Energy laws and beyond LO27065

From: AM de Lange (
Date: 07/26/01

Replying to LO27026 --

Dear Organlearners,

Gavin Ritz <> writes:

>Things like dark matter, anti-matter etc.
>At first glance one might say what does this have to
>do with organizational learning. The interesting thing
>is everything.


>Everything we have been discussing to date about
>energy is in the realms of matter and mind.

Greetings dear Gavin,

Your last sentence quoted reminds me of the excitement among the handfull
of scientists who together discovered LEC (Law of Energy Conservation)
during the 1850s.

>I have come to the conclusion that these laws and concepts
>are a good map that defines the territory of matter and its
>associates only.
>The laws of the universe include anti-matter that which we
>haven't discussed.

If my memory serves me correctly, antimatter was predicted theoretically
after Dirac combined the Schroedinger equation of Quantum Mechanics with
the space-time equation of Einstein's Relativity Theory. The first
antimatter particle actually discovered empirically afterwards, was the
positron -- the exact opposite in mass and charge of the electron.

My own understanding of why such a theoretical prediction became possible
in the first place, is because Dirac increased the wholeness of the
Schroedinger equation by bringing in the relativistic equation with its
own wholeness. In other words, when wholes are added together, their
emerging whole is more than their sum -- holism. So Jan Smuts, who
described holism some dozen years before Dirac's theoretical prediction
and the subsequently empirical verification, is for me the real hero in
the story. No wonder that Einstein, when he read Smuts' book Holism and
Evolution (1926) even before Dirac's astounding work, predicted that his
own rekativity and Smuts' holism will influence humankind the next
millenium (yes, next thousand years!).

>So as entropy and energy are on different sides of
>the same coin. So is matter and antimatter or gravity
>and antigravity or energy (& entropy) and dark energy.

Here I myself walk very, very cautiously. I often find that I have to make
a careful distinction between "complementary duals" and "dialectical
duals". Energy and entropy are complementary duals whereas matter and
antimatter are dialectical duals. LEC and LEP (Law of Entropy Production)
do not oppose each other, but actually complement each other.

Since they complement each other, they cannot be fragmented from each
other without a great loss in understanding. It is in this sense that I
speak of LEC and LEP as the two sides of a coin. But here the resemblance
stops. On the side of LEC we have a static picture whereas on the other
side of LEP we have a dynamic movie. Such coins do not exist, although
they can be created by animated computer graphics.

>I do not want to drone on about this concept but if
>we define anti matter as antigravity then we have
>the pushing or expanding concept and matter as
>the attracting or sucking concept we start to see
>how structure and process is created. The underlying
>power of creation is on the same coin as the underlying
>power of restriction and is the opposite of creation in
>the WHOLE of the universe. The opposite of creation
>is not destruction that is its matter opposite. The closing
>in and around matter or the pressing against matter is the
>antimatter opposite.

Here I beg to differ, but not to oppose!

The act "creating" has two dialectical duals: to create constructively
like making peace or to create destructively like making war. I know
through many experiences that I shock almost every creativity expert
when pointing to this "Janus Face" of creativity.

>An interesting question would be how does the
>transition look between a human being and this
>anti-matter and an organization and this anti-matter.

For me it is whether they are aware of the "Janus Face" of creativity or
not. Furthermore, whether they are aware that fighting destructive
creativity with destructive creativity never was and never will be a
constructive solution.

>So what does this have to do with organizations
>or OL. Organizations are created and terminated
>by the tensions between matter and anti-matter
>and in here lies the concept of self organization.

Here I agree in the sense that your "created"="constructively created" and
"terminated"="destructively created". I know it shocking to think of
"creating destructively", but this exactly what a war monger sells -- make
war to get peace.

>Looking forward to some interesting comments.

Me also!

With care and best wishes,


At de Lange <> 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 <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.