Replying to LO26483 --
Equality is on the discussion agenda since Alfred wrote in Poor Dead
Kitty-cat and Reality? LO26447:
...snip... I believe through what is known as the requisite complexity
manifesting through the Law of Requisite Complexity. It is the requisite
complexity of the system as a whole (the biggest of the biggest system)
that will eventually determine the fait of an specific system functioning
within a bigger whole (the biggest of biggest system).<unsnip>
Let me add here, somewhat belatedly because I never introduced myself
properly, that I read political philosphy at university and that my
post-graduate interest was 'Political Dimensions of the concept Fate in
the philosophy of GFW Hegel'. I subsequently also studied systematic
theology and theological ethics. Note that the term <eventually> in
Alfred's contribution could easily be substitute with the term
<ultimately>. To continue the belated introduction: At, Alf and I live in
the same city, the three of us get together from time to time (mostly over
breakfast) or phone each other. I practice as an Information Strategist in
a tradition (value system, mental models) heavily influenced by Michael
Porter, Eli Goldratt, Peter Senge and of course one A M de Lange.
Alfred also wrote:
...snip... The following thought struck me like a bolt of lightning.
Should the LRC (Law of requisite complexity) be a reality, which I believe
it is, then the requisite complexity of systems are not equal! The
requisite complexity of system A does not equal the requisite complexity
of system B. <unsnip>
and posted some thoughts on what the consequence(s) thereof might be:
...snip... I believe that we are tacitly aware that the requisite
complexity of systems are not equal. Is this mental model - Systems are
not equal = Judgement (inferior and superior) - not a root cause of the
rise of so much hatred etc. Should we not allow systems to develop
spontaneously from within the system.?<unsnip>
Which poses an unasked question: inequality is a fact, should we not
respect it by not interfering or making adjustments for
inferiority/superiority?
Sajeela responded (please reread to whole for proper context)
...snip... And there you have the basis of all arguments around racism,
sexism and so on. Equality is a value-laden concept; a subjective
perception that is DIFFERENT for each individual. And this is DIFFERENT
then a mathematical constant as we abstract it, even though taken in its
whole context a mathematical equation is very valuable and worthy of
consideration. But to base all of my decisions about resources on a
mathematical conclusion and think that's fair and real? I don't think
so.<unsnip>
and added....
...snip... And I am NOT in favor of denying differrence, but I just want
to point out that it is an illusion of the physical plane of existence and
does not exist outside of our human perception/cognition.<unsnip>
To which At replied: ...snip... I think the time has come to question once
again whether either equality holds while we do not want to live up to it,
or that equality does not hold so that trying to live up to it destroys
harmony between what is inherently different. I think we will also have to
question why equality, should it not hold, have such a tremendous
influence on the thinking of a vast majority of humankind. Is equality
among humans a Mental Model, or is it a constraint following from some
deeper Mental Model?<unsnip>
and Dennis Rolleston weighed in with: ...snip...And if freedom is a
personal experience, so to is equality. On a level playing field it maybe
the shorter ones who have the advantage, it all depends on the game, the
rules and how each individual is assisted/ handicapped by them
(subjectivity accepted). Then should the gap between the poles of
equality become too great, the result is conflict.<unsnip>
Should the subject Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood be on the LO agenda?
I believe so for at least two reasons:
First: the O in LO is inclusive and includes governments and political
organisations. Peter Senge wrote (more or less): 'If a child fails to
learn its tragic, if an organisation fails to learn its fatal." To which I
would like to add 'if a government fails to learn, its catastrophic.'
Secondly: Equalilty in the organisational setting means Y(1) - Y(2) = 0
(enough said?)
My present lens on equality/inequality is LIVENESS.
Alf said (if I may reintrepret) inequality of BEING is a fact, LRC
explains why.
All the others so far said (and Dennis provided some examples) inequality
of BECOMING lies at the base of the confusion, compromise and conflict.
The playing fields of governments is principally the dimension of
BECOMING. In South Africa the question is 'what have people NOT BECOME as
a result of institutionlised apartheid?' and 'how can they BECOME what
they have not been allowed to BECOME in the shortest possible time?'. The
same may be asked of Africa. What has BECOME of Africa and why? Politics
is fundamentally about allocating values i.e. setting the agenda of
BECOMINGS. Power is fundamentally an ontological category. The power of
the ANC to allocate BECOMING values is directly attributable to the
institutionalised differences between BEING black and BEING white: at
first unfair, later immoral and finally inhuman. Is the current surge of
entropy production our fate?
Langdon Gilkey (Reaping the Whirlwind: a Christian Interpretation of
History) wrote <quote> Political experience is thus unavoidably religious
and therefore theological. It exists within a horizon of ultimacy. He
warns though <quote> ...but religion is infinitely risky...for the call to
authentic action (the agenda of BECOMINGS, as I see it) in each of us is
only partial, and we corrupt it as we seek to embody it....The vision we
seek in in history to realize, or to defend, is never as ultimate, as
universal, as healing as we claim.<unquote: page 68> In short: we always
tend to get trapped on poor local optima.
Gilkey also warns: <quote> History becomes an overwhelming fate for those
who seek neither to understand nor creatively to direct it.<unquote> ...a
catastrophe for those who fail to learn, whether they are individuals,
organisations or governments.
I would like to concluded from this ( in line with Alfred's fruitful
connection between equality/inequality and LRC) that within the context of
liveness it may be useful to distinguish between (i) inequality of being
(ii) inequality of becoming and (iii) inequality of requisite complexity.
To avoid confusion we will have to be clear what we mean when we use the
term inequality in future. What then is inequality of requisite
complexity? Let us look at how the concept LRC is used in this community:
The languages available did not match up to the requisite complexity of
culture and nature in the close confinements in and around the Cape of
Storms (Cape Town).[At in LO 26504] = (some) languages did not match up,
others did
Somehow the system passed them on from year to year into higher grades
without taking into account that sooner or later they will crash into the
LRC (Law of Requisite Complexity).[At in LO 26483] = (some) students did
not match up, others did
Whenever one of the seven essentialities becomes a constraint, the Law of
Requisite Complexity shows its dark side and so does the organisation
too.[At in LO 26460] = some essentialities did not match up ( could be
generically true for both languages and students) others did.
On the other hand, a certain dynamic in the rate of entropy production is
not yet sufficient for growing complexity to emerge. The system has to be
sufficiently mature in its complexity in order to sustain further growth.
Such sufficiency conditions - requisite complexity - have to be met by the
mechanics of the system.[Winfried in LO 26440] = some systems did not
match up to requisite maturity, others did.
If the spontaneous entropy production of the system is of a large enough
magnitude and a high enough level of organization, it will be able to
absorb the disruption that may result from the inundation of the system
with an influx of entropy - to a point - and maintain its own organization
(this is where At's law of Requisite Complexity comes from). However, at
a given point, the inundation of complexity will overwhelm the system's
ability to organize itself and it will succumb to the external pressures,
its own organization collapsing/immerging. [Jon Krispin in LO 25552] = the
ability to self-organise in some systems do not match up.
Match up to what? ..............the requisite complexity!
Pole vaulting may be a useful metaphor. On the one side is everything I can
do to clear the bar, on the other the fact that the bar is set at 4 meters.
At 2 meters the RC is very low, at 8 meters the RC is too high, 4 meters I
may clear? Within the 'world record sytem' the requirement or requisite
complexity to BECOME (emerge as) world champion is 6.14 meters.
Alfred continues:
...snip... Consider the harm of imposing a specific system organised
around the systems requisite complexity, on another system with a
different requisite of complexity. Why are these systems often plagued by
rogue learning, regurgitation and memorisation of information? Should we
not allow systems to develop spontaneously from within the system.? What
harm will be done, to what systems and with what implications? What
systems will benefit and for how long will they benefit? If we interfere
with a system how should we proceed to prevent destruction?<unsnip>
....which means we should not impose the requirements for world records on
an inter-high school athletics meeting, we should allow those athletes to
develop spontaneously within the boundaries of their own systems.
Should we allow South African farmers to develop spontaneously within the
confines of the local Agri-business system? should we allow South African
business to develop spontaneously within the confines of the local
business system? Should we allow the South African political system to
develop spontaneously in and for Africa. How should we allow Africa to
develop in the world system? Like the pole vaulter it all depends on the
playing field and what we are MATCHING UP to. In agri-business as in other
business we are matching up to a world of supply chains waging war against
each other. Most African countries are net-importers of food, an early
sign of immergence. The rules for competing on the global playing field
have all changed, the bar has been raised and so Zimbabwe is a really
tragic case study. Africa (never a place for sissies) dances on the edge
of chaos.
In [Homo sapiens amans LO26491] Andrew draws from Humberto Maturana:
<quote>Humans are those animals that have expanded living in love. We have
become dependent on love in the sense that we become ill of body and soul
if love is interfered with. Sometimes conditions arise in our culture so
that some bad ideas persist in spite of their badness. I think competition
is one of those bad ideas that is destructive, and yet it
persists.<unquote> In Political Dimensions........I traced out this same
idea using Charles Dickens' Hard Times as a metaphor. Learning from art.
Forgive me Humberto for taking you where you may not have wanted to go:
What if you exclaim "Africa!" and immediately stomp on it, making sure it
is thoroughly squashed. What would your global partner comment? Something
like, You don't love Africa" or "You don't love Africans" or "You despise
Africa, don't you!" And all those expressions belong to the negation of
love, the Africa we know does not arise as a legitimate other in
coexistence with the rest of the world.
Alf you are right. We either see all of it or none of it.
Earth's orbital path is held in place by the entire universe.
with kind regards
Chris Klopper
--"Chris Klopper" <syntagm@icon.co.za>
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.