Replying to LO29161 --
Dear Organlearners,
Terje Tonsberg <tatonsberg@hotmail.com> writes
>At responded:
>> If I may change your wording to fit my own thinking, I
>>would change only two things.
>> (1) I would substitute "structure" with "organisation"
>> (2) I would substitute "motivational or structural" with
>>"organisational"
>
>I am interested to know why, especially why you would like
>to substitute "motivational or structural" with "organisational."
>It seems to me that the terms I used have more explanatory
>power.
Greetings dear Terje,
All systems consist of "structures" and "processes". We need a name when
refering to both. The best for me is "organisation". Thus all systems have
an organisation in them. Knowledge as a system has rganisation.
All systems need free energy for any change. Most of the total energy of a
system is bounded by its organisation. The remainder is its free energy.
For the knowledge system to change, either by emergent learning within or
by digestive learning on an external information source, it also needs
free energy. The amount of such free energy available is traditionally
known as motivation. Consequently motivation depends on how the knowledge
is organised.
>Yes, I see what you mean. Actually, I see entropy,
>bifurcation, digestion and free energy as very basic
>properties of time or change. The key then, is not to
>use these terms, but rather to identify what they mean
>in different contexts, just like the 7Es, and then use
>more familiar terms for those meanings. This is what
>I have tried to do in this thread.
You have succeeded remarkably! An intrigueing point is whether time can
have properties!
>I feel that our recent dialogue has helped me see more
>clearly the dangers of specialization and preoccupation
>with academic details. It is not only because of the lack
>of wholeness, but also it leads to either...or thinking or
>LEM as you call it. People start to hold on to their schools
>of thoughts and ideas without a logical foundation.
Last Monday Alfred Rheeder phoned me, telling of a physician who worked
for two years abroad. He was shocked at the many wrong diagnosis made by
specialists abroad. Here in South Africa the need for physicians is so
great that many of them do not want to specialise. How would a physician
be able to help patients when they know much of one organ, but not enough
of the rest?
It is not the first time that I have heard such a story.
>At said:
>>The third is to think further than entropy in terms of its
>>possible interpretations. .... an increase in the entropy
>>of a system means an increase in the organisation of that
>>system, chaos and order as well as process and structure.
>>The dance of entropy tells us which of them prevails.
>
>What do you mean by an "increase in the organization"
>of that system? I.e. what does increase mean here?
The organisation becomes "more", quantitatively and qualitatively. For
example, compare the size (quantitative) of mammals to that of snails as
well as number of organs (qualitative) between them.
>This one is only partially understood by me. What do
>you mean by "intensive (non-scalable) factor" and
>"extensive (scalable) factor"?
I cannot stress how important this difference is between scale-dependent
and scale-independent properties. So I will gladly try to explain them
once again.
With scaling I mean changing the size of the system like doubling it or
halving it. We all know of such changing in size of organisations. Words
like expansion and downsizing comes to my mind.
The following is extremely abstract, but I will give later on examples. I
have to keep it abstract to describe the form of it as coherently as
possible.
Consider any system and all its properties. All those properties which can
be measured are called parameters (or factors will also do). When any
system gets scaled (halved or doubled), some parameters stay the same
(invariant) while other get scaled by the same amount. Those that stay the
same are called qualitative or intensive parameters while those which get
scaled are called quantitative or extensive parameters. Search hard and
you will always find that such parameters come in intensive-extensive
pairs. Every intensive-extensive pair of parameters expresses a form of
energy quantitatively, whether physical or spiritual! By adding up all
such intensive-extensive pairs of parameters, we get closer to the total
energy E of the system, but not its free-energy F! That is determined
quite differently.
Entropy production also has to do with such intensive-extensive pairs of
parameters. A difference in the value of an intensive parameter at
different parts of the system gives rise to an entropic force. Think of an
entropic force in terms of "being differences". A transfer or flow in the
value of an extensive parameter gives rise to an entropic flux. Think of
an entropic flux in terms of "becoming successions". Only when both the
entropic force and the entropic flux of a form of energy exist, they
produce entropy, thereby undoing the stable equilibrium.
However, when only the entropic force of a pair exists, it entails a
labile (local ) equilibrium called a homeostasis. Similarly, when only the
entropic flux of a pair exists, it entails a labile (local) equilibrium
called a homeorhesis. Living organisms make profusely use of homeostasis
and homeorhesis. It is to guide them away from unwanted bifurcations (high
entropy productions) into digestions (low entropy productions).
When any parameter changes from, say, 30 units to 42 units, we
predominantly think of the change of 12 units as depending upon the static
end and beginning values. Thus we find the change by subtracting the
static beginning value from the static end value, i.e., 42 - 30 = 12. The
bad news in terms essentiality liveness ("becoming-being") of creativity
is that we subject the 12 (a "becoming") to the 30 and 42 ("beings"). In
philosophy this is called ontological thinking. Sadly, ontology has become
the mental model of most thinkers.
But when we ask what drives the change of 12 from 30 to 42, we shift from
ontological thinking to ontogenical thinking. The change 12 may be the
result of product pairs such as 3x4=12, 2x6=12 or 1x12=12. As a result of
this the fixed value ("being") 30 cannot change into anything else than
42.
When we "go inside" a change like the 12 to discover what it is
made up of, we explore ontogeny. In our world of ontological
thinking few people have the capacity of doing this. But this is
exactly the kind of thinking we require to understand LEP (Law
of Entropy Production). The change of 12 units is the result of a
pair like 3x4, 2x6 or 1x 12. One of these members of the pair
has to be intensive (an entropic force) so that the other member
must be extensive (an entropic flux). To think of
12 = 3(force) x 4(flux)
rather than
12 = 3 x 4
defies the mind of most people. How can the two factors (3 and 4)
be different properties (either intensive or extensive)? But it is
exactly this kind of fine tuning which you fellow learners must follow
to understand LEP which drives all evolution. The operational
concept scaling allow one to discover these subtile differences.
OK, so allow me to give some examples. The first one is that of the
material world. Take an electrochemical dry cell (battery) which is used
to power any electronic device. Cut it over its length in half rather than
diametrically so that all its essential parts remain intact. The voltage
(usually 1.5 volt) stays the same. Thus electrical potential is an
intensive parameter. But the total current which it can deliver is divided
by half. The currents is thus the extensive parameter. The voltage times
the current over a period of time expresses the electrical energy which
the cell can deliver. Divide this by the absolute temperature to get te
entropy produced.
The second example is that of an abstract world. Consider any organisation
with its organogram. Scale it by half or double it. Its heads of divisions
and departments stay the same. Any mental difference between them will
amount to entropic forces. However, their subordinates will scale
accordingly. Thus leader-followers constitutes an entropic force-flux
pair.
Terje, I hope that these two examples are clear enough. Let us now go
deeper into these entropic force-flux pairs in the instructional design of
a course. Think of a kind of problem which you want the learners to solve.
When scaling the course by halve or double, that kind of problem stays the
same. The unsolved problem compared to the solved problem forms an
entropic force. Only the number of permutations on it will scale. These
permutations form the entropic flux.
The teacher/lecturer will demonstrate by one example how this kind of
problem is solved, using principles and methods as is required. This sets
up the entropic force for future problems of this kind The
teacher/lecturer will then by a permutation demonstrate how another
problem of this kind is solved. This sets up an entropic flux. Some
learners will already get the knack of it. They have experienced a
constructive emergence upon this entropy producing force-flux pair. This
is emergent learning. The rest of the learners are in the dark. They have
to tackle more such permutations to lead them to the ridge of chaos where
understanding emerges.
By working through all permutations, fluency (skill, performance) is
obtained. This is digestive learning. The 7Es are used
(1) to aid the emergent learning until it happens
(2) to prevent unnecessary repetitions in these permutations so that
digestive learning can be completed as soon as possible (celeration).
Kinds of problems should not be presented in isolation. They should be
connected. This requires from the teacher/lecturer a comprehensive
understanding of the subjected. When this is done, the learner will
experience a "Steigerung" (Goethe's description of it) when proceeding
from one kind to another kind of problem in the subject. The learners
knowledge increase in organisation. Using the description of Kauffman, the
learner will become aware of the ruggedness of her/his fitness landscape
of the mind.
I did exactly this for a first year chemistry course in terms of learning
objectives. How i wished for more insight into these force-flux pairs as i
struggled with each topic! However, what I knew were enough to enable me
to establish experimentally during 1982-83 that LEP (Law of Entropy
Production) also manifested itself in the world of mind rather than only
the world of matter.
The sad thing of journals of any scientific research with its practice of
judgement by peers is that they are far too often oblivious to the novel
as probably the next standard for the future. No, don't confront us with a
completely new truth because we cannot accommodate it. We are happy to
organise upon our present paradigms so as to acquire vested interests. We
need noy new ones to which we have to adapt anew with emergent learning.
>At said:
>> The fifth is to know why LEP (Law of Entropy Production)
>> has to be introduced to the human sciences. Since LEP was
>> discovered some 150 years ago, it took more than 100
>> years for a few thinkers such as Prigogine and Jantsch to
>> show that LEP is the driving force (necessary condition) for
>> all evolution in nature. Long ago the cosmologist Sir Arthur
>> Eddington suspected that scientists have scratched only the
>> surface of understanding LEP. There is a vast abyss
>> between the human (cultural) and natural sciences which we
>> have to bridge and ultimately heal. My own empirical discovery
>> during 1982-83 was that LEP is one of the bridges over this
>> abyss.
>
>I think you are right. It seems that it is a suttle phenomena
>that occurs in both fields.
The world, physical and spiritual, changes endlessly in dazzling many
different ways. It is already difficult to convince people of this endless
change. To convince them that this endless change in all its in dazzling
many different ways is driven by one and the same thing, is an order more
difficult. Between them and the understanding is a serious MM (Mental
Model). It the one-to-one-mapping in their thinking which is better known
as linear thinking. What they need is thinking with a one-to-many-mapping.
Obviously, by specialising increasingly, the little one-to-many-mapping in
their thinking is reduced even more.
>At, regarding calculating the waste of educational systems, said:
>
>> Two ways:
>> (1) Counting the number of a topic (to be learned) occurs in
>> successive cources, either prescribed or to be affirmed again.
>> If had been mastered fluently during the first course it occured,
>> such a repetition would not have been necessary.
>>
>> Mediocrity in education is the greatest waster of its resources.
>
>I fully agree with this. Why learn, for example, geography
>and history fcts only to forget over the summer and then
>relearn it? The same goes in corporate training; people
>learn a bunch of facts only to forget 90% within a month
>or so. Worse, if the skill in question is cumulative such
>as in math and writing, the student will fall more and more
>behind every year.
Terje, do you realise that all the things which you have mentioned, points
to a severe impairing in the essentiality liveness ("becoming- being").
Facts themselves are merely "beings". But to employ them in some or other
"becoming" like validating argumentation or depicting evolution make these
facts alive.
I am styding the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (BF). I have so many
other things to do otherwise I would have finished reading the book long
ago. I am now at p34 and what surprises me profoundly so far is his deep
sensitivity of liveness ("becoming- being") as well as otherness
("quaility-variety") already from a young age.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.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.