Well, let us go back to the physical world to see its role there.
Biological species which differ macroscopically from each other
sufficiently to satisfy the strictest taxonomist, also differ sufficiently
in their microscopical properties and in particular their DNA (genetical
makeup). It is now possible to show these difference in DNA by a
technology known as electrophoresis. In this techonology the entropy
production produced by an electric field (the entropic force) and the
migrating charged DNA fragments (the entropic flux) is used to unfold
these fragements into a spectrum called the "DNA fingerprint". In other
words, the techonology used to fingerprint different DNA fragments is
based on "entropy production".
But even bringing such differences in DNA about is the result of "entropy
production". The creation of DNA is, although very complex and involving
many steps, a chemical reaction. All subsequent changes in such DNA
patterns are also the result of chemical reactions. Now, EVERY chemical
reaction produces entropy. The EVERY means that there is not even one
exception. Perhaps one day I must show you fellow learners how to do the
calculations self so that you can check this statement yourself. In other
words, even the creating and modification of DNA cannot happen without
entropy production.
DNA is the physical "memory" or store of information. DNA works through
groups of DNA base pairs. (There are four base pairs possible.) These
groups of base pairs are traditionally known as genes. So when we shift
our attention from the physical to the spriritual world, it may be
beneficial to look for something akin to genes whenever the storage of
spiritual information (memory) comes to mind. Some authoers have even
given a name to these "genes of the mind", namely "memes"! Once we get a
notion of these "memes", we then have to focus on how they get created and
modified. With such focus, we then look for patterns (the entropic
force-flux pairs) in their creation and modification. The follows the
exciting explorations!
Barry, we communicate in English. It has, like all other natural language,
a basic categorization between nouns and verbs. Nouns are used to
articulate "beings" and verbs are used to articulate "becomings". We will
normally never use a verb for a noun or vice versa. It means that we
acknowledge the distinction between being and becoming.
My own mother tongue Afrikaans is rather unique. It is one of the
youngest, if not the youngest, languages in the world. It has emerged in
a country which is extremely diverse in both nature and culture to enable
its speakers articulating their tacit knowledge rooted in an extreme
diversity of experiences. There are some language novelties in Afrikaans
which often drive conformist linguists up the wall. One of them is to use
verbs for nouns and nouns for verbs to articulate tacit thoughts which go
very deep and wide.
Here is an example.
"Jou" (your) "praat" (speak) "maak" (makes) "seer" (sore).
In English the closest we can get to it is "Your speaking
hurts". The "praat" (speak) is in this sentence is the infinitive
form of the verb. The sentence "Jou praat maak seer"
(pronoun verb verb adverb) expresses intense feeling in addition
to the pure fact which the sentence "Jou gepratery maak seer"
(pronoun noun verb adverb) will articulate. The "gepratery"
(speach, talking) in the last sentence is a noun.
In other words, what happens in many of these linguistic novelties of
Afrikaans is that conventional orders are inverted (not destroyed or
denied) so as to assist the listener with its entropy production to focus
on the deeper meaning emerging from the syntaxis. I am always afraid of
using such novelties among English speaking people because for them it
simply does not work. But for me it is pure joy to listen to people
dancing in "mitsein" with Afrikaans in this manner. Eventually, when the
mood ("mitsein") comes over me ("dassein"), I will begin to dance self
with my mother tongue.
There was a time in organic chemistry when people had to work with beings
(reactants) on the left side of a chemical equation and beings (products)
on the right side of the equation. Every equation had to be memorised. To
aid this memery, an elaborate classification scheme (involving the
so-called functional groups) evolved. But every class (taxon) in this
cheme had its exceptions. Eventually the exceptions became too much to be
memorised in addition to the complex classification.
Then a certain Peter Sykes introduced the concept of "reaction mechanism"
to give a beautiful insight into the elaborate classification scheme as
well as its exceptions. In other words, whereas previous perceptions of
the chemical reaction were based only on being (compounds), he showed how
to uncover information from the chemical reaction to perceive becoming
(mechanisms) also. This very "being-becoming" insight was needed to send
the then creeping molecular biochemistry finally soaring into the sky.
Chemists would have needed pure luck to synthesize a compound like ATZ (in
the treatment of HIV-AIDS) should they were ignorant to this
categorisation.
Barry, you write "I don't see the value in drawing a line between being
and becoming". That I accept as a fact. I also know that by describing
examples (Afrikaans, reaction mechanisms) I may have failed in helping you
to create value so that you can see it. It will be the case when these
examples cannot connect effectively to your own experiences. The next may
sound like patronising, but is for me only factual.
Only you know your own experiences, except when you have articulated some
of them to others. So the person who primarily have to create (add) such
value on your experiences by using becoming-being, is nobody else than you
yourself. Whether you will do it or not, is your own choice by which you
will have to live or die. I am willing to persuade and help as far as I
can for you to create such value and then see it, but my creating and
seeing cannot ever be yours. I cannot indefinitely extend my persuation
and help.
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>