> "Incrementalism is innovations worst enemy."
and
> And then there were a few who were quite turned off by [it]
and
> I do remember, however, that when I read them I was pretty hot under the
> collar. One in particular annoyed me to the point that I slammed my desk
> drawer and blurted out of few obscene explicatives which scared the people
> in my office away.
and
> Things have calmed down a bit since then, and I'd like to understand why
> people felt that it was:
> A) Shallow for me to quote Tom Peters
> B) Why the quote I referenced isn't accurate
> C) If there are indeed those who feel like my participation on
> this list distracts from its usefulness and/or credibility
> (an implication I felt was embedded in at least two of the
> replies).
Dear Ben,
Since you raised the issue in the open, I will risk to answer you in the
open. Please have patience.
(Dear organlearners, please also have patience. Ben's 'problem' is one
from which we all can learn very much.)
I think there are two issues involved here. The first issue is as follows.
Ben informed us that the last few weeks were very stressful for him. Now,
when we try to understand life in terms of entropy, stress is very
important. Every stress/force (together with its flux/flow) produces
entropy. The greater a force-flux pair, the more it produces entropy.
There is a feature of complex systems which seldomly, if ever, is
mentioned in the present fashion to go for complexity. This feature is the
Onsager Reciprocal Relationships (ORR) for which Lars Onsager eventually
got the Nobel Prize. This abscence of ORRs in expositions on complexity is
a pity, but quite understandable, when entropy itself is absent in such
expositions. The ORRs give rise to what I call Onsager cross inductions.
Basically, what happens is this: a stress/force A is applied to a system
in expectation of a response (flux/flow) AA when suddenly a response BB
appears which is rather characterestic of stress B. In other words, while
expecting something normal AA to happen under stress A, suddenly something
BB sideways unexpectedly pops out, making things rather difficult to
follow. (The Onsager cross inductions are often like monkeys throwing
wrenches in the machinary.)
Ben, notice that you were under stress. You expected a certain response.
But your stress induced responsiveness (tuned in) to a different outcome.
So when all the responses came in, you became intensely aware of those
which you originally did not expected. Were you not under such stress, you
would probably not have even percieved a sting in them. (If you want to
know more about ORRs, consult an advanced textbook on irreversible
thermodynamics. It will probably not help much because it will be
enshrined in the terminology of the specialist. I will treat Onsager cross
inductions in more detail and for a much wider audience in my forthcoming
book.)
Here is a physical example of an Onsager cross induction. If we apply
pressure (the force) to a body, the normal result will be a change in its
volume (the fluX). If we apply pressure to some crystals, suddenly an
electrical current (another flux) appears. Elecrtical current normally
results when applying an electrical potential difference (its force). This
phenomenon is specifically called the Piezo effect. In the day of
grammophone records the cheap playimg heads were usually peizo crustals.
Please note that I am not saying that you were 'psychologically
disfunctional'. One reason is that Onsager cross inductions are NOT
disfunctional behaviours. They are absolutely normal to complexity.
Another reason is that, unfortunately, you have selected to quote
something which goes to the very heart of the paradigm shift we now have
to face up. The new paradigm to which we will have to jump is that we
shall have to base our theories for creativity and learning on entropy
production. This is the second issue involved in your 'problem'.
It is a pity that my book is not out, nor that we can communicate on this
list by graphics. In my book I show how the IRREGULAR increase of entropy
give rise to all fractal trees of life, like the Tree of Knowledge (see
Maturana and Varella). But this basic feature of entropy production is not
what I want to write about. I want to write about the dangerous violence
inherent to paradigm shifts and the pains it causes. This is exactly what
you have experienced. Thank you for being open enough to tell us about
such a pain.
Somebody also wrote to me something similar like the strike of a
sidewinder. I refered in one of my contributions to Thomas Kuhn's
excellent comprehension of paradigm shifts. This person replied that Kuhn
has changed his opinions and implied that I am a fool to refer to Kuhn. I
expected that person's reply to appear also on the list. Consequently I
have prepared a reply in advance to the list. That person's reply never
appeared and so I never had the opportunity to mail my reply to the list.
I will do so now, carefully removing any traces to whom this reply refers.
Dear organlearners,
XXXXXX, it is true that Thomas Kuhn had to refine his concept of a
paradigm since his original formulation of it. He has acknowledged it
himself. We have to expect this categorisation (making sure) of a concept
because it happens to thousands of thinkers and the concepts which they
give birth to. It is an everlasting witness to the power of creative
learning.
However, I have never seen evidence that Kuhn has retracted his theory of
scientific revolutions (paradigm shift and its dynamics). I will be very
interested to get any information on such a retraction if it exists.
Also, I am sceptical that such a retraction has happened for two reasons.
The first reason is that Kuhn's theory is very much only a formal
description of historical facts exhibiting a certain pattern. This is both
the strength and weakness of his theory. His theory is strong in its
descriptive power, but weak in in its explanative power. However, once his
theory is worked into the universal framework of "the consequences of
entropy production in creations", its explanative power and even
predictive power become enormous.
The second reason has very much to do with the phenomenon of which his
theory covers a particular case. His theory is in particular about
paradigm shifts in science. They are examples of "a bifurcation happening
in a high order, material or abstract". The next observation gives insight
into the nature of high order bifurcations: although high order
bifurcations are rare, those without violence are extremely rare. It is
because of the chaos inherent to bifurcations and the contingency
character of bifurcations.
Kuhn noticed that this violence figured in scientific revolutions. The
violence erupted between the majority following the old paradigm,
producing 'normal science' and the minority which has shifted to the new
paradigm, producing what normal scientists prefer to call parascience. We
can think of this violence as a war between two worlds. It is very common
in wars to decieve, disinform and even defame the enemy. It happens
regardless of what worlds (scientific, political, economical, religious,
etc.) are involved.
Margaret Wheatly's book about the value of the 'new science' to the
management of organisations has two important properties: it is
positivistic and romantic. Although these properties promote the paradigm
shift in managerial science, they also provide ammunition to the 'normal
scientists' who wish to protect their vested interests. Furthermore, her
book does not prepare its readers sufficiently to expect and avoid the
violence during the paradigm shift.
This is why I decided to respond to XXXXXX's contribution. I must warn you
that our paradigm concerning deep life is shifting. There are many who
have much vested interests in the old paradigm. These normalists are now
preparing for war to prtect their interests.
XXXXXX, please note that I have not said that you are part of 'normal
science' or promote inadvertedly their plight. You will have to write much
more before I can make any such a categorical statement. (Since I am not
getting kicks any more to refute others, I will probably not even make
that statement.) But you have written enough to give me a hook upon which
I can hang my warning: beware of the violence during immense/deep
bifucations.
In a Scientific American of about a year ago there is a most instructive
article on the new ?bogus? science and the Santa Fe Instititute where it
is promoted. If organlearners ever wish to inspect first hand evidence of
such a paradigm shift war actually taking place, please read that article.
The greatest danger in any war is to be ignorant about how the war is
fought. A critical examination of that article will show you exactly how
deviously a war can be fought. Please find that article, study it, and
report back to this forum what you have learnt. Thank you very much.
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/>