holism, a product LO27720

From: Leo Minnigh (l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl)
Date: 01/28/02


Dear LO'ers,

Wholeness is more than the sum of its parts. That is the description of
Jan Smuts and it is the common definition.

Dear learner, do you have also difficulties to comprehend this
description. It generated with me a feeling of understanding, but as soon
as I started to think of it, I couldn't find clear examples sustaining it.
Could we live with a feeling of understanding, or do we need more?

Thinking of this, I was looking for another definition of wholeness. A
definition that suits my own comprehension; it does not mean that you
should agree with it.

I thought it was Newton who once has explained that the total impact of
science is the product of quality of research and qualiy of presentation
of the results. In other words, if the quality of research is oustanding,
but the results are poorly presented, the final effect is impaired. This
counts too in the other way - bad quality research could be compensated by
an excellent presentation.

So if I translate these two ideas into numbers:

Smuts: (2 + 10) > 2 + 10
        (3 + 9) > 3 + 9
        (4 + 8) > 4 + 8
        (5 + 7) > 5 + 7
        (6 + 6) > 6 + 6

Newton: 2 x 10 = 20
        3 x 9 = 27
        4 x 8 = 32
        5 x 7 = 35
        6 x 6 = 36

We see from this simple example that in Smuts' definition it does not
matter so much whether the parts are much different from eachother, or
whether they are more or less balanced. Although we will never know how
much bigger than 12 the sum will be. But the idea of Newton fits better in
my feeling of holism: under balanced conditions, the best result will be
reached and this feeling is clearly sustained by these simple examples.

One may argue that Newton's definition was a) not considering the issue of
holism, and b) not complete. Well, I don't want to go deeply in a). I have
only introduced Newton to come up with products instead of sums. But the
supposed incompleteness gives us some further insights. One obvious item
which is lacking with Newton is the communicational part. Because even in
the situation with high quality research and high quality presentation it
could be that nobody will know about this research. Thus the quality of
communication is important. That means that a third factor should be
included in Newton's formula. However, the principle stays the same - even
with three factors, the best result will be reached when all three are
balanced.

Is it a too large thinking step if I am now thinking of At de Lange's 7
essentialities of creativity (7 E's). Communication is close to his
'fruitfulness' and also the other factors could be linked to his 7 E's.
Thus we may extend the idea of dealing with products instead of sums
toward products with much more factors, six or seven. I am not sure if one
of the E's (wholism) is a factor or the outcome of the multiplification. I
think that this is not so important. What is important is the fact that
the 7 E's should be balanced to result in a maximum outcome.

Thus my definition of holism will be:

Holism is the product of its parts; holism is maximised if its parts are
balanced.

This idea was formulated in my mind last weekend, during a long walk with
dog Terra in storm winds and heavy rains. I have enjoyed the storms
outside and inside my head.

dr. Leo D. Minnigh
l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl
Library Technical University Delft
PO BOX 98, 2600 MG Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: 31 15 2782226
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Let your thoughts meander towards a sea of ideas.
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- 

Leo Minnigh <l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl>

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.