A register of system rules LO29196

From: AM de Lange (amdelange@postino.up.ac.za)
Date: 09/19/02

Replying to LO29188 --

Dear Organlearners,

Barry Mallis <theorgtrainer@earthlink.net> writes:

>...in reply to a sentence of At's:
>> But since a talent cannot be exercised without
>> thinking, it also involves the whole of the spirit."
>The discussion at this level is quite fascinating.
>I don't grasp the full scope of your statement, At. Is this
>"thinking" that which is done beforehand i.e. before acting
>to apply the talent to a task? Talent, in my opinion, can
>broadly speaking manifest itself in an instant without any
>thinking whatsoever. And the talent can be for good or
>for evil.

Greetings dear Barry,

Your question made me realise that i may be in error here. But i will have
to explain why. After I have disovered empirically (1982-83) that LEP (Law
of Entropy Production) works in the abstract world and thereafter
discovered phenomenologically the 7Es (seven essentialities of creativity)
as corresponding patterns in both the material and abstract worlds, i knew
that my furthers task will be to explore the dynamics of entropy
production in the affairs of humankind.

Before 1985 i used to study scientific literature intensely and reading
books from the humanities for pleasure. But after 1985 i began to study
books from the humanities intensely and reading scientific literature for
the pleasure! One kind of books from the humanities became very valuable
to me, namely biographies, especially autobiographies. The latter reflect
the intricasies and subtleness of the person's thinking which the
biographer often fails to render. As for biographies, i prefer those
substantiated richly by "quotations" from the person ("biographee") rather
than commentaries/opimions by the biographer.

The two things which i search for, is how the dynamics of entropy
production and the guidance of the 7Es influenced their thinking and
behaving. Obviously, i cannot search for the technical terms which I use
to describe entropy production and the 7Es. So i have to decide whether
the articulations of the "biographee" fit these technical descriptions.
For example, i am now studying the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin in
this manner an it is astounding.

For example, in just one sentence (refering to an age of 12) p32-33:
"My father's little library consisted chiefly of books in polemic
divinity, mostly of which I read, and have since often regretted
that, at a time when I had such a thirst for knowledge, more
proper books had not fallen in my way, since it was now
resolved I should not be a clergyman."
he is clearly sensitive to liveness ("becoming-being") -- the *time*,
sureness ("identity-context") -- the *resolved*, spareness
("quantity-limit") -- the *little* and otherness ("quality-diversity")
-- the *polemic*.

One of Franklin's many talents of which he writes early in the book, is to
express his thoughts clearly. He often tells how he struggled to improve
on this talent and how much thought he had given it. It is as if he was
well aware of Michael Polanyi's concept of tacit knowing. Perhaps i will
discover later in the book that he indeed was aware of it, telling it with
his own words.

I soon became deeply under the impression that the most of these
"biographees" knew about their talents, reflected with deep thought on
those talents while practising them to a profoundly superior performance.
Yes, they often told of incidents in which they had to act in terms of
some talents instantaneously. But most admitted that were it not for the
thinking and practising, they would not have had success.

Barry, the error which i may be making is to assume that since these
biographees thought deeply about their talents while practising them, it
has to be the same with other talented people. For example, i assumed that
the few "biographees" who were not outspoken on their talents, thought it
not necessary to be outspoken on them. But their very non-thinking about
these talents may well be the reason why they were not outspoken on them.

>There's an oft-repeated thought about how difficult it is
>to walk when you think about what you are doing -- when
>you think about the walking: Lift foot, bend ankle, bring
>knee forward, shift weight to opposite leg, lean forward,
>etc. etc.

Polanyi would have said that this is a remarkable description of tacit

>Watching a person doing this very enumerated activity
>reveals a ridiculous form of human locomotion/thought
>in action!

Sometimes in a desert with an unusual surface like covered with sharp
angled rocks, it is exactly what i have to do. In one of my first
excursions to the Namib desert i broke my foot because of not thinking
what i was doing. I had to crawl on my hands and knees over rocks back to
my truck for the better part of the day. It is impossible to jump on one
leg over a rocky surface.
>When we parse the manifestations of talent combined
>with character, we create infinitely complex dialog. But
>we lose the forest for the trees. I suppose it's that way
>for a certain number of other subjects, too. What am I
>saying? I guess I'm butting up against the edge of rational
>consideration of our behavior, where it meets archetypical
>behavior which since homo sapiens appearance have
>defined what we are and how we act.

Barry, i do not want to come up each time when i write with "entropy
production"=irreversibility. But the interaction between talent and
character is a two-way interaction of which each way is irreversible. This
introduce hysteresis which seems to be confusing if one is not aware of
it. Hysteresis means that one cannot reverse the one way to find the other
way. In other words, the two-way interaction is not on one road with two
lanes for opposite traffic on it, but one two roads, each with a one-way
lane, much seperated from each other. It is also like going from city A to
city B following a road which takes you to city (1) along the journey, but
coming back from B to A on a different road which takes you to city (2)
along the journey.

What you have articulated for me above, especially with the phrases
"manifestations of talent combined with character" and "infinitely complex
dialog", is exactly this hysteresis. Think how many cities (1), (2), (3),
(4), .... can be visited enroute between A and B.

The only word in your decroption which worries me that it might not be the
descroption of hysteresis, is the word "parse" as well as the word
"deconstruct" in the following sentence:

>We deconstruct the elements of life in its myriad
>forms, but life continues to do its thing.

If you meant parsing and deconstructing character and also the same with
talent, then we have not the same thing in mind. But if you meant
exploring other elements (faculties) of the personality when combining
talent and character, then we may very well think of the same thing which
is hysteresis. Hysteresis is very much "butting up against the edge of
rational consideration" until you become wise of what you are butting up

>What DO we learn exactly? Does history provide us with
>system rules which we actually follow and build upon?
>Well, I doubt it.

These two questions go very deep. I myself am quite sure that history does
not offer us ready made system rules on a plate. We have to discover such
system rules by comparing kinds of historical facts to seek relationships
between such kinds. Furthermore, we also need one or more "validators"
which will validate a possible relationship. One "validator" which is used
frequently, is statististical regression analysis. But i avoid it as far
as possible because of its shotgun approach. The "validator" which i
personally find most valuable, is irreversibility. Its counterpart in
statistics is path analysis.

>OK, a case can be made for civilization on some parts
>of this planet. But here are so many skeletons in the
>closet. Wait! Maybe by admitting the skeletons, we
>actually create better rules? No. I just read today's
>paper. No such luck.

Barry, as I see it, and South Africa provided remarkble learning
opportunities in it, is that admitting to the skeletons is a neccesary
condition, but not the sufficiency condition. Using the "W"s or cycles of
learning (rather than the 7Es to avoid irritation ;-), admitting the
skeleton is just the What of learning. We also have to learn the Way (how)
it happened, learn the Why it happened, learn the When it happened, learn
the Wrong (rather than Worth since it is a skeleton) of its happening,
learn the Ward (rather the Want since it is a skeleton) which will prevent
it happening again, etc.

>For what it's worth.

It has been worth a lot for me, thank you.

>Best regards from Central New England, where the
>maple leaves are rushing to the art supply store.

What a beautiful description! Let us see if i can add another one,
thys beginning a register of systenm beauties.

Greetings from Northern Gauteng where tiny green leaves still
lose the race against the first flowers of spring.

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.