Dear Organlearners,
Richard Karash <Richard@Karash.com> writes:
>I think negation has the effect of suppression and that this is
>not helpful to progress.
>
>Now, if you disagree with something I say, even if you can't
>explain why, I'd rather know this than have you remain silent.
>This might be a helpful use of negation.
>
>But, I think repeated negation will suppress. And, wherever
>possible, putting forward an alternative is more effective than
>pure negation.
Dear Rick,
I find the evolution of your thinking exciting.
In the first paragraph you say that negation suppress -- the "dassein" (it
be) kind of thinking. Your proposition:
negation suppress
In the second paragraph you switch over to the "mitsein" (together be)
thinking. The negation of one "dassein" and the negation of another
"dassein" may not be the same negation.
In the third paragraph you show how your "mitsein" thinking modifies your
"dassein". Your modified proposition:
repeated negation suppress
I will try to contruct your modified proposition with a truth table.
I will indentify the proposition by the abbreviation by "prop". Here
are a few examples of propositions:
the rock has mass
the dog has seven legs
the human think
to learn is to memorise
negation suppress
I will identify the negation of the proposition "prop" by "NOT prop" and
its double (once repeated) negation by "NOT NOT prop", etc. Should "prop"
be "the dog has six legs", then "NOT prop" will be the expression "NOT the
dog has six legs", or in better English "the dog has not six legs".
Let us all make two very important assumptions.
(1) There are only two values for truth, namely either TRUE or FALSE.
Both together, indicated as TRUE+FALSE, is not a truthvalue.
Neither is not even one of them, indicated as TRUE-FALSE, a
truth value.
(2) Whatever proposition we consider, such a proposition "prop"
can have either the truthvalue TRUE or the truthvalue FALSE.
These assumption are essential to construct the following truth table:
(1) (2) (3) (4)
prop NOT prop NOT NOT prop NOT NOT NOT prop
TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE
FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE
The table work like this. Say "prop" is "the rock has mass" We all
(hopefully) agree that "the rock has mass" is TRUE. Thus we are now in
the top row of truthvalues at column (1). The negation "NOT prop" or "the
rock has not mass" which is FALSE brings us to the column (2) in the top
row. The double negation "NOT NOT prop" or "its not that the rock has not
mass" which is again TRUE brings us to column (3) of the top row.
On the other hand, consider the "prop" given by "the dog has seven legs".
We all (hopefully) agree that "the dog has seven legs" is FALSE. Thus we
are now in the bottom row of truthvalues at column (1). The negation "NOT
prop" or "the dog has not seven legs" is TRUE -- the bottom row, column
(2). The rest of the argumentation is as previously.
When person A makes a proposition "prop", we are in column (1) in either
the top row or the bottom row. When person B disagree and thus negates
that proposition to "NOT prop", we are in column (2). When A disagree with
B and thus negates what B had to propose into "NOT NOT prop", we are in
column (3). When B again disagree with what A insisted on with "NOT NOT
NOT prop" we are in column (4).
What is happening here with repeating the negation? Person A jumps from
column (1) to (3) to (5) to ........ while person B jumps from column (2)
to (4) to (6) ...... The uneven numbered columns (1), (3), (5) ... along
which A jumps, have exactly the same "truth profile". The even numbered
columns (2), (4), (6) ... along which B jumps, have exactly the same
"truth profile". The "truth profile" for A is exactly the opposite of the
"truth profile" for B. The "truth profiles" of A and B is disjunct forever
is each keep on by merely negating what the other have said. They indeed
have progress since they jump columns form left to right while skipping
one column in each jump. But this progress has no other change than
itself. This is another example of linear thinking.
How can we escape this pattern of linear thinking?
It is impossible to escape it with analytical or destructive thinking so
typical of debates. Analytical and destructive leads to complex
propositions eventually being fragmented into simple (simplistic,
singular) propositions. Each of these simple propositions will behave
exactly as in the table indicated above.
It is possible to escape the pattern with constructive thinking.
But constructive thinking is not simplistic thinking. I will demonstrate
it by merely asking you fellow learners to construct a way how to escape
the pattern of linear thinking illustrated in the table above. Should
Rick get four different constructive ways in less than a week, then I will
negate my proposition with "constructive thinking is indeed simplistic
thinking".
>As I mention in another message today, I'm quite sure that
>entropy and entropy production are human constructs created to
>explain the world. There has been convergence around these
>concepts. They are reliable and effective for physical phenomena.
>At de Lange is proposing their applicability in other domains. I
>think
>it's at least a stimulating notion, even if there has not yet been
>enough convergence to call these "accepted scientific theories"
>in these new domains.
Rick, I have taken effort to show in the Primer on Entropy
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0265.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0272.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0273.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0304.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0334.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0335.html
how many people contributed to the construction of
the concepts "entropy" and "entropy production".
But I am doing on this list (and not in the Primer) something more that
"proposing their applicability in other domains." I am trying to show (and
not merely to propose) how "entropy production" is an "Ariadne thread"
(string) which goes wherever our thoughts go. It is a thread weaved
through the entire fabrique of reality.
No, this is a too static description. Let me articulate it dynamically.
Is "entropy production" not one of the threads which God uses to weave the
fabrique of His Creation from second to second? Are our thoughts and the
rest of our spirits part of God's Creation? Is love not another thread
which God uses?
A strange thing about the thread used in any fabrique is that it never
occurs linear in that fabrique.
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>