Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> ends his contribution
with:
>Now I have to catch my train home for a weekend with family. Aren't
>families the places to learn how wholeness and sureness can come
>together by means of fruitfullness? What a life!
Greetings Winfried,
Perhaps I am an addict. I came to my office to work through my mailbox the
last time before packing for my journey. You got me hooked once again ;-)
I hope my freind who will accompany me to the desert will forgive me my
indulgence.
Of your whole contribution I loved your concluding remark most. When we
endeavour for the emergence of organisations into LOs, our families are
the most obvious organisations to begin with. To let this happen, we must
commit ourselves to constructive creativity, avoiding destructive
creativity as far as possible. Thus we must be willing to explore the
seven essentialities as far as possible in family life. As you have wrote:
WHAT A LIFE!
You wrote:
>once again, I have difficulties in understanding your writing about the
>law of excluded middle (LEM).
refering to my:
>>Since from 1048-1994
>> apartheid = NOT wholeness
>>we have since 1994
>> NOT apartheid = NOT NOT wholeness
>>
>>The Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) says that
>> NOT NOT statement = statement
>>Thus we expect according to LEM that
>> NOT NOT wholeness = wholeness.
>>However, since 1994 South Aricans experience
>> NOT NOT wholeness IS NOT EQUAL TO wholeness.
>>In other words, to deny a denial will not always rectify a denial!
Yes, by trying to be brief I made it difficult for you. I wrote
>> apartheid = NOT wholeness
which is trash because of its brevity. The "apartheid" is not a statement
(a sentence proposing a truth value) and neither the "wholeness". I should
have written in clear sentences (SA meaning South Africa):
the (basic SA) law is apartheid = NOT wholeness is essential (to
SA)
or in shorter form
the law is apartheid = NOT wholeness is essential
By now denying both sides we get
NOT the law is apartheid = NOT NOT wholeness is essential
Now, according to LEM
NOT NOT wholeness is essential = wholeness is essential
South Africans are now experiencing that although wholeness is essential
(LEM applies), the wholeness remains shattered (impaired) even after the
denial of apartheid (NOT LEM applies). It means in practice that the
double denial does not ensure an immediate CONSTRUCTIVE outcome. It only
creates in theory the potential for a constructive outcome. The
actualisation of this potential is another story involving concepts like
"entropy production" and "free energy".
Thus we come to the very issue which the mathematician Lutzen Brouwer
objected to early this century. A double negation based on LEM has no
reliable truth value unless it can be confirmed by construction and
intuition. Brouwer's insight caused consternation among the mathemtaical
and logical fraternity. How dare he question LEM, perhaps the most
reliable of all their logical tools! How dare he consider contruction and
intuition more valuable than logical inferences!
So they isolated Brouwer as a persona non grata in the positivistic
tradition. Hence he had to follow a lonely path to substantiate his claim.
It took many years to do so, but eventually, after his death, it
culminated in the seventies into a revolution in mathematics.
Mathematical Category Theory emerged.
Winfried, you write:
>The problem is solved by noticing that
> blue bird = NOT black bird (apartheid = NOT wholeness)
>is wrong. NOT black bird means: ALL BUT black birds. Blue birds are
>only a subset of those 'all but black birds':
You are right. I love your clear explannation. But for the benefit of
fellow learners I wish to point out that you have moved into the higher
order of predicate logic. (Connecting a quality such as colour or origin
results in predicates.) I wished to point out that LEM causes difficulties
even in proposition logic as the lowest order!
>LEM works perfectly. The mistake was to take something specific
>(be it blue bird or apartheid) for the general 'ALL BUT' (be it NOT
>black
>bird or NOT wholeness).
No, LEM does not work perfectly. It works only perfectly in the static
world of being where changes are at most temporaly. As soon as evolution
with becoming enters the scene along the arrow of time, LEM applies only
where such evolution is not observable.
>This mistake is really very common, and I think, this is what you
>wanted to point out: If one is against something bad, people expect
>the outcome to be something good. This is of course a fallacy:
Yes, here I agree more than (if that is possible) 100% with you! You have
said it so clearly. This is the curse of LEM. Most people believe that
denying what are bad and false will automatically result in what are good
and true. Such a denial will rather automatically result in more chaos
(and thus destructive creativity if the seven essentialities were not
sufficiently mature). However, emerging to higher orders by constructive
creativity is a very complex task requiring many conditions to be met in
content and form.
Witch buring during the Middle Ages in Europe and even today in Southern
Africa happened because of this curse of LEM. Likewise bloody wars and
revolutions are the outcome of this curse. Thus one would expect that
managers in organisations would by now avoid this curse of LEM carefully
-- expecting the good and true to emerge miraculously by simply denying
the bad and false. Since these miracles do not happen, they avenge
themselves upon their subordinates for such failures. Did they not become
good and true by denying the bad and false and thus qualify as avengers?
As a Christian it troubles me immensely that many Christians believe that
by denouncing what are bad and false they will transform themselves
automatically into followers of the good and true. It just not happens
that way. Jesus said that we have first to seek truth and righteousness
before all other things will be given to us. Should we then we judge
(criticize) what are bad and false, we must bear in mind that we will be
judged by a much stricter standard. The destructive consequences of
entropy production is nobody's mate.
>At, I am like you aware that the LEM does not apply to wholeness
> - LEM even distroys wholeness. Because this is as important for
>me as it is for you I tried my best to show that your formalization
>of
>this knowledge failed. This does NOT mean, that the knowledge itself
>is wrong, only that there is need for another approach to formalize.
>
>May I try to guide you to insights which I gained from your theory?
Thank you very much. I think that brevity caused the misunderstanding
here. I am extremely greatful that you did so much effort. It gives fellow
learners the opportunity to contemplate the central issue here:
expecting the good and true to emerge miraculously
by simply denying the bad and false.
Yes, we may pray for miracles and miracles do happen. But we cannot expect
miracles to save us from wilfully persisting in our ignorance. Miracles
are rather God's instrument to assist learning individuals and learning
organisations so as to emerge into the highest order of unconditional
love.
>You have tried to solve the paradox by thinking in terms of 'NOT LEM'
>also for sureness. But I tried to show that LEM is indeed essential
>to sureness.
I am not sure that LEM is essential for sureness. (What a monstrosity of a
sentence ;-) Sureness for me involves a one-to-many-mapping upon which I
then may construct the one-to-"one+rest"-mapping, in other words, a
one-to-two-mapping needed for LEM. By doing so, I have to lump all but the
one into a box called the "rest". This is something which I try to avoid
at all costs because it impairs the essentiality otherness (diversity).
>So do wholeness and sureness have to be separated for eternity? Of
>course not - the world and we with it emerged as a matter of fact. It
>is
>only the formalization of wholeness in terms of sureness, which
>doesn't
>work.
>
>Fortunately, there are more essentialities, which need to be
>considered.
Once again I marvel at your insight in the seven essentialties. The
problem with all those thinkers who managed to articulate a single
essentiality (which is a great accomplishment) is that they tried to
articulate their tacit knowledge on other patterns essential to
constructive creativity in terms of that essentiality. One essentiality
cannot ever replace the other six essentialities, although more than one
essentiality (up to even all seven) can be combined into less than seven
(up to even one) hyper complex essential patterns. We also need each
essentiality to learn more about the other six, but our learning will be
inferior when we try to use only one to learn about the other six.
What would become of the story of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs should
we drop one or more dwarfs from the story? If you want to help your little
children to become sensitive to the seven essentialities, reinvent the
story by assigning (according to your insight) each essentiality to its
own dwarf. Then tell the story a couple of times so that the kids become
familiar to the story. Then one night tell the story with one of the
dwarfs absent and all the calamities which follow from such an abscence.
Your kids will correct you all the way, realising intuitively just how
fatal such an abscence is.
>At, you included liveness ('becoming-being') by pointing to
>cause-effect relations and by applying the historical development of
>wholeness/apartheid in South Africa. Liveness is good to follow the
>entropic force/flux created by the tension between sureness/wholeness
>LEM/NOT LEM. But in order to connect the two fruitfully, another
>essentiality need to be brought onto the stage. The reactive part
>of wholeness is the associative pattern, the reactive part of
sureness
>is identity.
Winfried, you are now even able to perceive the form which I use to
uncover the form. But (fortunately, some would say) the history of South
Africa provided me with that form. It was not fortune. It was the
diligent, life-long work of two men, Herzog on sureness and Smuts (the
"father" of holism) on wholeness. After fifty years South Africans are
still experiencing this tension, although other entropic force-flux pairs
are now rapidly changing the whole scene.
When John Truty < john.truty@effem.com > began the topic "For what end?"
in LO23264, I had the intuitive feeling that this topic would be given
much attention and that we would paint a rich picture in the dialogue on
it. Towards what destinations are we heading as individuals and as members
of organisations? What will be the final outcome(s) of our evolution as
the species Homo sapiens (humankind)?
Dear fellow learners, towards what destination are each of you heading?
For what end are we living? What is the ultimate profit which we want?
Money? Power? Safety? Sustainability? A better world? Creativity? Joy?
Peace? Spirituality? We may rightfully want many things when reaching our
final destination because life is a one-to-many-mapping. But what is the
one thing among that many things without which our final destination is
not worth all the efforts? Will we be able to collapse creatively in all
other things so as to gain in this one thing? What will our answers be on
midnight the 31st of December when we all enter the new millenium?
As for myself, I am absolutely convinced that life without unconditional
love has lost its meaning and feeling. I can "see" the web of reality with
entropy production at its bottom and unconditional love at its top. But
one swallow with "dassein" does not make the summer. Does summer not
emerge through "mitsein"? Are our vehicles for "mitsein" not learning
organisations? Is unconditional love not the glue which keeps us all
together?
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>