Replying to LO24245 --
Winfried Dressler <email@example.com> writes:
(in reply to my)
>>Thanks for the help. Alas, I have tried that angle too,
>>but I have shot so many holes in it that I stopped
>>pursueing it any further.
>My thoughts are already some steps further. Meanwhile
>I have arrived at another angle, in which you may shoot
In my own contemplations I need to "shoot holes in" (falsify) my own
speculations. In other words, I test my constructive creativity with
destructive creativity because I know how these two paths of creativity
are related. But I try to avoid as much as possible shooting holes in the
contemplations of other learners because few of them know how the two
paths are related.
There is an advantage in shooting so many holes in my own speculations ;-)
When somebody else take a pot shot at what remains, they most likely shoot
trhough an existing hole so that is does not hurt my pride any more. The
more the holes, the less the pride.
>I have been thinking of value creation in a company. A
>difference in ideas between a company and it's market makes
>goods incorporating this idea flow into the market.
I assume that you refer to goods as physical objects.
Yes and no. Yes because you have an astounding grip on the
[X(2) - X(1)] x /_\Y > 0
No. Ideas, even though intensive, are abstract, whereas the
"goods" are physical.
Now, let me take a pot shot at my "no" above. The Onsager "cross
inductions" (reciprocal relationships) which apply to the physical word
says that a difference in one intensive quantity may induce a difference
in another intensive quantity with a flow in its complementary extensive
quantity. Thus a pressure difference may set up a difference in electrical
potential (volts) and the flow of current (amps). This is know as Piezzo
Some days I become very cynical. Some colleagues sells the fad
"techonology" left, right an centre to promote themselves. Yet they are
ignorant to the fact the Onsager cross inductions are a key future in the
operation of modern technology.
Let us now think of "deep cross inductions" in which the apparent abyss
between the physical and spiritual world actually has little effect. The
difference in abstract ideas may very well give rise to some physical
difference with a flow in in its complementary physical goods. This
physical difference cannot be the difference between ideas since ideas are
abstract. So what is this physical difference? Well, for consistency's
sake it has to involve two values of an intensive quantity which thus has
to be measured. So, what physical quantity is involved?
I have scanned through dozens of physical intensive quantities and none of
them appeal even intuitively to me. This leaves me with two possibilities.
The one is that we have indeed a new intensive quantity which we have to
search for and establish by measurement. This is a very exciting
possibility. The other possibility is that my assumption above that you
mean by goods some physical objects is wrong. This is an enticing
Is an idea intensive? In other words, if I scale (like double or half) my
thinking on an idea, does the idea remains invariant or does it scale too?
The answer is intuitively obvious because we do not get twice or half the
idea. Thus ideas are intensive. Yet we have in my mother tongue an apt
saying "that is a half-baked idea". Does this saying means ideas are
extensive after all? No, it rather says that it takes time for an idea to
What is an idea? It comes from the Greek word "idein"=see, look. So much
has been written on ideas since Plato's monumental work that the
complexity of it all tends to confuse us. Let us then stick to "see" and
"look". We see "content", but we look for "form". This is eactly how
Plato thought of an idea, the form of content. Once we have grasped this,
it is even easier to understand that ideas are intensive. Form is
intensive while content is extensive. I can paint a picture of a flower,
large or small. The size/scale of the flower has no influence on its form.
A smaller flower is not less a flower!
If the idea is intensive, what will its complementary extensive property
be? Well, the golden rule here to follow is that both together, i.e
idea&XYZ have to manifest a form of energy. So we have to seek what XYZ we
need to join with the idea to arrive at a form of spiritual energy. You
have named this abstract XYZ as "goods". We may keep on calling it "goods"
and hence do much of our thinking on the level of tacit knowledge,
surfacing from time to time by using the word "goods". But we can also try
for a better articulation of what we mean by "goods".
Winfried, a wise teacher knows when to keep his own emergent learning for
himself so as not to take away the generative adjoints (happiness,
curiosity, hope, etc) from the learner as a result of the learner's own
emergent learning. Your emergent learning was that ideas are intensive. If
you did not get any kicks out of this emergence, then it is time for me to
go and work behind a till in a supermarket. My musings in the previous
three paragraphs are merely further digestive learning on this emergent
learning. But you still have to learn by way of an emergence that these
"goods" are extensive.
Allow me to be your midwife. You write:
>Such ideas which create value to the market are called
>intellectual capital and, well, I like to think of it as the
>knowledge built in the products.
The currency notes (paper money) in the New South Africa
have the following on it:-
Picture of an animal.
South African Reserve Bank
Signature of the Governer
They differ from the old currency notes which also had:-
I promise to pay the bearer!
This deletion is most significant because it signifies what is
fundamentally wrong with our own local economy.
One of the points which Plato make is that an idea has a promise in it. It
is in this sense that the word "ideal" has been created in the English
language. So, please do not get stuck on the word "promise" in the deleted
>But there is also another danger for a company: When the
>difference of ideas is so big that it cannot control the
>development of the flux (demand) compared to ist manufacturing
>capacity. Here the financing and recruiting of a fast growing
>business is a problem and can become a deadly threat to the
I have seen many a company going bankcrupt on this very issue.
The disharmony or mismatching between the difference
[X(2) - X(1)] and the complementary flow /_\Y in
[X(2) - X(1)] x /_\Y > 0
usually has disastrous results on the future of that company.
Why? As soon as there is a mismatch, the Onsager cross
inductions come into play to establish harmony once again.
In other words, as soon as there is a mismatch within
PAIR > 0
many other PAIRS, each different from the rest, suddenly pop
up. It means that the management will suddenly have to deal
with the inherent complexity of the system which they succeeded
in suppressing with their simplistic rules and recipes. Suddenly
simplicity become useless. Uncontrolled chaos destroys. Soon
their company is in the drain.
Winfried, I have researched this very phenomena in soil science during
1968-71. I have seen how some farmers destroyed the fertility of their
farmlands in a couple of seasons with such mismatching, blaming whatever
comes into their mind for this failure. Then I became a teacher in 1972.
Can you how imagine how my mind dissolved when I became intuitively aware
of the same thing in my classes with me being the foolish "farmer on the
field of education"? Yes, you can because did you not end your reply
>At, there is so much more to be said, so much that I really
>feel overwhelmed in the moment.
Yes, once you get the knack of the "becoming pattern", life
becomes a becoming.
With care and best wishes.
At de Lange <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.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.