Replying to LO27422 --
Winfried Dressler writes:
> Thank you for your caring about my attempt to create something in the
> aftermath of the immense provocation of 01-09-11. Meanwhile
> strength-comparing has turned into the next round.
> So I could think of "place-filling" as another name - but this name has no
> appeal at all for me, because it does not tell anything about the "how".
> Also, liveness comes short, because "place" sounds static although a
> complex place is meant to be a becoming place.
> Now for being a physicist: Dialogue is a bosonic ESC, competition may be a
> complementary fermionic ESC. I think of thoughts as collective, bosonic,
> the exchange particles of my individuality so to say. The "container of
> meaning" forms a kind of Bose-Einstein-condensat. On the other hand, our
> strengths are individual, fermionic and each fermion has to fill one
> unique place. And this place can be occupied by no other fermion. With
> electrons as fermions, this is the basis of the structured "places" in the
> periodic system of elements, the fundament of all chemistry.
I'm still catching up on several threads after an illness; among others,
I'm fascinated by the discussion of potential ESCs. This is just to pass
on a quick thought: how about "strength-matching" as a name instead of
"strength-comparing"? To me it connotes ideas like finding complementary
strengths, identifying the needed strengths for a situation, etc. (If I
understand your boson-fermion comparison rightly, I think it's in that
Don Dwiggins "When you're losing the game, change the rules" firstname.lastname@example.org -- Seen on an office wall
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.