Replying to LO26831 --
Dear Organlearners,
Mark W. McElroy <mmcelroy@vermontel.net> writes:
>I'm doing some research on the Tragedy of the
>Commons (TOC) archetype and have a question
>or two for the list:
>
>1. Is anyone aware of any cases of the TOC in
>the natural world in which human activity is NOT
>invloved? Or are instances of TOCs only found in
>connection with human behaviors?
Greetings dear Mark,
I will focus only on your first request because fellow learners will
surely focus on the second request too.
And I want to do it in such a manner that we will look at it from a view
point which seldom happens.
Every chemical reaction, whether occuring natural or artificial, is an
example for the TOC! Not even one is excluded! Obviously, the name TOC is
not used since we live in a far too fragmented disciplinary world. The
term used in chemistry is "limiting reagent".
Here is a typical balanced equation for a chemical reaction:
2.Fe(OH)3 + 3.H2SO4 = 1.Fe2(SO4)3 + 6.H2O
Horrible, is it not? The Fe(OH)3 is the formula for ferric hydroxide. One
molecule of it consists of one ferric ion Fe+++ to which three hydoxide
ions OH- are bonded. It is a gelatinous substance when formed in water.
It is responsible for the brown rusty colouring of enamel baths and basins
in certain regions. In a similar manner I can discuss each of the other
compounds. Those on the left side are called reagents and those on the
right side are called products.
The point which I want to make, is that every TWO molecules Fe(OH)3
will react with THREE molecules of H2SO4 to form ONE unit of
Fe2(SO4)3 and SIX molecules of water H2O. These capitalised numbers
are called the (stoichiometrical) coefficients of the reaction. They ensure
that the reaction is balanced for mass (and thus by way of E=mc^2 is
balanced for LEC, Law of Energy Conservation).
To avoid writing explicit formulae, all chemical reactions are symbolised
in a general manner as
aA + bB +..... = cC + dD + .....
Here the lower case letters a, b, ...., c, d, .... are again the coefficients
and the higher case letters A, B, ...., C, D, ....are the formulae of the
reagents and then the products.
The coefficients a, b, ...., c, d, .... tell us that the all the species
in the reaction WILL BECOME in a definite harmonius fashion. However, when
the reaction begins, it does not mean that we necessarily will have to mix
the reagents A, B, .... in that same harmonius fashion. In fact, we may
mix the reagents in any proportion. But once they begin reacting, they
will do so in a harmonius fashion dictated by both LEC and their ISs. (LEC
is the Law of Energy Conservation and IS is the Inner Structure of a
species).
What now happens is most interesting. Try as best as you can to imagine
what happens in your mind. I will make it slightly tangible by writing
3A + 2B + 4C + 2D + 3E ..... = fF + gG .....
Let us assume that the mixture started with with the following units of
A, B, ..., E, written underneath the equation:
3A + 2B + 2C + 4D + 3E ..... = fF + gG .....
30 + 40 + 50 + 25 + 35
Assume that after a few seconds 6 units of A has been removed. Then
4 units of B will become removed too, 4 units of C, 8 units of D and 6 of E.
What remains is then written in the second line beneath the equation:
3A + 2B + 2C + 4D + 3E ..... = fF + gG .....
30 + 40 + 50 + 32 + 35
24 + 36 + 46 + 24 + 29
When another six units of A has been removed, we will have
3A + 2B + 2C + 4D + 3E ..... = fF + gG .....
30 + 40 + 50 + 32 + 35
24 + 36 + 46 + 24 + 29
18 + 32 + 42 + 16 + 23
When another six units of A has been removed, we will have
3A + 2B + 2C + 4D + 3E ..... = fF + gG .....
30 + 40 + 50 + 32 + 35
24 + 36 + 46 + 24 + 29
18 + 32 + 42 + 16 + 23
12 + 28 + 38 + 08 + 17
Can you spot here the limiting reagent? It is D. When another six units
of A has been removed, the last eight units of B will become removed. The
reaction will stop.
This does not mean that we should think of reagent D as the commons! NO,
in a chemical reaction ALL of the reagents (A, B, C, D, E, ...) which
react with each other are the COMMONS. At least of the reagents will have
to be the limiting reagent. It is usually only one reagent, unless your
are such a good manager of chemical reactions that you can mix them
perfectly according to the definite harmonius fashion they will react.
In plant and animal nutrition we would say that for every organism in
which many chemical reactions happen, the limiting reagent in each
reactionwill cause a nutritional deficiency in that reagent. Limiting
reagents may be a trace element, a macro mineral, a vitamin, an essential
aminoacid, a protein or even a carbohydrate -- yes any kind of compoment
in food. As for my own diabetic condtion and allergy to insulin medicine,
the limiting reagent in my body for the past two years had been all forms
of carbohydrates.
How will we spot the most likeable candidate for becoming the limiting
reagent without doing numerical calculations? The answer is most
revealing. Search for the reagent with the most complex IS (Inner
Structure)! It will be used up fastest. Let your imagination rush over all
the implications of this claim. It will astound you.
I do not think fragmentary about my body in terms of chemical reactions
and cell pshysiology separately. I see the the chemical reactions and the
various body cells participating in one holistic becoming. Thus, although
I have said that carbohydrates are the limiting reagent in my body, it is
because I have forced myself mentally to make them such. The real limiting
reagent in my body is the beta cells of the Isles of Langerhans in my
pancreas. They have been incapaciated by influenza virii in Feb 1999.
In other words, finding out that my beta cells were the limiting reagent
while I was also allergic to insulin medicine (and thus another limiting
reagent), called for swift and decisive action. Were it not for my knowing
of complex systems, I would have been dead by now because our family
doctor did not know self what next to do. I knew that I had to induce a
limiting reagent earlier in the synthon (chain of becomings) in my body.
I came to this knowing by searching for corresponding patterns between a
"creative" material system and a creative mental system. I selected the
chemical (material) and mathematical (mental) system. Eventually I found
seven corresponding patterns which, by way of phenomology, I generalised
into patterns for all creative (complex adaptive, autopoietic,
self-organising, evoluting, complexifying...) systems. The pattern which I
described above, involving the limiting reagent of a chemical reaction
(and for what it is worth to you, the limiting co-cone of a toposlogic
system in mathematics) is what I now call the essentiality SPARENESS
("quantity-limit").
Some moons ago we had a fascinating discussion on the archetypes of
Systems Thinking. I suggested (just to keep your minds questioning and not
to force you into rote learning) that the 7Es (seven essentialities of
creativity) might be the archetypes we are searching for. What I did above
is to show that the TOC is related to the essentiality spareness. The
tragedy comes in when we are not aware that spareness is essential to a
complexifying system. Such a tragedy is possible for each of the other six
7Es. The tragedy is destructive immergences at the ridge of chaos.
Goethe was searching all his live for what he called the "Uhrphaenomen"
(archetypes) of Creation. What I find incredible is that he had found at
least four of the 7Es:
* liveness ("becoming-being"
sein und werden
* sureness ("identity -categoricity")
exploring minerals, plants and animals so as to excell in art
* wholeness ("monadicity-associativity")
working with Creation, physical and spiritual, as one whole
* openness ("open-paradigm")
opening himself up to new quests so as to experience "steigerung"
Yet he could not connect these four patterns to his profound search for
the archetypes of Creation. Perhaps it is his discovery of the "archetype"
of all plants, described in his Metamorphosis of the Plants. This
"archetype" is the common organisation which all plants have from simple
algae up to complex trees follow. It is the best one still in use today
for most botanists. His failure to find the corresponding "archetype" for
animals kept him so engrossed that he never had time to reflect on the
deeper significance of the four patterns in his thoughts which he used so
effectively.
>2. In the human domain, is anyone aware of
>any instances of TOCs within an organization,
>as opposed to between them? In other words,
>can TOCs be found inside individual companies
>or human organizations, or do they only emerge
>as a consequence of interactions BETWEEN
>companies, organizations, and individuals?
Remember my hint. Search for the component (and the number of them) with
the most complex IS (Inner Structure) which/whom has to commute with the
other components of the system. The less the number, the more likeable
that component is the TOC.
>Thanks in advance for your feedback.
You are welcome.
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.