To become or not to become. LO24550

From: AM de Lange (
Date: 05/04/00

Replying to LO24313 --

Dear Organlearners,

Greetings to you all.

I am deeply under the impression how some try to understand what seems to
defy comprehension. Perhaps you are too much concerned about the final
outcome -- the "being" -- and thus cannot focus on the course to get there
-- the "becoming". It is one of the first lessons which one has to learn
while exploring the desert. Seek something very obvious on the horizon to
serve as beacon and then begin to browse towards it. Without this beacon
you will get lost and perish. However, then keep your eyes on the ground
as much as possible and take a glance at the beacon only every ten minutes
or so. If you stare too much at the beacon while browsing, you may break a
leg easily by falling over or into something. It is worse to perish
because of ignorance than because of getting lost.

This is my tenth round to the topic "To become or not to become". Those
who jump in at the tenth may feel lost forever. Begin with the ninth
(LO24313) in the LO-archives and jump back one by one to the first
contribution by way of "In reply to".

[Host's Note: the whole April thread is at

You can move from msg to msg with the "Reply" and "In reply to" links on
the msg web pages. Sorry, each month is a separate archive, so you'll have
to work a bit to cross month boundaries. ..Rick]

In the previous contribution (LO24313) we gave attention to the "kind of
uncertainty" which Werner Heisenberg discovered in Quantum Mechanics (QM).
It boils down to the following.

We often measure on a macroscopical level many things at once. This is
possible because we are able to make our measuring instruments small
enough so as to connect many of them to a large system. (I have drawn in
LO24313 your attention to how easily we do this on the mental level by
using of a questionaire, asking many little questions to fathom one rather
complex mind.) But at the sub-microscopical level of atoms and molecules
the measuring instruments cannot be made any smaller than the object to be
measured. Hence the number of instruments which we can connect to the
minute system is restricted. The outcome of this restriction is that
should we measure one quantity accurately, there will always be one other
quantity complementary to it which we cannot measure accurately in the
same event.

When we compare any two quantities which are complementary to each other
by virtue of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, we will find that we
can make a "becoming-being" distinction between these two quantities. It
means that there is a "strange relationship" between them which cannot be
expressed by the indiscriminate use of the equivalence relationship "=" of
being. The one cannot be used to replace the other because if it was
possible, then it would have been possible to measure both in one event
and so find out how the one can be replaced by the other.

>From a negative view point, what will happen should we doubt this
"becoming-being" distinction or even find it absurd? This doubt will then
surface as Heisenberg's UNCERTAINTY pattern in our measurements. In fact,
the very measurements show us that these two quantities have to be dealt
with the order relationship ">" of becoming between the variations in
them. We will think of this order relationship as "strange" and we will
call the variations by "uncertainties" for not knowing anything else.

But from a positive view point, should we postulate that this
"becoming-being" distinction is vital, then the pattern discovered by
Heisenberg will become another expression increasing our SURENESS rather
than uncertainty. Since the one member of the complementary pair cannot
replace the other memeber so that they cannot be measured in one event, we
will need to "keep them commuting (together)" while shifting our focus
frequently between them to become more sure.

Taking both points of view together, it is like say no where yes had to be
said and a lot of no's will come forth, but saying yes to a yes and
progress will be made. We will have to begin thinking like a mother,
switching continually between the many things needing her care.

I used in the beginning the phrase "kind of uncertainty" when I refered to
Heisenberg's strange discovery in QM. By adding the "kind of" rather than
speaking merely of the "uncertainty" discovered by Heisenberg's I want to
invite you to think of the possibility of other sorts of uncertainties
too. Bear in mind that science has uncovered so far only Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle. How will we become aware of them should they exist?
We cannot run to science to see what it can tell us what has already been
discovered. Thus we will have to think scientifically ourselves. Will we
be able to point to their existence by way of measurements too? Will we be
able to "convert" each of them mentally from a "kind of uncertainty" to a
facet of sureness like I have done above for the Heisenberg "kind of

The seven essentialities of creativity (liveness - "becoming-being"
sureness and the five others) have afforded me a powerful way to become
aware of other "kinds of uncertainty". How? My understanding of each
essentiality depends very much on my understanding of the other six. It
means that my understanding of each one is not independent from my
understanding of the other six.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has to do with the relationship between
liveness and sureness. Should I deny the patterns within liveness or
within sureness or a possible pattern between them, then Heisenberg's
discovery becomes indeed an "uncertainty" to me. But because I try to
understand as much of each of them as possible as well as the relationhip
between them, this "uncertainty" gets transformed into a facet of

Let us now think about the relationships between sureness and the
remaining five essentialities wholeness, fruitfulness, spareness,
otherness and openness. I will focus on wholeness as an example. Thus I
will not take the pleasure away from you fellow learners to explore self
the remaining four essentialities. Wholeness have two dimensions or sides
to it for me, namely
        monadicity, unity, one-of-the-many
        associativity, connections, web

As soon as I doubt any one of the two sides, the wholeness gets impaired.
As a result my very understanding of sureness changes into a peculiar
uncertainty. A thousand and one questions race through my mind, for
example:- How can wholes be also parts (so as to make up a bigger whole)?
Can a whole exist without any smaller wholes in it (as its parts)? Can
lesser wholes exist indefinitely (without ever become a greater whole)? Do
my thinking of wholes (OE "hal") not signify an unhealthy infatuation with
"healing" (OE "halan") and an unsanctified abomination with "holy" (OE
"halig")? Is lesser wholes and greater wholes not an forcing imagination
of my experiences of physical meaurements (resulting in a lesser or
greater proportion of the unit) into a deadly spiritual pattern? Are there
not an infinite number of co-exisiting realities, at least one for each
human? Is the far greater majority of humankind not on the right track by
fragmenting reality in a zillion loose pieces so that every human can have
a small enough piece to call it his/her intellectual property? Is my
stress on wholeness not a clever trick to cast a spell other people so as
to draw them under my control? Am I not an ignorant fool in serving a
secret conspiracy for world-domination by stressing that the parts have to
connect in a greater whole? Do I not suppress a normal sexual affinity for
people whatever their sex by casting it in the disguise of wholeness? Is
wholeness not one of many possible revolutions against God so as to become
self God?

I can go on and on asking ever increasing shocking questions which may
destroy every bit of sureness in me in terms of what I imagine wholeness
to be. Other people can do the same by accusing me of a thousand and one
selfish schemes or diagnosing a thousand and one psychological disorders
within me. But is not again a case of "Say no where yes had to be said and
a lot of no's will come forth, but say yes to a yes and progress will be
made"? What happens when we refuse to admit wholeness? Do we not destroy
one of the patterns on which sureness have to grow?

The best way I have found to become surer in the patterns of
wholeness (as for any of the other five essentialities) is
* to explore what has not been explored by me before,
* to refrain from judgements because they are made in terms
   of the known past rather than the unknown future
* to be brave by mustering all the spiritual free energy which it

The associativity pattern in wholeness can be expressed by X @Y@Z. It
means that to explore wholeness I have to seek how a discernable pattern X
commutes (the @) to a pattern Y which itself commutes (the @) to a pattern
Z, etc. What I then do is to connect the lesser complex patterns in larger
complex pattern X@Y@Z. Thus the "uncertainty in wholeness" between X, Y
and Z become transformed into a "certain pattern" X@Y@Z. I do the same
thing elsewhere and eventually have also larger complex "certain patterns"
R@S@T and U@V@W. In order to get rid of the "uncertainty in wholeness"
between these larger complex patterns, I have to connect even them up into
a hypercomplex pattern R@S@T@U@V@W@X@Y@Z.

To summarise it all, it is like putting jig-saw puzzle together. An even
better metaphor is painting the rich picture stroke by stroke by stroke
because whereas in the jig-saw puzzle we are given the pieces, each stroke
in the picture has to emerge from our mind. As "clusters" of strokes began
to take their final form, the "uncertainty of wholeness" in our mind
diminishes until a unique picture finally emerges of which we are very

Think as an example of Da Vinci's picture Mona Lisa. How certain are we
not about it. Now take a large piece of paper and punch as small hole
through it. Look at the Mona Lisa by moving the paper with its hole all
over the Mona Lisa. Experience the "uncertainty of wholeness"! Now make
the hole a little bigger, almost the size of one of her eyes. Look again
at the Mona Lisa by moving the paper with its hole all over the Mona Lisa.
Experience a lesser "uncertainty of wholeness"! Repeat the process with
bigger and bigger holes until you can look at the whole Mona Lisa without
moving the paper even once.

What we have done so far is theory rather than practice. We have used the
Mona Lisa as an example, but we still have to apply this theory to the
practice at hand. What practice at hand? The "Mona Lisa" which have to be
created by brush strokes of the form
        [X(2) - X(1)] x /_\Y > 0

What I have done in my ten contributions on "To become or not to become"
so far, is simply to move a very large paper with a small hole in it over
entire reality. The hole is just big enough to see one tiny "pattern of
becoming" of the form given above. I have stopped moving the paper at six
different positions, three in the material world and three in the abstract
world. It is now time to make the hole bigger to see what becomes when we
link three such "becoming patterns" together in one even larger "becoming

I am so excited that I want to do it now. But I have to take caution not
to make too big a hole in each contribution. (As usual like the one season
following the next season, some list members have already begun
complaining once again in horror that my contributions are far too long
;-) So we will have to wait until the next contribution to apply what we
have learnt in this contribution, namely how to transform "uncertainty in
wholeness" into the manifestation of wholeness in sureness. Thus we will
evolve in integrity since integrity is determined by wholeness and
sureness as Winfried Dressler have so joyfully discovered.

One last warning. When we keep on transforming each of the six kinds of
uncertainties like the "uncertainty of liveness" (Heisenberg) and the
"uncertainty of wholeness" (Leibniz) into facets of sureness, we will end
up with one very complex essence (not essentiality because it is one and
not seven) of creativity. We may then call this one very complex essence
by the nominal name "deep sureness". However, its seminal name will then
not be the dual description "identity-categoricity". Its seminal name
will rather require a fourteen-fold description concerning the form of
creativity! The manner in which Deming looked at the art of management can
serve as some example of what complexity we may expect.

By the way, if you think that you are now chewing rocks, think about my
students in chemistry and what they had to chew. I kept on making the
hole bigger and bigger so that they had to link more and more together so
as to avoid the "uncertainty of wholeness". I kept on pulling them through
"becoming-being" pairs so as to avoid the "uncertainty of liveness". I
kept on daring them to make effective connections where they thought none
were possible so as to avoid the "uncertainty of fruitfulness".

Many a day they screamed in horror, thinking that they will lose all their
teeth by chewing on such rocks. Many a day my collegues were horrified
even more, seeking the termination of my duties. Many a day I thought
myself that I will never survive it. But here I am, scarred, perhaps
crazy, yet still living. Meanwhile, by doing it, I succeeded in obtaining
empirical data which show convincingly how LEP (Law of Entropy production)
works in the abstract world of mind. This is how I found understanding in
what seemed to be incomprehensible for me.

With care and best wishes


At de Lange <> 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 <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

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