Replying to LO28418 --
Greetings dear Organlearners,
Alfred Rheeder <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>Please be aware that I am not English speaking and
>take cognisance of the fact that I am entering uncharted
>territory - for myself that is! Those who prefer bullet
>point posts I suggest you bail out now.
Greetings dear Alfred,
Learning is sometimes short and sweet, but on other times long and
arduous. I have learned to take it as it comes.
Anyway, there is a deeper meaning to what you say. The declining
organisation which I wrote about also ought to have entered the uncharted
territoties. I think that much of its trouble is because of staying in
>Not even one of the dietitians mentioned Gibb's
>equation which differentiates between Energy (E)
>and Free Energy (F). Not one even knew that the
>change in Free Energy (F) does not equal Work?
>How could this be?
This last question is very important. I can think of two reasons. The one
concerns the "efficiency fixation". I will come to that. The other is rote
learning. When a text book in subjects like chemistry and phsyics is a
success (many copies of many editions sold), others invariably copy its
"contents", but obviously not its form because that would be plagiate.
Should the successful book stress the equation /_\F < 0, so would the
others. Should the successful book neglect to say that it is special case
of the general equation /_\F < W, so would the others.
If success is based on being one-eyed king among the blind, then I do not
want to join it.
>The crux is the complementary nature of emergence
>and efficiency of converting free energy into work.
How right you are. But are you aware that of the problem that the
definition of efficiency determines how the definer will use that
definition? You know how I try to avoid defnitions. Allow me to show you
once again why with respect to this case.
Efficiency (EFF) is defined as
EFF = Work-out / Energy-in
Very few people are aware that this is merely another articulation
of /_\F < W.
However, free energy is not only necessary for work. Those who
think likes this has a "slavery mentality". Free energy is also
necessary for emergences. All emergences are spontaneous. The
criterion (condition) for any spontaneous process, even an
/_\F < 0
Thus, by the very definition of efficiency, bearing in mind that
little, if any external work is done during an emergence, the
efficiency of an emergence is
EFF = Work-out / Energy-in = 0 / Energy-in =0
Should we have defined efficiency not in the "slavery mentality",
but in the "midwivery mentality", it would be in the sense of
EFF = "???" / Energy-in
where this "???" has to be something measurable of what has
emerged. However, nothing of that which has emerged is
measurable for a long, long time. That is why that which has
emerged is like a miracle. But it can capture our awe and fill us
>On the other hand one has to know when to
>"sacrifice" the further increase in quantity of lower
>order properties in order to emerge in higher order
>qualities. It sounds like a paradox, doesn't it.
>I think not!
Yes, I think likewise. Coming back to that organisation, it let me think
once again. I am not aware of many "sacrifices" made in that organisation,
altruistic deeds as Andrew would call it. But perhaps it is me having
blinkers on in that organisation. The strange thing is that thinking of
the manager self, the free energy which he used to prepare for that
seminar, is a "sacrifice" since he arranged for the seminar out of his own
pocket and spare time.
>The creations of humans are catching up with
>humans as the creator.
Yes, this can be seen on almost every walk of life. In the case of the
organisation it is fast catching up with the people who did not create it,
but who ought to have recreated it to suite the present conditions.
For me the solution of what you pointed out is to develop an acute
awareness for the difference between natural and artificial
transformations. Natural transformations are spontanoeus while artificial
transformations are non-spontaneous. They require external work to happen.
Natural transformations use internal resources of free energy through
their creative collapses. These source become charged by the regeneration
>What about the children, the future. Are we not
>impairing the constructive creativity of some children
>by feeding (spoiling) them too much? Are we not
>impairing the constructive creativity of some children
>by failing to even provide them with food? I see too
>many childen dying of hunger in Africa and too many
>overfed kids in the West.
Dear Alfred, yes, it is a catastrophic mess. Just this morning I
studied an in-depth paper of the immense starvation in Malawi.
It has been caused by the strict financial measures of the IMF
and WB. They operate according to the principal
Money-in = Money-out + Rent
Now watch my mathematics. Take the Rent away and you get
Money-in > Money-out
Now bring in transdiciplinary thinking by comparing it to
Work > /_\F
Let your mind wander, my young friend.
>More of the same is sometimes necessary but
>will definitely not suffice.
How I wish that this organisation and its manager will become aware of
this truth. To become aware of the difference between what is necessary
and what is sufficient is great gift to the mind.
With care and best wishes
-- At de Lange <email@example.com> 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.