Replying to LO24255 --
Leo Minnigh <email@example.com> writes:
>Although my mind is somewhat in turbulence these days, so
>concentration and understanding is somewhat shaky, I think
>that At was close to the target but just missed it.
Perhaps it is a good thing that your mind is in turbulence so that you
cannot concentrate too much! Sometimes in such a state of mind I myself
became aware of a one-to-many-mapping which I was previously unaware of.
Thus I have learned to focus on many and not only one thing in order to
deliberately discover one-to-many mappings. Sometimes it works. But when
it does not become, I kind of force myself in a turbulence (brainstorming,
edge of chaos) so as indeed to become.
My understanding is also shaky in some respects. I have been warned
several times by colleagues that I should never say this in public because
then people will not trust what I have to say about things which are not
shaky for me any more. Well, you know that I have stressed many times that
people should not trust any thing which I say. Hence it is not possible
for them to learn rotely what I am saying. They should rather use their
own creativity to understand how the things which I write about, fit among
the things which are imortant to them. This takes cares about trust, but
not the shaky things.
So what is important about the shaky things? The last decade or two some
theoretical chemists have been working feverishly on a new discipline
called Molecular Mechanics (MM). Its an extenstion of classical Quantum
Mechanics (QM) in the sense that they have to deal with complexities which
the mathematics of QM itself is too weak to penetrate! It all began as a
result of an incredible insight -- a stable molecule is not only a being,
but also a becoming! Allow me to explain shortly.
A simple molecule like methane CH4 consists of 5 atoms -- one C atom in
the centre and four H atoms attached to it, but not to each other. They
are situated as far as possible form each other. Thus their centres define
the four corners of a 3D regular figure called a tetrahedron. This regular
shape gives us the impression that the molecule has a rigid shape. But
actually each of the H atoms vibrate closer-further from the C atom and
vibrate close-further from each other. In other words, the methane
molecule is not rigid, but rather trembles in all possible ways as a kid
ready to receive a present.
When a molecule becomes more complex, the modes of vibration become even
more (each mode has a technical name of its own) and also the number of
atoms capable of vibrating in some mode. Obviously, each atom can vibrate
in several modes and SOME ATOMS CAN VIBRATE IN MANY MODES. Thus a long
molecule (like an aminoacid) containing atoms of several different
elements is not something rigid like a ruler, but rather looks like a worm
pestered by ants. It wriggles, shrinks and lengthens, bulges and thins,
bends and straightens itself. The statement in capital letters above means
that some parts of the molecule are very shaky!
It is exactly these few very shaky parts in the molecule which become the
reaction centres of the molecule. In other words, when another molecule
has to react with this one, the effective connection (fruitfulness)
between them will happen through the joining of a reaction centre in the
one with a reaction centre in the other. Thus the shaky parts in the
molecule are essential to its further becoming into a more complex
molecule! Enzymes (catalysts) are very clever in seeking these shaky parts
with their own shaky parts so as to help the further complexification of a
molecule. Leaders in general and teachers in particular, considered as
catalysts, could learn much from this shaky behaviour so as to assist the
becoming of others through their midwifery.
Leo, perhaps I have missed the target because I do not know where the
target is. As I have explained to Winfried, if the target was $knowledge$
rather than "knowledge without openness", I will not miss it. I do not
know where the target is because so many people -- billions of them -- are
shaking this target ;-) Why? KNOWLEDGE is the concept most contemplated
by all of humankind!
>The differences between knowledge (K) en information (I) are
>not that great. Even with the rich definition of K as is used by
>At (and others, including me), there are too much similarities
>with I, that one cannot split them in intensive and extensive.
Leo, perhaps I become crazier by the day. The day when the idea emerged in
me that all seven essentialities are essential (sic) to $knowledge$, I
knew I had to look for this $knowledge$ rather than staring myself blind
at "knowledge", the thing which billions of people talk and write about.
This idea exploded in something very complex when I realised that
$knowledge$ must be at least "becoming-being". Traditionally we think of
some books and learned journals as representers of knowledge. But show me
one such a book or journal which is more than being. Show me one such
articulated artifact which is also becoming. No wonder that philosophers
have concluded in the lofty terminology of their epistemology that
"knowledge" is primarily ontological. It means that knowledge is a "being"
rather than also a "becoming".
I know very well that billions of people also think of "knowledge" as a
"being". I do not want to force them thinking otherwise and perhaps like
me. But likewise they cannot force me to think like them. In order not to
confuse them, I think of $knowledge$ and call it "deep knowledge" so that
they can keep on thinking of "knowledge" as a "being" and call it
knowledge. In other words, they may keep on thinking that some books and
journals are pieces of knowledge since these written documents represent
knowledge, but there is surely not any "deep knowledge" in these written
documents. So where can this "deep knowledge" be found? In the mind of
every person. It means that this "deep knowledge" is an integral part of
the personality of every human!
Since there is no "deep knowledge" in any written document and every
person has "deep knowledge", does it mean that "deep knowledge" can be
found only in humans? No. My dogs, my birds, my fish and even my succulent
plants have "deep knowledge". Sometimes they give me glimpses into their
"deep knowledge" and I try my best to give them "glimpses" into mine.
Sometimes I think I succeed better with them than with other humans. I
know that some persons try their best to give me glimpses into their "deep
knowledge" and I try to do the same.
But it has become hopeless trying to save me from my madness by claiming
that knowledge is a "being out there". I respect these claims because they
are backed up by at least six millenia of thinking. In my madness I state
categorically that "deep knowledge" is a "becoming-being within the
personality of each of us". I will happily die with this madness.
Leo, should you or any fellow learner follow this course of thinking, try
to look for "deep knowledge" when knowing that it is a "whole" (or
seminally "three-one"). In other words, bring in the other essentialities
as I did with "becoming-being". Look for "deep knowledge" as a "whole".
Where will joy find it as such -- in a book or a journal? Show me one such
an item with its "whole" undisputedly clear. Yes, I have worked through a
number of monographs which succeeded remarkedly in reperesnting the
"whole" of a specific discipline. But is that discipline knowledge? If it
is part of knowledge, where is the aother parts in the monograph to make
up the whole?
>I think both, K and I are extensive. The trouble with both is
>that according to my understanding, they live in two different
>worlds: outside and inside one's head. That makes it
>impossible to join them in one formula.
How right you are. Your use of the word "trouble" gave me great joy.
As for me, any K which is situated outside my head, outside the heads of
other people and outside any other system which cannot SELF-ORGANISE
SPONTANEOUSLY, is merely information, no matter how complex it is. Even
that so-called K which is in computers and which is the object of KM
(Knowledge Management), is information, no matter how many times it is
called knowledge. But should computers become Spontaneous Self-organising
Systems, then from that very day these SSS will give us far more trouble
than the SS during WWII. They will hunt Homo sapiens down as the
Cro-magnoids among the early history of H sapiens itselfs seem to have
done with the Neanderthaloids, or now as H sapeins is doing with the three
>I think the question could be solved when we take knowledge
>(K) as an extensive parameter, and wisdom (W) as intensive.
>They are both living in the same world, e.g. in one's head
>(or better, body). In this case we could easily understand that
>wisdom is a conditional parameter that cannot be fractionised,
>whereas knowledge could. Think of two persons which have a
>certain level of wisdom and one with half of the knowledge as
Since you have refered to traditional "knowledge" rather than "deep
knowledge", you have hit the bull's eye in my opinion. K is definitely
extensive (and not intensive as "deep K" or $K$). I my opinion your claim
that wisdom W is intensive, is also true. But I now have one tiny
question to puzzle you. What did you use to come to this result,
"knowledge" or "deep knowledge"? Please, do not let this little question
make you mind more turbulent because if the answer to it is "deep
knowledge", then there is only one place where it can be found -- in your
Leo, by connecting K with W, true or false, right or wrong,
pretty or ugly, you have actually done a most daring thing
typical of your creative way of thinking and thus personality.
It remains with this connection to, as you yourself say
"Let your thoughts meander towards a sea of ideas"
Here is one question you may think of:-
Is the result of K connected (*) with W, namely K * W, still
extensive, or does it become intensive? Why?
(Phew, I am happy that I have not to answer it because it has led my
thoughts through some of the wierdest meanderings of my thinking ever ;-)
>I hope that this new light will help to further dialoguing on
>this interesting topic.
Thank you very much Leo. Sorry for blowing off so much vapour, but that
happens when strong light heats up a container with something volatile in
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.