Replying to LO23845 --
Dear Organlearners,
Steve Finegan <steve@hunt.com> writes:
>I'm fascinated by the concept of "co-evolution" and it's
>possible metaphorical application to teamwork in
>organizations. Anyone doing any research in this area?
>Any reading suggestions or people I might contact?
Greetings Steve,
Yes, the concept of "co-evolution" (but not "symbiosis") is almost what we
would get should we deepen (extend) the concept of Learning Organisations
to encompass all living species.
We had some lovely dialogues a couple of years ago in this list on
"symbiosis" in LOs. Consult the archives. But as far as I can recollect,
we did not have any dialogue on "co-evolution".
This is how I see the rich picture with respect to biology.
There is an important difference between "co-evolution" and "symbiosis"
which has very much to say for learning. The difference is the speciation
in "co-evolution". Speciation is the emergence of new species from
existing species. When a "flock of species" (more than one species),
irrespective of how widely they may differ, contribute to the emergence of
a new species, this process is known as "co-evolution". When a "flock of
species" live together so that one or more species benefit (excluding
"co-evolution") from the others, this process is known as "symbiosis".
The concept "species" is vital to taxonomy. Taxonomy is the HUMAN ART of
"bringing order" among the incredible variation in present and past living
specimens. It rest on two legs, classification (by acknowledging
relationships) and nomenclature (by acknowledging language).
The "bringing order" of taxonomy can also be described as a "systematical
organisation of specimens". It involves the basic assumption that
organisation is intrinsic to either nature, or the human mind, or both.
(The same assumption begin to play a role in understanding entropy.) Those
who believe that the order is intrinsic to nature are called naturalists
(with flavours such as essentialism and predestinism) whereas those who
believe that the order is intrinsic to the mind are called nominalists
(with flavours such as positivism and numerialism). Those who believe that
there is a deeper order common to both nature and mind have only recently
come to the taxonomic scene and still have to stake their claim.
Because of the role which beliefs play in the assumptions to be followed,
the "species" concept is by far not as clear among biologists as other
people would have believed. Furthermore, there is marked diffrence
between the species concept of botanists (who study plants), zoologists
(who study animals) and microbiologists (who study micro= organisms).
Animals can move from one place to another. Thus zoologists favour a
species concept based on a gene pool, i.e. the sum of all the genes in an
actual interbreeding population. Microbes can mutate much easier and still
remain viable than their macrobial counterparts (plants and animals). Thus
microbiologists favour a much less hierarchial taxonomy.
Despite the very fuzzy "species" concept, there is a remarkable agreement
among biologists of all kinds that "speciation" is actual. In other words,
the concepts of a species of biologists A and B may be different, but each
with his/her particular concept will recognise "speciation", i.e the
emergence of a new species. Obviously, since their "species" concepts
differ, their "speciation" concepts will also differ. The only exception
is those who believe in preordination -- the species have been created as
they now are, there is no process of speciation.
It is most interesting that these conceptual differences in speciation
result because of different cognitions how genetical information or
"genes" FLOW. The main differences are between "allopatric" and
"sympatric" models. In "allopatric" models the genealogy is determined by
geographical (patric) barriers which restrict the gene flow. In
"sympatric" models the genealogy is determined by focussing on factors
which promotes particular gene flows. These conceptual differences in
speciation begin to converge towards the manner how entropic force-flux
pairs contribute to entropy production.
In response to this "gene flow" some biologists are even disgarding the
macroscopic concepts of "species" and "speciation" altogether by focussing
on the molecular level of life. The development of the morphology
(hierarchy of organs) in a specimen is then nothing else than the
decoding and amplification of the genetical information in its heredity
molecules (DNA and RNA). Speciation itself is thus the final outcome of
variations in the deconding/encoding process. Sadly, this
"microgenetical" viewpoint in stressing heredity neglects the second main
characteristic of life, namely enzymes. Life is not only about genes
(information), but also about enzymes (catalysis). This viewpoint also
neglects to explain what the decoding/encoding process amounts to. To
tell them that this encoding/decoding of the genetical information is
nothing else than "entropy production" borders on sacrilege.
There is still much to be uncovered in biology about speciation, i.e the
"emergence of new species". The issue here is not the "species", but the
"emergence". What do we know about "emergence" in general? In other words,
what rich picture can we paint on the topic "emergence". For example, what
can we say about the "emergence of new ideas"? Some try to collect all
these "sayings" under the name "creativity"! But much of it is already to
be found in the delightful shrine of mathematics. This shrine concerns the
creation of new forms out of the old "forms of content" (or "stance of
substance" some would say) when they seem to have been exploited to the
brink (equilibrium).
This brings us to the very heart of learning in individuals and in
organisations. Many people are more or less ignorant to the "emergence of
new ideas". They buzzy themselves with setting up huge reservoirs of
existing ideas (learning resources) and how to transfer some of those
ideas by rote learning or knowledge management into the head of a
particular individual. All these different "transfer of information" may
be grouped under one category which I call "digestive learning". But there
are some who are also sensitive to the fact that a new idea may emerge
within an individual, even though that idea may be very old news among the
rest of humankind. It boils down to a "production of information" rather
than its "transfer" from the outside. It corresponds to what I call
"emergent learning".
The correspondence with changes in the entropy of systems
is difficult to deny. In the early fifties Ilya Prigogine made a
profound distinction in how the the "entropy" (symbol S) of a
system can "change" (symbol /_\). The TOTAL "change of
entropy" of a system, symbolised by /_\S, is made up of two
parts and is described by the equation
/_\S = /_\(r)S + /_\(i)S
This distinction led to the emergence of irreversible
thermodynamics.
The first part /_\(r)S is the "reversible" change (hence the qualification
(r) to the /_\) in entropy S of the system. It happens as a result of the
"transfer" of entities (having entropy) between the system and its
environment. The system may gain (positive) OR lose (negative) entropy as
a result of such a transfer. Its almost like the investment (increase) or
disinvestment (decrease) of foreign money in a country from other
countries. What the one side gains (positive), the other side loses
(negative) so that there is conservation or balance in entropy, i.e no
change in the global entropy.
The second part /_\(i)S is the "irreversible" change (hence the
qualification (i) to the /_\) in entropy of the system. It happens as a
result of an internal "entropy production". The "entropy production" can
only be an increase (positive). It can also happen in the surrounding
systems, but wherever it also happens, it can only increase (positively).
It increases by means of entropic force-flux pairs.
Digestive learning has very much to do with "reversible" changes in
entropy -- /_\(r)S -- while emergent learning has very much to do with
"irreversible" changes in entropy -- /_\(i)S. The sum of both of them --
/_\S in the equation above -- has very much to do with what I call
authentic learning.
It is most important to bear in mind that "co-evolution" and "speciation"
is a /_\(i)S (irreversible) event rather than a /_\(r)S (reversible)
event. See the law of Dollo in biology -- nature never backtracks its
steps. However, it is equally important (the Pasteurian insight) that
preperation is necessary for this "emergence of a new species". This
"preparation" involves far more /_\(r)S events that /_\(i)S events. Hence
it is very important to seek the harmony and rhythm between /_\(r)S and
/_\(i)S events rather than pushing the one kind of events exclusively to
the detriment of the other kind.
Please take care. What I have done above is merely "painting rich picture"
on the topic "co-evolution". I have written very little (slience) on
"co-evolution" per se so that our dialogue on it still is very much open.
I would love such a dialogue very much, especially how it relates to human
organisations. For example, what about specific examples which illustrates
"co-evolution"?
Steve, you have given a nice pointer in
>Brand went on to define co-evolution as a whole system
>in time with individual agents teaching and learning from
>each other, adapting to each other, and growing more
>tightly coupled in the process, e.g., the monarch butterfly
>and the milkweed.
But do our fellow learners know the "monarch butterfly" and the
"milkweed"?
Here is another example from the desert. The succulent property runs
through many families. It seems as if some list members are getting
frustrated by my recent references to succulents.
But there is much to learn from succulent plants, especially in the manner
of lateral thinking (De Bono). Ordinary plants produce elementary
carbohydrates (organic substance) from sunlight and the inorganics
substances water and carbon dioxide. They do it by means of the C-5
(Calvin) biochemical cycle. It causes (not requires) a lot of
transpiration (loss of water) during the uptake of carbon dioxide by open
stomata during day time. Succulent plants cannot afford such a loss of
water. Water in the desert is very scarce. So they follow a completely
different cycle called the C-4 (CAM) cycle. (CAM -- Crassulacean Acid
Metabolism). This enable them to keep their stomata closed when converting
carbon dioxide into an elementary carbohydrate.
As a result of following either C-5 or C-4 (or even both in the really
difficult succulent plants such as the genus Adenia), many other
physiological processes also differ completely. I will not discuss these
differences. But I will conclude by the remark that trying to grow a
succulent plant like an ordinary plant will result in complete failure
because of lack of lateral thinking (otherness) in these markedly
physiological differences.
The milkweed family has the botanical name Asclepidaceae. Genera common
to the deserts in South Africa are Stapelia, Huernia, Trichocaulon,
Hoodia, etc. They are collectively refered to as the Stapeliae. Rotting
flesh is also common to the desert during times of extreme drought. Thus
all kinds of flies (black, grey, brown, blue, green) are also to be
expected. The flowers of the Stapeliads have evolved in such a way that
they develop the horrible smell of rotting flesh. So they attract flies in
search of rotten meat to do the pollination for them. The other genera of
the Asclepidaceae growing in areas of higher rainfall do not have such
putrid smells. They smell rather like honey or fresh baked products
containing yeast. A few species even produce delightful fragrances.
Finally, what is the value of examples of "co-evolution" with its
"speciation" if we cannot apply them metaphorically to human
organisations. Let us think of the "co-evolution"with its "speciation" as
the "emergence of new ideas". The conceptual development of the physical
quantity "energy" repesents the evolution of an intuitive notion -- the
notion of being, something which is constant through time. But the
conceptual development of the physical quantity "entropy" repesents the
evolution of another intuitive notion -- the notion of becoming (something
which changes as time passes.) What will we get when we allow
"co-evolution" between these two ideas? This is what J W Gibbs did in his
mind. It let to the emergence of a new idea -- "free energy".
This "co-evolution"with its "speciation" as the "emergence of new ideas"
is perhaps best represented in the work of Arthur Koestler on creativity
("The Act of Creation"). He consulted hundreds of original thinkers (many
of them Nobel Prize laureates) over the entire academical spectrum. He
came to the conclusion that bijectivism (bring different ideas together so
that a novel idea can emerge) as the central feature of human creativity.
As a result of this work many people now use bijectivism (the "speciation
of ideas") as their definition of creativity. Nevertheless, what they
actually do, is to use but one essentiality (fruitfulness) of the seven
for creativity to define creativity.
Lastly, let us not forget that the rich picture on "co-evolution" with
its "speciation" has also a negative side to it. We must bare in mind that
not only do we have "the constructive emergence of new species through the
collaboration of different species", but we also have "the destructive
immergence of existing species through the conflicts caused by one selfish
species". The selfish species "Homo sapiens" has now the deplorable
reputation that it has caused the extinction of more species than any
other species in the entire history of life through millions of years.
The history of life has perhaps five, but four clear periods of so-called
"mass extinctions". The initial one which makes the counting five is the
emergence of prokaryotic life forms into eukaryotic life forms. It
happened some 600 MYBP (Million Years Before Present). The eukaryotic life
forms converted the oxides of oxygen (such as carbon dioxide) into free
oxgygen, thus making the environment for most prokaryotic life forms
unbearable. The eukaryotic life forms managed to survive because of
primitive "symbiosis" and primitive "co-evolution" on the cellular level
by bringing together in one complex cell organelles like the mitochondria,
Golgi complex, ribosomes, centrioles and cloroplasts with the subsequent
emergence of the inner nucleus with its own chromosomes.
The four clear periods are the late Devonian (350 MYBP), the late Permian
(225 MYBP), the late Triassic (190 MYBP) and the late Cretaceous (55MYBP)
periods. In all these four periods the extinction was caused by
non-biological forces (such as the gigantic impact of a meteorite) and the
resulting deluge of newly created entropy. But it now seems as if Homo
sapiens is bent on forcing the sixth period of mass extinction by
unlashing itself non-biological forces, far more complex than the mere
liberation of free oxygen some. Most people who hear about this
possibiltity refuse to admit it, thinking that humans are too feeble and
life too resilient to allow for the possibility of such an Armageddon.
However, should this happen, then it will be wise of some humans to take a
lesson from the first, controversial extinction of prokaryotic life forms.
Just as the primitive prokaryotic life forms came together to form the
complex cell as we know it today, so will present life forms have to come
together to form the "first complex cell" of a new dispensation with
humans as its nucleus. I cannot help but to think that the concept of a
Learning Organisation or whatever we will call it then, will play a vital
role.
With care and 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>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.