To become or not to become. LO24219

From: Winfried Dressler (
Date: 03/21/00

Replying to LO24208 --

At de Lange wrote:

>Trying as hard as I can, I am not able to reason formally and explicitly
>that the knowledge K is intensive and the information I is extensive.

May be I can help? Rick Karash wrote in Unlearning LO24214:

> But, I use "knowledge" as the capacity for effective action

Now, if we allow to call 'create sensible information' an effective
action, than part of knowledge would be:

(1) Knowledge is the capacity to create sensible information.

We have seen in an earlier mail on this subject by At, that the general
relation of intensive and extensive entities is of the form


FORCE being a difference of an intensive and FLUX a change of an extensive
property. In words, and maybe also more intuitive to the words force and
flux, one may say in general:

(2) Force is the capacity to create flux.

Comparing (1) and (2) show, that knowledge is the force, while sensible
information the according flux.

Thus knowledge is intensive and information extensive.

Interesting with these definitions is, that only a [K(2) - K(1)] qualifies
as knowledge, not K(2) and K(1) alone. The same for information, which is
a /_\I, an change of I, not I alone.

Hm, I am wondering, whether it is knowledge, which is the capacity for
effective action or not better differences in knowledge. This one is not
straight forward, I am afraid.

>This slow response to paradigm shifts is one valid
>reason for learning outside the system.

Interesting analogies to strategy arise, when one looks at the strategic
planning affort as a kind of institutionalised organizational learning
system. Many taxonomies have been suggested, but none seem to work. The
prescriptive strategists are beaten by all sorts of muddle through found
by descriptive researchers.

It is quite enlightening to read the following paragraph in the light of
the above analogy:

>The learner seems to become non-spontaneous sooner
>or later in a formal system of education. Non-spontaneous
>learning means that the learner cannot learn self any more.
>Hence the learner has to be forced and controlled by the
>system to keep up this non-spontaneous learning. Thus
>the system draws immensely on all sources of "free energy"
>to deliver the work for sustaining such non-spontaneous
>becoming. In terms of merely a monetary budget such a
>system becomes very expensive.

A company seems to become non-spontanous sooner or later in a formal
system of strategy...In terms of merely monetary budget such a system
becomes very expensive.

Besides, C is care isn't it? Love is the capacity to create care. Or
simply, caring love. Informing knowledge. Expanding pressure...

Liebe Gruesse,



"Winfried Dressler" <>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.