Replying to LO26432 --
> > We have written on ontology - the form behind content,
> I thought the ontology is the study of beings or structure.
I was referring to the thread "working ontologies", especially:
>I would want to back up a bit and speak of ontologies as the essence of
>something as differentiated from the existential as having to do with its
>expression in time an place.
by Jane Regan in LO26113
> > I have asked about
> > the becoming of such form: Such becoming is shaping our world today - for
> > good or worse. Now Gavin asked for the essentialities, and about
> > archetypes. Archetypes are also form without content. How do they become?
> Well that is my exact question? What is the process? But is content not
> also a structure? (or a being)
I have difficulties in mapping structure/process on being/becoming and to
relate both to content/form. I think it all evolves, the dance of LEP on
LEC is all encompassing.
> > They evolve by giving them attention, by filling them with content, by
> > transforming energy into them, by entropy production.
> Is content entropy production? I seems more like entropy to me. Are they
> not both structural.
I think the ultimate content behind everything is energy. But like any
content, energy does not appear without form. When trans-forming energy,
entropy is being produced. What I question is whether the observed
patterns of actual form which energy takes does exist independent and
prior to the actualization, quasi as timeless, eternal archetypes. I
think, the archetypes do evolve too, although on a larger timescale. But
such evolution requires actualization and if archetypes imply form as
something that exists without and independent of content, then I agree
with At and prefer Urphänomen (without 'h' in 'Ur' - 'die Uhr' is 'the
clock', I had to smile, because this also makes sense). A phenomenon is
always content in a specific form. And the prefix 'Ur-' means 'aus,
heraus, anfänglich' thus the Urphänomen is that form from which content
emerge in a specific form - the content in a specific form is the content,
which is required for the Urphänomen in order to still be a phenomenon. A
second order form, so to say, form of form (but never without content). So
if Achetypes would be form without content while Urphänomen includes form
and content but on a higher order level, then we have a good example of
systems thinking, as you say:
> If Systems thinking included form and content then it would indeed be
> systems thinking.
> > Is this why souls
> > realize themself in physical bodies to evolve?
> I am afraid this is an area of which I know very little.
Nor do I, just enough to ask the question.
KiWiDressler@t-online.de (Winfried und Kirstin Dressler)
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.