Work and Free Energy -- The Dance of LEP on LEC LO25370 -Part II

From: AM de Lange (
Date: 09/24/00

Dear Organlearners,

[Here Part II begins. The movie is still running! Please patch it up!]

The philosophical outlook called "dialecticism" has been growing steadily
the past three millennia in several civilisations, the majority of them
now belonging to the past. Since its formal explication more than a
century ago as "material dialecticism" by Marx, it has become the official
ideology and policy of the now defunct communist countries. It is also
sold in the capitalistic countries in its many possible simplified forms
as hundreds of different "copyright protected brands" to be used as
instant managerial tools. Small businesses up to large corporations buy
these tools so that they seem to be quite innocent. Yet each of these
"brands" can be identified for what they are by seeking for "opposite
pairs" in them.

The mistake is to imagine two complementary duals as two dialectical
(competing, opposing) duals. Thus people will try to think in terms of LEC
as the "good thesis" while ignoring or destroying any thoughts in terms of
LEP as the "bad antithesis". Thus dialecticism per se or in its many
disguises strengthens the picture of an "idyllic reversible" world, full
of equalities, one system the winner, LEM the ruler and a future of more
chaos. It is this kind of world in which wheeling opportunists can thrive
in their dealings.

It is indeed difficult to avoid confusion with "apartheid" (making
independence absolute) and "dialecticism" as Mental Models when thinking
about the following two statements.
. * There is a reversible transfer of entropy S tightly
. connected to the conservated transfer of total
. energy E
. * The increase (liberation) in entropy of the universe is
. a measure of increasing organisation (usually called
. evolution) in the universe.
How can entropy be BOTH conserved AND liberated?. Do the
conservatists and liberalists not have to oppose each othe
until such days when horses get horns?

Yet these two statements suggest that some of the total energy E(sy) of
the system SY is locked up in maintaining the present organisation of the
system SY as is measured by its entropy S(sy). Exactly the same applies to
the surroundings SU. It is this part of E which carries the conserved S
with it. This suggestion allows us to speculate that only the remainder
of the systems otal energy E is available for the liberation or production
of entropy in addition to the protected transfer of entropy. Let us call
this "remainder of total energy available for entropy production" by the
name "free energy" and the symbol F.

How will we find F in terms of E and S? We have to thank JW Gibbs for the
following suggestion which eventually proved to be extremely useful:
. F = E - T x S
or specifically for the system SY and the surroundings SU
. F(sy) = E(sy) - T(sy) x S(sy)
. F(su) = E(su) - T(su) x S(su)
We cannot merely write
. F = E - S
because we cannot subtract pears (entropy, unit J/K) from apples
(energy, unit K). We need to correct the unit J/K of S into the unit J
of E by multiplying it with the unit K of absolute temperature T.
Mathematicians who know what they are doing, will recognise in
T a Langrangian multiplier, here applied to an Euler function.

We are tempted to think that by multiplying S with T, we have actually
demonstrated that entropy S is forever linked on the fundamental level to
temperature T. This worries many people because then it would mean that we
are bootstrapped to THERMOdynamics. It is not the case. For any form of
energy which can be expressed as Y x X (Y intensive quantity and X its
complementary extensive quantity, see Primer on Entropy) the becoming
. [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X > 0
could have been used for the definition for entropy S* in the manner:
. [1/Y(2) - 1/Y(1)] x /_\(Y x X)
In the case of electrical energy it would have been
. [1/V(2) - 1/V(1)] x /_\(V x Q) = /_\S*
where V is the electrical potential and Q is the electrical charge.
Then in such a case we would have had to define the free energy
F as
. F = E - V x S*
Furthermore, we would not have used the name THERMOdynamics
anymore, but rather a name in which "V+Q -cal" rather than
"thermal" would have figured. In that case some would have feared
that we are forever bootstrapped to this "V+Q+dynamics".

Perhaps the significance of
. F = E - T x S
has not stricked you. Should we have written it as (note the +)
. F = E + T x S
then we could have argued that two wholes (E and S) have
been combined so as to let a new whole (F) emerge which is
more (by way of T) than the sum of its parts. (See Smuts on
holism.) But now we write it as (note the - rather than the +)
. F = E - T x S
This is the emergence of a new whole by way of a "creative
collapse" between two wholes (E and S).

Why do I keep on writing " two wholes (E and S)"? How can we
see E and S as a whole each? Well, ONLY when we use E in LEC
itself and S in LEP will they each be a whole because they involve
the very UNIVERSE (whole of wholes) as
. /_\E(un) = 0
. /_\S(un) > 0
Should we want to bring in the system SY, then we must bring in
also the surroundings SU so as not to lose wholeness on E and S.
This will result in
. /_\E(sy) + /_\E(su) = 0
. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) > 0
Let us now begin with LEP and apply
. F = E - T x S
. S = (E - F) / T
to it. It will result into:
. /_\[(E - F) / T)](sy) +/_\[(E - F) / T)](su) > 0
rearranged into
. [/_\E(sy) + /_\E(su)] - [/_\(F/T)(sy) + /_\(F/T)(su)] > 0
which collapses with LEC into the remainder
. - [/_\(F/T)(sy) + /_\(F/T)(su)] > 0
This expression can then be inverted as
. [/_\(F/T)(sy) + /_\(F/T)(su)] < 0
Since we know that T(sy) > 0 and T(su) > 0 (an absolute temperature T
is always positive) we may conclude the following.
. /_\F(sy) + /_\F(su) < 0
Let us not forget that this expression emerged as a new whole from the
combination of LEC and LEP as two wholes. It is the "whole of both
LEC and LEP".

Let us compare this "whole of both LEC and LEP"
. /_\F(sy) + /_\F(su) < 0
with LEC and LEP individually as
. /_\E(sy) + /_\E(su) = 0
. /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) > 0
Firstly, this "universal order relationship for free energy" tells us that
the free energy F is NOT CONSERVED like the total energy E, NOR MAXIMISED
like the entropy S. It is as if the free energy F is behaving in a manner
opposite to entropy S. The free energy F of the universe is decreasing
continuously as the universe is becoming more organised. In fact, we will
use the very expression
. /_\F(sy) + /_\F(su) < 0
taken together into
. /_\F(un) < 0
as our very principal definition for the SPONTANEOUS organising of
the universe UN. I must stress that for me it is NOT a definition for
the "apartheid" of the universe UN. In other words, I am not preaching
"apartheid" here. I have merely avoided bringing the Creator of the
universe into the picture so as not to cause difficulties for people
who believe or do not believe in God Creator.

This behaviour of free energy F contrary to that of entropy S reminds me
of the following. Schroedinger introduced the notion of "negentropy"
(negative of entropy) without even describing how it can be measured and
calculated! He believed that entropy is a measure of only chaos. He
intuitively knew that living systems evolved towards more order than more
chaos. Thus he introduced "negentropy" as a measure of order so as to
explain how living systems circumvent increasing chaos. He ascribed to
"negentropy" properties of which some correspond to that of free energy F.
I want to suggest that people who are intrigued by the notion "negentropy"
ought to study the well defined concept of "free energy" (two words, one
concept) too.

The chemical, geological and biological evolutions which we observe on our
own planet of our solar system is remarkable manifestations of this
SPONTANEOUS organisation. Likewise, whenever for any system SY any process
happens according to which for that system itself
. /_\F(sy) < 0
we will say that the system SY is SELF changing SPONTANEOUSLY.

Secondly, this "universal order relationship for free energy" tells us
that there is not only ONE case possible for
. /_\F(sy) + /_\F(su) < 0
but MANY CASES for it like
. (+3J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+2J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+1J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+0J) +(-4J) < 0
. (-1J) +(-4J) < 0
. (-2J) +(-4J) < 0
In the first three cases only the surrounding SU acts spontaneously
. /_\F(su) = -4J < 0
whereas the system does not since
. /_\F(sy) > 0
But in the last two cases both the surroundings SU and the system
SY act spontaneously since both
. /_\F(su) < 0 and /_\F(sy) < 0

This second observation may seem to be extremely abstract with no
practical value at all. But it does have a practical value with stunning
importance for the world of today. The manufacturing (making) of all
technology is NON-spontaneous, i.e.
. /_\F(tech-making) > 0
Show me any example of technology which will come into existence by its
own spontaneous self-organisation! The fuelling of all technology with
non-replenishable sources of free energy is also NON-spontaneous, i.e.
. /_\F(tech-fuelling) > 0
For example, show me one car which will mine self its own crude oil, will
raffinate self the crude oil into gasoline and then will fill self up its
own tank. (Intersomatic fuelling of technology with a renewable source of
free energy is possible, but rarely practised.) Furthermore, the
maintenance (caring) of all technology is NON-spontaneous, i.e.
. /_\F(tech-caring) > 0
No car can repair itself in any kind of breakdown. Lastly, only in its
functioning (doing) is technology spontaneous, i.e
. /_\F(tech-doing) < 0
Cars are made, fuelled and maintained so as to propel themselves.
Finally, taking all together, comparing the overwhelming deficit of the
first three with the credit of the last case, we may conclude
. /_\F(technology) > 0
In other words, our present system of technology is like the first
three numerical examples above rather than the last two examples.

So many would argue --OK, this is indeed a curious insight, but what is
dangerous, if anything wrong at all, with technology being non-spontaneous
in its becoming?

The first danger is that we use fossil fuel (which was created by the
spontaneous self-organisation of nature) as sources of free energy F.
Once this fossil fuel has been used up, this source of free energy will
become empty for million of years to come. In other words, the first
danger is that we are not aware that this incredible addiction to "free
energy" in our technological driven societies will sooner or later be
satisfied in drips rather than streams. Many people dream how to become
materially rich through technology. But all technology depending on fossil
fuel will grind to a standstill from which it will never awake again. All
those dreaming of technology driven riches will wake up to the nightmare
of reality -- material paupacy.

The second danger is that we are unaware of what we are doing to our
environment (the surroundings SU) with this staggering amount of
non-spontaneous processes forced to happen. We are thinking of humankind
as the winners because it can affect /_\F(sy) > 0. (Here the SY is
technology -- humankind itself is part of the SU.) But all technology are
producing entropy in a manner which the earth in its millions of years of
evolution has never experienced before. How? We are actually reversing
evolution by burning up fossil fuel. Yet our environment has to evolve
spontaneously, i.e. /_\F(su) < 0. All evolutions (chemical, geological and
biological) and all systems in them were winners because of this
spontaneous self-organisation. But one by one we are forcing with our
technology many systems in these three evolution streams (hyper-systems)
to self-organise NON-spontaneously, something which never happened before
in billions of years. Hence they are becoming losers, one by one, faced
with extinction.

We can thank ourselves with the incredible patience which our environment
had in sustaining our
. /_\F(tech) > 0
. /_\F(su) << 0
so that
. /_\F(tech) + /_\F(su) < 0
like in the first four examples above
. (+3J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+2J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+1J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+0J) +(-4J) < 0
But since our non-spontaneous technology is growing like a cancer,
we have to add to the pattern at their top rather their bottom the
following (see the examples marked by *)
. (+6J) +(-4J) > 0 *
. (+5J) +(-4J) > 0 *
. (+4J) +(-4J) = 0 *
. (+3J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+2J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+1J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+0J) +(-4J) < 0

What has happened here? The first step higher will be the world driven in
to the "idyllic reversible" state which we want to live in. The next step
above it will be
. (+5J) +(-4J) > 0 *
However, it will never, never, never ever happen because of LEC
and LEP. In other words, the first step higher
. (+4J) +(-4J) = 0 *
is also the final step. It spells ULTIMATE DEATH to all
There will be no life ever afterwards, not even for systems behaving
non-spontaneously like our technology -- the modern idol. The
"idyllic reversible" world has become the stark reality of death.

The last danger is the following. Because we are drifting upwards to
the "idyllic reversible world" in the pattern
. (+6J) +(-4J) > 0 *
. (+5J) +(-4J) > 0 *
. (+4J) +(-4J) = 0 *
. (+3J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+2J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+1J) +(-4J) < 0
. (+0J) +(-4J) < 0
. (-1J) +(-4J) < 0
. (-2J) +(-4J) < 0
rather than downwards to the "real irreversible" world like in the
last two examples at the bottom for the rest of the universe, we are
loosing our grip on the founding stone of all our ethics as humankind.
This founding stone is nothing else than the whole of LEC and LEP in
a creative collapse, namely
. /_\F(sy) + /_\F(su) < 0

To understand this founding stone better, let us introduce work W
once again as follows. All our instruments for measuring two or more
quantities for work like in the "descriptive" pattern
. force x displacement
and then even our calculation upon them are in the surroundings SU
and not the system SY. Hence the work W which FLOWS over the
border of SU may be equated to the DIFFERENCE /_\F(su) (notice
the "su"which is not "sy")
. /_\F(su) = - W

The negative sign here before W is very important. Firstly, it reminds us
that we DARE to equate a FLOW with a DIFFERENCE, a becoming (movie) with a
being (difference between two successive pictures). Secondly, it helps to
make the bookkeeping easier between W and /_\F(sy) (notice the "sy"which
is not "su") since they cannot be equated like above. So how are they
related? Take the work equation above
. /_\F(su) = - W
and substitute it in the "universal order relationship for free
. /_\F(sy) + /_\F(su) < 0
which will then result into
. /_\F(sy) - W < 0
or rearranging
. /_\F(sy) < W
When W has a positive value, it means that some energy enters the system
SY through work DONE ON the system. Hence F(sy) increases so that
/_\F(sy) is positive. But when W has a negative value, it means that
energy leaves the system through work DONE BY the system on the
surroundings. Hence F(sy) decreases so that /_\F(sy) is negative. In other
words, what goes in raises with a positive difference whereas what goes
out lowers with a negative difference. This is the bookkeeping which I
have mentioned.

Let us compare the two expressions
. /_\F(su) = - W AND /_\F(sy) < W
Let us for one moment erase the qualifications (su) and (sy) to end
up with
. /_\F = - W AND /_\F < W
This result appears to be a grave logical error. LEM cannot allow
Perhaps this can be better illustrated by numbers. Let /_\F = -3J and
W = 3J. Then these two expressions become
. -3J = -3J AND -3J < 3J
It seems as if LEM has no power here because both expressions are
true. But let /_\F = -3J and W = 4J. Then these two expressions
. -3J = -4J AND -3J < 4J
Here the first expression is false whereas the second expression is
true. Thus it seems as if LEM does indeed hold here. As a final check,
let /_\F = 3J and W = -3J. Then these two expressions become
. 3J = 3J AND 3J < -3J
Now the first expression is true whereas the second expression is

What a grand mix-up of inconsistencies. Einstein was aware of it too.
His solution was based on LEM -- to conserve /_\F = - W and hence
to denounce /_\F < W. For him they were dialectical duals. He had
to conserve /_\F = - W because it fitted perfectly with the "idyllic
reversible" world of physics with all its laws formulated as
But are they not rather complementary duals? If they are, how will we
know it? Again, we will have to restore wholeness by reversing the
erasing of the qualifications (sy) and (su). We will have to paint the
picture richer. The result is our original comparison
. /_\F(su) = - W AND /_\F(sy) < W
We see clearly that the change in free energy /_\F concerns two
different, yet complementary systems, SY and SU. In other words,
LEM should not have been applied at all to solve the apparent

The equation
. /_\F(su) = - W
does not give us a license to claim that the world is reversible. It
only says that we as observers with our instruments are in the
context (surroundings SU) of the system SY. We make measurements
and do calculations according to some "pattern in form" to arrive at
Whether it happens reversible or irreversible, we cannot tell. But to
obtain sureness, we need at least the identity
. /_\F(su) = - W
However, sureness also involves categoricity. To obtain this
we need the complement of this identity, namely
. /_\F(sy) < W
This complement tells us that at least the system SY is a "real
irreversible" and not an "idyllic reversible" world. These two different
expressions, yet complementary, are so important that we will have to give
them distinguishing names. We may call
. /_\F(su) = - W
the "contextual free energy to work equivalence relation" and
. /_\F(sy) < W
the "universal free energy to work order relation".

Let us now paint a rich picture on this "universal free energy to work
order relation"
. /_\F < W
Firstly, let us use Occam's Razor to follow the road of simplicity by
cutting it in three parts and then formulating each part in words. The
outcomes are
. " /_\F"(sy) as "change in free energy" (of the system)
. "<" as "is smaller than"
. "W" as "work"
Each part seem to be transparent in its meaning, except probably the
word "free" in the first part. When we add the three phrases together
as the one phrase
. "change in free energy is smaller than work"
much of the transparency seems to be lost for many people. It seems
to be a weird comparison made by some crazy person. It has the
same "pattern in form" like saying
. "change in hair length is smaller than eat"
How anybody can say that this is the founding stone of ethics, defies
all imagination.

But think about the following saying which also has the same
"pattern in form" as the two above
. "change in money is smaller than service"
Suddenly we become aware that something strange is going on as
a result of the pattern in the phrase. How many times do we not have
to struggle to get more payment (money or recognition) for our
services? Is this not a struggle in ethics? Our problem with phrases
like this is that the pattern seems to be clear, but not the form.
Hence the "pattern in form" or "organisation" is not clear. The problem
here is language itself.

To release the form from language, we will have to introduce symbols
which do not remind us of languages. Doing this, can we have any
better form than
. /_\F < W
Yes, we can get rid even of the letters of the alphabet in it (and the
underscore), ending with an expression like
. /\ < \/
Those of you who try to fathom the patterns within wholeness (one of
the seven essentialities of creativity) might now feel a slight shiver
going down the spine, "seeing" the "associativity" of wholeness
"jumping" out of this pattern. However, let us stick to the more
conventional form
. /_\F < W

Up to now we have merely considered changes brought about by work W in the
physical (material) world. I have led many a student of mine into despair
with such calculations on changes in chemical organisation and work. I am
well aware of this despair, responsible for this despair, but not guilty
of it. Yet I now want you fellow learners to consider even changes in the
spiritual world without further despair. I know that many of you now are
feeling that you have already been saturated with despair. I have felt so
too, especially during my years as a student. But I have manage to
overcome this despair with authentic learning and so can you too. Hence
let us explore together the meaning of this founding stone.

We have to comprehend that ethics is concerned with especially the
spiritual rather than only the physical. Yet the validity of LEC and LEP
has been demonstrated empirically only for the physical world, the world
of body rather than the world of mind. First physicists began to use LEC
and LEP, then many chemists, thereafter some geologists and now even a few
biologists. We will now have to go higher up on this physical ladder and
even enter the spiritual world. So what about the validity of LEC and LEP
for the spiritual world? Let us now ASSUME for learning purposes that they
also apply to the abstract and not merely the concrete world. Our
assumption may be sheer speculative imagination. But it may be also stark
fact. For example, somebody may have demonstrated empirically that LEC and
LEP also apply to the mind and not only the brain. Yet for some definite
reasons unknown to us, this vital piece of truth may not yet have been
articulated to us. Can any of you think of such possible reasons?

The abstract and concrete world becomes one in any person. Thus we ought
to take care not to separate body and mind, although we have to
distinguish between them, once again carefully. For example, when a person
has to perform work on something else, even something seemingly
insignificant such as writing, it is the body which does the work
(writing). But for this to happen, the mind first have to work on the
body, employing the neurological system.

So let us assume that LEP dances upon LEC for all of our universe,
physical and spiritual. With such an assumption, we have to conclude that
"free energy" F is indeed a universal (physical and spiritual) concept.
Once we distinguish in this universe a system SY (physical, spiritual or
both), as soon as we think of the system's "free energy" F, we will also
have to think of the surroundings SU in terms of work W (physical,
spiritual or both). The integrity (sureness and wholeness) of your
learning will depend on the following five parts (with some synonyms in
. free energy "F" (energy source, food, fuel, intention)
. system "SY" (body, object, model)
. ordering "<" (becoming pattern, symmetry breaking)
. work "W" (action, business, doing, labour, toil)
. surrounding "SU" (environment, context, field)

Never ever leave even one of them out of your contemplations because then
your learning will be in vain and your despair will never end. Your
mental health will gradually deteriorate. For example, I have read many
informative articles and learned papers on the coming "energy crisis" as
it is usually called. Some are depressive. Some are sheer "doomsday
preaching". Some offer as consolation "enjoy the party while it last".
Others cry for or prophetise a revolution like "science will solve the
crisis". A few tell about "secret masters who have prepared their own

Since the middle eighties I also became aware how essential these five
parts are. Thus, whenever reading such an alarming paper which incidently
also does not give any guidance to ordinary people what to do, I began to
notice how at least one of these five parts was persistently absent in the
contemplations of such a paper. In other words, deep down there is a lack
of mental integrity which many people will feel intuitively. They begin to
despair when trying to formulate this gut feeling, especially if the paper
seems to be factually true. Such papers may be factual, but they lack in
ethics because the pattern
. /_\F < W
the dance of LEP on LEC, has not been honoured. It is usually
because of one or more of the five parts in this pattern, lifted out
bove for you to take note of, which are lacking.

Now for some double loop learning. To understand
. /_\F < W
we will make use of its most profound outcomes. It can be described by the
concept "evolution", or more focused, by the concept
"one-to-many-mapping". (We already applied this concept in several
numerical examples earlier when making lists of possible energy, entropy
and free energy values.) At the highest level we will map /_\F into three
cases, spontaneous changes, non-spontaneous changes and equilibrium. At
the second highest level we will then map each (of three) case into
several values for the work W, covering all the distinct possibilities. At
the lowest level we will map into material and mental examples.

All spontaneous changes for a system are characterised by
. /_\F < 0
or in words
. (change in free energy) (is smaller than) (zero)
It means that the system's free energy F has to decrease so that
the difference between its value after the change and the value before
the change is negative (smaller than zero). A typical numerical value
would be
. /_\F = -5J
Notice the sign "-", the number "5" and the unit "J". It means that the
free energy is decreasing for the spontaneous change. Let us now consider
the following values for W which will cover the different possible
. W = -7J
. W = -5J
. W = -2J
. W = 0J
. W = +4J
. W = +8J
Negative values for W mean the system does the work and positive
values mean the surrounding does the work on the system. What will
we get when we substitute these values for /_\F and W and then
determine how they are mutually related?

With /_\F = -5J and W = -7J we get
. -5J (change in free energy) > -7J (work)
This contradicts the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
so that this example just cannot ever happen. What cannot happen? The
system is doing more work W (-ve sign, 7J) than the free energy F (-ve,
5J) it gives up. In other words, the free energy which the system has
available, limits the maximum work which it can perform. One gallon of
gasoline will take the car a limited distance depending on the make and
maintenance of the car and the topography of the road. Should we want to
go any distance beyond the maximum distance (obtained by W), we will have
to add more fuel (increase /_\F ) to the car so as to satisfy /_\F < W
once again. Quack chemists (but never any authentic chemist) trick
innocent people into buying expensive additives which little will increase
W dramatically. Quack engineers do the same with expensive gadgets. Any
increase in /_\F for the same amount of fuel is impossible, whatever the

A mentally spontaneous person can do only so much mental work before that
mind needs to become filled up again by wondering and sleeping. Unlike
technology, the mind cannot be filled up READILY with external sources of
mental free energy. Intersomatic ("interpersonal") fuelling of mental free
energy is possible, but requires "teamwork" in one or more of the five
elementary sustainers of creativity. To expect more from a person than
the maximum mental work possible is sheer ignorance. Thus we ought to form
in advance a fair opinion of how much mental free energy (/_\F) a person
has available so as not to expect too much mental work (W). This free
energy can be extended by teamwork in an elementary sustainer of
creativity. Have you noticed how a learner following the path of rote
learning just quits when too much mental work is required? Can rote
learning refuel the mind? Is there such a thing as quack teachers like the
quack chemists mentioned above?

With /_\F = -5J and W = -5J we get
. -5J (change in free energy) = -5J (work)
Even though this is the "idyllic reversible"situation, it still
contradicts the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
of the "real irreversible" world so that it just never can happen. What
cannot happen? The system is doing exactly as much work W (-ve sign, 5J)
as giving up its free energy F (-ve, 5J). In other words, the system is
operating 100% efficiently when delivering the maximum work. 100%
efficient machines has been the goal of many an engineer. Nobody, not
even the most brilliant engineer, has succeeded in making a 100% efficient
machine. For example, such a machine will have to work infinitely slow so
as to avoid the wear and tear of entropy production. Only quack engineers
still claim they have succeeded in making a 100% efficient machine.

Every person with a healthy mind cannot do rote mental work 100%
efficiently. The better the efficiency, the less any novel mental
creations will emerge. (See the LO-topic on Efficiency and Emergences)
This will degrade any organisation of human workers into an army of
creativeless humanoids. Not only business leaders, but also state and
church leaders will have to ponder on this degradation which became
alarmingly high since WWI. Have you notice how a learner following more
and more the path of rote learning works slower and slower? Eventually,
when the mental work has become almost perfect rote behaviour, it happens
imperceptibly slow. This is often followed up by humanoid abuses of all
kinds to refuel the learner mentally while still imposing the death
sentence by rote learning.

With /_\F = -5J and W = -2J we get
. -5J (change in free energy) < -2J (work)
This concords with the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
so that it can and usually does happen. What happens? The system is doing
less work W (-ve sign, 2J) than giving up its free energy F (-ve, 5J). In
other words, the system is operating below 100% efficiency when delivering
some work at some pace. Technology which have to work fast will have wear
and tear, a degradation in the specifications (organisation) as a result
of entropy production. The art of engineering ought to be finding the
optimum balance between increasing work and increasing pace for a fixed
amount of free energy used, rather than increasing the supply of free
energy to increase both work and pace. Biological systems are able to
direct entropy production from wear and tear also into natural autopoiesis
(organelles, cells, organs, organisms, instincts, even intelligence and
spirituality), thus fixing what wear and tear may have caused. However,
nobody has yet accomplished the same in technological systems, something
which may be called "artificial autopoiesis".

A mentally spontaneous person will do rote mental work less than 100%
efficiently. That person will find reasons to jeopardise the fficiency of
rote mental work so as to care for his/her mental health. Some will use a
lofty reason like compassion which prevented them from reaching 100%
efficiency. Others will even revert to rote mental work of a different
kind (like compulsive behaviours and mania) to escape 100% efficiency.
Have you noticed how a learner avoiding the dreadful 100% efficiency of
rote learning often do other things than rote learning? Sadly, those
doings are not directed at the topic to be learned. In those doings the
learner search intuitively for work which offers creative challenges. The
student should not feel guilty for doing other things than the expected
rote learning with 100% efficiency. It is teachers and facilitators, not
knowing how to guide the mentally spontaneous learner to use a diversity
of learning techniques, who should begin to learn self or otherwise feel

With /_\F = -5J and W = 0J we get
. -5J (change in free energy) < 0J (work)
This agrees with the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
so that it can happen. What happens? The system is doing no work
W at all while giving up its free energy F (-ve, 5J). In other words, the
system is operating at 0% efficiency when delivering no work for the
free energy which it consumes. 0% efficient machines is not the goal
of even a quack engineer. Does this mean that chemists must be
quack engineers because they very often let a chemical reaction
happen which does no work on the environment. No. All the free
energy of the reagents are rather used to produce new compounds,
magnificent examples of changes in chemical organisation. However,
reactions do waste some free energy which chemical engineers
could have converted into work. Sometimes they do harness this
wasted free energy into work such as in chemical cells (like the
battery in your car) or combustion chambers (like the engine in
your car). In such cases the example /_\F = -5J and W = -2J above
describes what is happening.

A mentally spontaneous person may seem to be working 0% efficiently when
that mind does not work on the body so that the body does not work on the
surroundings like using a tool or creating art. But is the mind really
undergoing no change in organisation with the lowering /_\F in free
energy? No. A person in deep meditation will use the mental free energy
available to reorganise some patterns in the mind itself. We may even
think of it as "mental chemistry", producing novel "mental compounds", but
it is traditionally called (abstract) creativity. Unfortunately, the
employer cannot see this creativity happening in the mind of the worker,
but only in whatever innovative product the body has wrought provided the
mind has worked on that body and the body has worked on the innovative
product. However, since the same free energy cannot be used twice, the
employer has to allow the worker's mind to refuel its free energy. But
how many employers allow this refuelling and know how to manage it? Have
you noticed how a learner engrossed in authentic learning so as to let new
concepts emerge and older concepts modify digestively, seems to do no work
except for the flickering of the eyes? However, the converse does not mean
that a learner doing physically nothing will be engrossed in authentic
learning -- the fatal assumption of teachers using the lecturing method.
That learner may actually be day-dreaming on any other topic than the one
to be learned, using free energy to dream rather than to learn

With /_\F = -5J and W = +4J we get
. -5J (change in free energy) < +4J (work)
This again agrees with the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
so that it can happen. What happens? The surrounding SU is doing work W
(positive sign) on the system while the system itself is giving up its
free energy F (-ve, 5J). In other words, the work which the system could
have delivered spontaneously is now overruled by doing work on the system.
Only people completely illiterate on work will waste free energy to work
on a system which could have worked self because of its spontaneous
change. It is like pushing a car, its throttle open, but its ignition
switched off. The car will suck fuel into its carburettor and blow it
through the exhaust system, thus decreasing the fuel and its free energy.
The person pushing the car is doing a lot of work on the car because of
failing to check if the ignition system (essentiality fruitfulness) is
functioning properly. Similarly, any one of the other six essentialities
may also be failing.

A mentally spontaneous person will use and thus decrease his/her mental
free energy. Some of it is used to organise the mind further and the rest
to work on the body so as to do organise something else in the
surroundings. Only slave drivers oblivious to spontaneous thinking and
doing will work with blows on the body and scolds on the ears of a slave
to modify that person for whatever reason. The person is spontaneous with
free energy available for some definite changes. However, these possible
changes do not suite the liking of the slave driver. The slave driver
rather wants changes for which the person is non-spontaneous because
mental free energy has to increase rather than decrease. This want-driven
slave-driving is a worthless abuse. It produces entropy which will be
harmful rather than beneficial to the person. Have you noticed how often a
spontaneous learner gets abused physically and spiritually because that
learner's authentic learning does not fit in with the creed and custom of
the trainer? Have you noticed how the entropy production by such abuse
eventually destroy spontaneous learning? This inundation of entropy,
produced outside the learner, gradually destroys the learner's mind to
refuel its own free energy, to use that free energy to produce its own
entropy and thus to change self the organisation of the mind. The
slave-driving of any spontaneous learner will gradually destroy the
authenticity of that learner. What remains is a pitiful human barely
capable of mustering sufficient free energy to sustain silly rote

With /_\F = -5J and W = +8J we get
. -5J (change in free energy) < +8J (work)
This again agrees with the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
so that it can happen. What happens? The same as in the previous case. The
surrounding SU is doing work W (positive sign) on the system while the
system itself is giving up its free energy F (-ve, 5J). In other words,
the work which the system could have delivered spontaneously is now
overruled by doing work on the system. However, so much work is done on
the system that it even causes the reverse of the spontaneous change to
happen. How? If for the spontaneous change /_\F = -5J, then its reverse
change will be /_\F = +5J. In this with case W = +8J we get
. +5J (change in free energy) < +8J (work)
which still agrees with the ordering
. (change in free energy) < (work)
Should the spontaneous change itself be evolution, i.e. constructive
creativity, then the reversed non-spontaneous change will be
contra-evolution, i.e destructive creativity. The former inundation of
entropy will now become a vast deluge of entropy because of the
massive work done on the system. It will be like a small car being
hit by a massive truck coming from the opposite side. Little of the
car will remain organised because of the ensuing chaos.

Slave drivers, thinking of themselves as masters over life and death, will
use unlimited work to disfigure the body and mind of slaves to accomplish
changes which these slave drivers self want. These slave drivers are very
clever. Whereas they have used in the past whips and swords to further
their own selfish means, this whipping and cutting gradually became
outlawed. They will now use any other destructive means which have not yet
been outlawed. They will even impersonate the very law itself to use it in
whatever refined way further their wants. Yet, for all their diabolic
schemes, they can still be discerned in three definite aspects. Firstly,
they use extensive forcing work to get what they want. Secondly, they
condone destructive creativity. Thirdly, they have zero compassion for
their victims. Have you noticed how far some educational systems have
progressed on the path of catastrophic slave driving? Perhaps not. Then
bear in mind that doing so much work on the system of learners will cost
astronomical amounts of money to pay for the extensive forcing work (the
first clue). Also bear in mind that the ensuing destructive creativity
will result in many learners becoming outcasts rather than assets of
society (the second clue). Lastly, bear in mind that laws based on
fundamentalistic arguments (involving or denouncing what is sacred to some
people) will bar caring love from the system (the last clue).

Let us now pay attention to all non-spontaneous changes for a system.
They are characterised by
. /_\F > 0
or in words
. (change in free energy) (is greater than) (zero)
It means that the system's free energy F has to increase so that the
difference between its value after the change and the value before the
change is positive (greater than zero). A typical numerical value
would be
. /_\F = +5J

Notice the sign "+", the number "5" and the unit "J". It means that the
free energy is increasing for the spontaneous change. Let us now consider
the following values for W which will cover the different possible
. W = -4J
. W = 0J
. W = +2J
. W = +5J
. W = +7J

We are ready to discuss the five categories of work for non-spontaneous
changes. But before we go any further, let me get the following off my
heart. I am now sensing a grave danger for authentic learning. I have
discussed in detail the six categories of work for spontaneous changes.
My mind did a lot of work on my body and my body did a lot of work on the
computer. It has been possible because I had the mental free energy and
physical free energy to change spontaneously. I do it to help you. But by
just keeping on what I have been doing, I may actually help you from the
bank into the ditch rather than otherwise.

What about your own mental free energy and physical free energy? Should
you have been able to digest (see the topic Digestor) the flow of thoughts
up to this point, would you be able to organise the detail self for the
all the work categories of non-spontaneous changes. Obviously, you will
have to change your digestive mode of thinking into a bifurcative mode of
thinking. Thus your rate of entropy production will have to increase
rapidly. This will drain your mental free energy and physical free energy
much faster. Can you manage this much faster drain of free energy? Do you
have enough free energy to sustain such a fast drain over a long period of

On the other hand, you might have stopped digesting the thoughts several
times. Perhaps you have lost the flow with digestive learning and had to
go back for some emergent learning. Perhaps I have wasted too much entropy
production on chaos rather than order. Perhaps you have become too tired
to continue thinking. Whatever the case may be, you are experiencing the
dance of your personal (mental and physical) free energy -- the dance of
LEP on LEC. Do you feel that you cannot go on, that you cannot think
spontaneously any more? In that case it means that your personal free
energy has been depleted seriously. In that case I will worry deeply that
you may be tempted to revert to rote learning, assuming that you can use
all the work (-ve sign for me, +ve sign for you) which I have been doing
to increase your own personal free energy. This will be one of the very
work categories now to be discussed.

[Here Part II ends. This break is due to technology and not because the
coin has been turned back. The movie is still running!]

Take care!

At de Lange <>
Snailmail: A M de Lange
Gold Fields Computer Centre
Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria
Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa


"AM de Lange" <>

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.