> I've been a faithful reader of the LO digest for about 4 months now and
> there have been several times that I have been sorely tempted to take the
> plunge into more active participation. There are really two reasons why I
> haven't to this point. One is this introduction. I really like people
> and have little trouble interacting with them for the most part with one
> exception - introducing my self to large groups of people I don't know
> especially when they seem to know each other well. So here it goes -
Dear organlearners,
Tina, it is wonderful to have you here, particpating actively on the list.
Welcome.
You are right - there are two main reasons for not participating in any
creative venture. The first reason (and I have not quoted what you have
said) is the time factor. All creations take time. We may dilate the
creation time to any length. We may also reduce it, but not beyond an
intrinsical value. If we want to use less time than the intrinsical value,
then the creation simply cannot happen. Relativity theory in physics
describes the same thing. The speed of light cannot be increased beyond a
certain intrinsical value - the speed of light in vacuum. Since speed is
proportional to the inverse of the time needed to cover a distance, it
means the time needed for light to cover (create!) a certain distance
cannot be decreased beyond a certain value.
The second reason is some things may make us nonspontaneous. A
nonspontaneous system cannot transform on its own accord. It has to be
forced by outside work and control. What are these "some things"? Every
thing which promotes creativity, can also impair creativity if it acts in
the wrong manner, or our perception of it is wrong. When it acts in the
wrong manner, it reduces our free energy, i.e. that energy which enables
us to create spontaneously.
In your case you have been very honest in letting us know what it is,
namely the 'collective factor'. This a very important factor. In
chemistry, for example, we can clearly show how a weak acid can become
very reactive (dissociative) by lowering the concentration of the acid!
There is nothing to be ashamed of in admitting that the collective factor
is very real to you. This is what Sherri Malouf had in mind with her
topic: Disappointment - No soul? Let us begin to speak about the things
which we were afraid to mention. What we need, is the insight that it is
the very complexity of these thinhs which makes us afraid.
> Last night i was
> re reading some of Mr. deLang's posts on learning - in specific the
> difference between emergent or newly born learning and digestive or
> maturing learning. I particularly like these ideas because I tend to look
> for parallels between theories and natural cycles myself. I did have a
> question as i considered his posts however. The natural cycle includes
> birth maturation AND death. In this theory of learning what would be the
> corresponding death element? I had two possible ideas- that the
> forgetting or loss of some knowledge is the necessary death that makes
> room for other new emergent learnings. (This theory makes me feel much
> better about my lack of retention from my four years of high school
> French) The other possibility I considered is that the movement of
> knowledge from the conscious mind to the sub conscious counts as a "death"
> making room for new emergences. For example when I first started
> facilitating meetings I was so caught up in conscious thought of what I
> needed to be doing , how the meeting was flowing , who was participating &
> who wasn't - that I had no room to really think at the same time. Now
> after a lot more learning - both through study and experience - I find my
> facilitation is more natural and leaves much more of my mind free. So
> maybe as we digest theories and ideas more fully they become more of a
> natural part of us and leave that conscious space open to new thought?
You are very perceptive. The first type of death you are thinking of is
the sort of death which the bible calls the first death when it refers to
human death. We cannot create in the void - only God can. All creations
this side of the universe ensue by connecting two or more 'parent'
creations. The parable of Jesus about the wheat grain (+ soil) which has
to die before it can become a plant producing new wheat grain, refers to
this first death. Once a new creation emerges from the old participating
creations, the old participating creations have fulfilled their mission,
thereby giving up their original identities and the power of reacting
according to such identities.
For example, when a sodium atom and a chlorine atom react to form sodium
choride (table salt), the sodium ion in table salt has none of the
original properties of the sodium atom. It has now acquired new properties
through the emergence of table salt. Whereas the sodium atom is a very
strong reducer, the sodium ion has no reducing properties. Furthermore, it
has become an acid, but so weak that it is almost imperceptable. The same
applies to the chlorine ion in table salt. It is a dangerous oxidiser as
an atom, but it becomes a neutral weak base as an ion. The important
lesson to observe is the asymmetrical transitive changes taking place
during an emergence: * the stronger a creative reactant is before the
emergence, the weaker it becomes after the emergence, * reducers become
acids and oxidisers become bases. I cannot stress enough this asymmetrical
transitive nature of an emergence.
The second type of death which you are thinking of is what the bible calls
the second death. (Let the DEAD bury their dead.) It is when the forces
and fluxes necessary for entropy production are slowly spent up (withers
away) or not even allowed to appear. This may happen after an emergence
when the emergent is NOT allowed to become mature and thus acquiring the
free energy to enable a new emergence to take place. It may also happen
when a system is NOT allowed to take a particlaur action, such as in your
own example. It is very important to note the word NOT. The use of this
word in the above examples points to some sort of closure having been
forced upon the system. To put it in other words, the use of the word NOT
is often an indication of restricting a degree of freedom of the system.
Now, for every closure forced upon an open system, the system is doomed to
seek an equilbrium state appropiate for that closure. The more the
closures, the more the equilibrium states converge upon the universal
equilbrium state. The universal equilbrium state is that state which the
system will transform to when it is completely isolated. In the universal
equilibrium state, no production (creation) of entropy is possible any
more. Since creativity is based on the production of entropy, no
creativity is possible any more. Since learning is based on creativity, no
learning is possible any more.
This does not mean that nothing will happen. It means that everything
which has happened, will happen again, but in a totally reversible manner.
Time will have no arrow. Yesterday, today and tomorrow will switch roles
in a totaly incomprehensible manner, since not even learning is possible
any more. For example, today they will build a wall, tomorrow they will
break it down, the day afterwards they will again build it, etc. Life will
become more terrible than that of a free person captured as a slave - the
total loss of freedom - only memerories to be haunted by, memories of how
it could have been otherwise. Can hell be worse?
>From the above we learn that the central feature of the paradigm upon we
create the chain entropy-> creativity -> learning is openness (freedom).
We need to become open/free in order to be able to create and learn. Where
do we find such freedom? The bible has a very definite answer. I
personally believe that there is no better answer. However, I will never
try to force this answer upon any one. I will rather encourage every one,
seeking for an answer, to keep on seeking it. You will know when you have
found the right answer the moment when the answer has emerged. For this is
the creative way.
> Thank you to every one who participates on this list. You have given me
> many hours of stimulating contemplation. I hope I can return some portion
> of the value I have received.
I second Tina's motion. And Tina, you yourself have already made a
wonderful beginning.
Best wishes
- --
At de Lange
Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education
University of Pretoria
Pretoria, South Africa
email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
--"Mnr AM de Lange" <AMDELANGE@gold.up.ac.za>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>