Efficiency and Emergence LO25047 [complex]

From: AM de Lange (amdelange@gold.up.ac.za)
Date: 07/07/00

Replying to LO25026 --

Dear Organlearners,

Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> writes:

>Gavin said "tension between..."
>What did you see in Gavin's expression that makes you think
>he is seeing "tension" in the sense of multiplication of signed
>quantities? And not as the difference between them?

Greetings Rick,

The spiral in the spiral in the spiral is a Pascalian vortex drawing me in
-- and I want to get out!!!

I am sorry -- it was very sloppy of me not to quote also the relevent
sentence from LO24350. As a result of this we are actually veering off
from the topic above, something I will try to rectify.

In that reply (LO24350) Gavin writes specifically:

>Tension is purely the product of our fears and the value of our
>desires, hopes, put neatly the feared disadvantages and our
>hoped for advantages.

I hope that will take care of the multiplication.

Let us explore the "signed quanitites". Firstly, the "signed" is implied
(see capital letters) by the use of "FEARED DIS-advantages" and "HOPED
FOR advantages". Making use of signs "plus" and "minus" introduce a
mathematical model here (called an algebraic field). The reason why it can
be done at all, is because another model has already been introduced,
namely that of modal logic. The "feared dis-" and "hoped for" are modal
quantifiers of logic.

As for being quantities, Gavin has warned wisely several times that very
few spiritual qualities can actually be measured. However, the abscence of
an explicit measuring process does not imply that the quality does not
exist, or that should it exist, it has implicitly no measure. It just
means that we have not yet discovered a way how to express the implicit
explicitly. It is rather the fact that we can ORDER a quality (like fear
or hope) from little to great which implies that the quality has an
implicit measure. I believe that in TQM Total Quality Management) this
order relationship in each quality needs to be explored far more.

>I have trouble thinking that the "tension" between two big
>negatives would produce an immensely positive force.

Me also. But this is what happens when the tension is viewed as the
product Y(2) x Y(1) rather than the difference Y(2) - Y(1)

It is like the argument that in order to prevent a possible war by the
offensive nation A, the defensive nation B have to take the initiative by
declaring war so as to procure peace sooner. For me personally, a second
wrong intended to correct a first wrong can never be an overall right.

But there is something deeper here which has very much to do with our
topic. Wrongs usually lead to destructive immergences at bifurcations.
Fighting wrongs with wrongs is the double loop ensuring for destructive
immergences at bifurcations. In other words, fighting wrongs with wrongs
very seldom results in constructive emergences. I am almost tempted to
make a reverse inference here -- since emergences are absent, fighting
wrongs with wrongs is a very efficient process ;-) -- efficient in wasting
"free energy".

>And, just to check... You say, "tension as difference will never
>be only negative." I assume you mean that the tension between
>two different outcomes will always be a force in the direction of
>one or the other, the amount of force proportional to the difference.
>Am I understanding you correctly?

Your understanding of the "amount of force proportional to the difference"
is correct. Your "the tension between two different outcomes will always
be a force in the direction of one or the other" is also correct. But I
think some examples are needed to illustrate all the possible variations.

Y(1) Y(2) Y(2) - Y(1)
-5 -7 (-7) - (-5) = -2
-5 -3 (-3) - (-5) = +2
-1 +1 (+1) - (-1) = +2
+1 -1 (-1) - (+1) = -2
+6 +8 (+8) - (+6) = +2
+6 +4 (+4) - (+6) = -2

Please observe that whenever Y(2) > Y(1), i.e whenever the higher ordered
term Y(2) in the tension leans more to the positive side than the lower
ordered term Y(1), the tension itself is positive. This has an important
bearing on the saying of NO and YES to tension forming qualities.

It is important to look at the sign of [Y(2) - Y(1)] because should
it be negative, then /_\X must also be negative so as to have the
positive outcome
        [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X > 0
When the signs of both Y(2) - Y(1)] and /_\X are negative, it
points to "entropy production" in the surroundings SU rather
than in the system SY. This will be the case when NOs rather
than YESs are predominant. The place where the "entropy
production" happens, has an important bearing on subsequent
ordinate bifurcations within the system SY itself. When the
"entropy production" is in the surroundings SU rather than within
the system SY itself, the ordinate bifurcation will usually result in
a destructive immergence rather than a constructive emergence.
In other words, it is best for a system SY to produce self its
own entropy. This is why we ought to study autopoiesis and
irreversible self-organisation so as to complexify our
understanding of "deep creativity".

I have carefully worked through Gavin's contributions several times to see
if he did not intuitively implied by his "product" the [Y(2) - Y(1)] x
/_\X pattern rather than the Y(2) x Y(1) pattern. But each time his
following comment prevents me from perceiving such a connection:

>On this becoming issue I propose we are not becoming
>anything at all this is a pure figment of the human imagination
>hoping there is some reason for our existence in this chaotic
>looking universe.

Rick, I wish I could stop here, but I dare not.

There is something important to consider when we deny becoming
and thus a becoming pattern like
        [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X > 0

It often happens, especially on the tacit level of thinking, that
the two factors [Y(2) - Y(1)] (the entropic force) and /_\X (the
entropic flux) are considered to be dialectical opposites rather
than complementary duals. It happens because of invoking LEM,
i.e. either [Y(2) - Y(1)] or /_\X , but not both. Hence one of the
two factors is suppressed (zeroed). Consequently the becoming
        [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X > 0
does not apply anymore. Why not? Assume, for example, that
/_\X "becomes" suppressed so that /_\X = 0. Then the becoming
        [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X > 0
will become
        [Y(2) - Y(1)] x 0 > 0
and hence
        0 > 0
which is a contradiction.

What now happens is a remarkable application of our topic
"Efficiency and Emergences". Since the becoming pattern
        [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X > 0
is denied, there is a zero efficiency in the consuming of "free energy" F
to maintain that becoming pattern. Hence we can expect some kind of
emergence. So what emerge? Fasten your seat-belt. Nothing else than the
Onsager Reciprocal Relationships! They induce a horde of secondary
becoming patterns. The more complex the system, the more numerous these
secondary becoming patterns.

I shall never forget how in my four years as a high school teacher
(1972-75) I was struck by this Onsager emergences in the classes.
Remember that in the previous four years (1968-71) I was a
researcher in soil science, having successfully introduced
irreversible thermodynamics to soil science in order to manage
the complexity of the soil system. Thus I was thoroughly versed
in the Onsager reciprocal relationships. I was TACITLY amazed
how pupils with definite tensions behaved like a "Jack in the box"
when forbidden to release these tensions (the [Y(2) - Y(1)] factors)
through complementary behaviours (the /_\X factors). Sooner or
later all sorts of secondary tensions developed with associated
behaviours. During my first year as a teacher I also actively
forbade definite behaviours, just to discover that sooner or later
I had to forbid even more behaviours, which sooner or later resulted
in forbidding even more behaviours. What a one-to-many-mapping
in forbidding rules !!! Its like pressing soft clay by both hands
The more I prevent the clay from oozing between two particular
fingers, the more it oozes between all the other fingers!

I write TACITLY in capital letters because, although I could describe the
similar process for a physical system formally, I could not articulate it
for the psyche of pupils. The simple reason is that I had no evidence
anywhere in literature that LEP (Law of Entropy Production) applies also
to the spiritual realm of the universe and not only its physical realm. I
also did not even suspect LEP to apply to the spiritual realm too. The
fact that these very Onsager inductions in pupils pointed to LEP applying
to the spiritual realm too, never occurred to me. I just had not evolved
to the requisite level of complexity to make such an inference. Yet I
have evolved to a sufficient level of complexity to become tacitly aware
of these Onsager cross inductions in the behaviour of pupils. Perhaps the
important fact here is not that I have observed these Onsager cross
inductions, but that I was actually amazed into stupification by observing

By this I do not imply at all that the same is happening to Gavin Ritz, or
to other fellow learners like John Gunkler or Steve Eskow in the past.

But I cannot help wondering in almost stupification how one denial
concerning something ESSENTIAL TO CREATIVITY often maps
into many denials which themselves map subsequently into even
more denials, a kind of vortex of spirals within spirals within
I have seen it happening so many times the past thirty years that
I do not doubt any more that something definite is happening here.
I may may be way off in my perception of what is happening or in
my articulation of it. But to me any denial of something
to creativity is persistently self-destructive. (I use these many
synonyms of "essential" to indicate here that I try to avoid Husserl's
own idea of "essential".)

It brings me into the picture of "deep creativity" in a way which I do not
like because of the paramount responsibility which it places on me. Since
I try to understand creativity in its deepest or most complex sense, I
might very well stumble onto something which is indeed
"actual-cardinal-constitutive-inherent-intrinsic-substantial-requisite "
to creativity. (The "seven essentialities", for example, may be just such
a thing.) If a person's denial of such a thing
"actual-cardinal-constitutive-inherent-intrinsic-substantial-requisite "
to creativity is indeed persistently self-destrutive, then I will by the
fact of having stumbled on such a thing by my very articulating of that
thing be involved into what happens to such a person denying this thing.
Since the denials are the cause of the self-destruction, I am almost
tempted to suggest affirmations by applying LEM. But these affirmations
will cultivate rote learning which I also try to avoid. Thus I have to
encourage people not to trust me or anything which I write, but to
scrutinize my writings carefully or even burn it when it offends.

This latter sentence has an important logical undertone. Since
Gavin says I am stuck in logic, I have to elucidate this logical
undertone so that fellow learners can know exactly what I am
doing and where I am stuck. The logical undertone here was
first formally introduced by the American philospher CS Peirce
as "inclusive denials". (Yes, Peirce also had some crazy ideas.)
It is often called among ogicians as Peirce's "dagger" and
symbolised by "|". It can be defined as
a | b == (NOT a) AND (NOT b)
Compare it with
a AND b == a AND b
a OR b == NOT ((NOT a) AND (NOT b))
a IMPLY b == NOT((NOT a) AND b)

This "dagger" seems to be a self-destruction of truth in statements. But
its power by "creative collapse" was not realised until the advent of LSI
(Large Scale Integration) in computer (digital) technology. It is used in
the synthesis and analysis (fault finding) of digital circuits by way of
constructing so called "switching functions" with it. By using this
"inclusive denial" on myself, I may very well incite the use of "inclusive
denials" among fellow learners without them becoming aware of it. So
please take care of it so as not to fall into the syndrome of denying
everything. I may cause a lot of unnecessary destructive immergences in
premature bifurcations.

How should you take care? By seeking the complementary
dual of the "inclusive denial" so as to harmonise these two. This
dual was first formally identified by the American logician W V O
Quine in 1947. Let me symbolise it by the $ sign. The difference
between a|b and a$b can be summarised by truth tables as follows.
Let a and b symbolise statements while T and F symbolise the
truth values true and false. For comparison and to understand
how a truth table work, I also add the logical constructions aANDb
as well as aORb
a b a|b a$b aANDb aORb

Please observe how Peirce's "dagger" a|b is the "truth opposite" of the
the construct aANDb. Both are very "hard" on truth. (Yes, in the
"world-inside-me" I am very "hard" on truth.) On the other hand, both a$b
and aORb are very "soft" on truth. In the case of aORb, only when both a
and b are false, is aORb false. In the case of a$b, only when both a and b
are true, is a$b false. When applied to our topic "Efficiency and
Emergences" and the way fellow learners have responded to it, a$b would
apply to all those who feel like Leo who states that it gives answers to
much, if not all, what happened on our LO-dialogue the past year. It leads
to Gavin's description "At and company"

Gavin's use of "At and company" is a valid construction based on Quine's
a$b. On the other hand, my warning not to trust the truth of anything
which I write, is valid construction based on Peirce's a|b. So what you
fellow learners now have, are both the a$b and a|b. You need to harmonise
these two so as to self make up your own minds. This is very much like
what designers in digital technology have to do with switching functions
based on a|b and a$b when making LSI chips successfully even more complex.

I sometimes ponder about the following question of which the answer will
be kept very secret. What is the ratio of emergences to immergences in the
development work of companies of digital technology like Intell or AMD. If
they want to keep it a secret, fine. But if we try to keep the ratio of
spiritual emergences to immergences on our LO-dialogue a secret, it is not
fine with me. I want to assist all possible emergences and avoid all
possible immergences. So I want to thank Gavin for his challenges, even
though they seem to make some fellow learners uncomfortable. Likewise my
own writings make some other fellow learners uncomfortable.

Has "authentic learning" ever been comfortable? Is a LO-dialogue

Perhaps our topic "Efficiency and Emergences" should have been called
"Efficiency and Bifurcations" to include also immergences.

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 <Richard@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.