Replying to LO30275 --
Terje Tonsberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>3. The 7Es. You can have events or bodies with attributes
>without evolution, but according to the theory, you can't have
>evolution without the 7Es.
I am still perplexed by why you place the 7Es at 3. Please explain again.
(7Es = seven essentialities of creativity.)
>I think this is the most concrete reason why I don't consider
>love to be among the 7Es: the bottom line: you CAN have
>evolution in a system without saying that it is attributed with
>love so and so.
I like the way in which you formulated it. But i often wonder whether we
humans are capable of recognising love among other animals. For example,
the "affection" which my dogs show to me, is it friendship or is it love?
>> Some people say that love is an emotion. I think that love is
>> more complex than being a mere emotion.
>I have to agree with that. I think love is extremely difficult to
>define because it applies to so many things. I stuck to the
>"feeling" part of the concept of love to avoid the abyss of
>trying to define love ;-) Sometimes love refers to a feeling.
>I tried to make a short cut, but you didn't let me get away
>with it ;-)
I wonder. I have often written why i myself avoid definitions. They do not
take into account the past/history/evolution of that which is defined.
Since love is an emergent phenomenon for me, i would not try to define it.
But what really made me think is the phrase "because it applies to so many
things". Does love apply to so many things or is love connected to so many
things. There is subtle difference for me. The "apply" has a hard,
law-like meaning for me. The "connect" as a softer, reflective meaning for
>At this point I'd like to digress slightly, because it seems we
>are approaching the search for a definition in different ways.
>I have never formally studied linguistics or philosophy, but
>done a fair bit of language learning, and I think there are at
>least 4 approaches towards definitions:
>1. The approach that simply says that the definition of a word
>is the collection of situations it applies to. This approach
>downplays the idea of finding exact definitions. I like this way
>in most cases, because it keeps you open minded about what
>people are trying to say rather than picking on words. It
>explicitly recognizes that definitions have a tacit dimension and
>are abstract symbols referring to meanings, not the meaning
It was fourty years ago that i had to learn in a philosophy course the
ways in which one can arrive at a definition. Since then i have
encountered very little in writing on this issue. It does not seem that
many people are concerned about this issue. Your exposition is a superb
and welcome reminder!
I also prefer your 1st way. But i go even further by not explicitly
indicating "this is the definition" / "is defined as" / ..... The reason
is that i have observed how far too many learners get stuck at the
definition, trying to understand it all on its own (the "identity" part of
sureness). It is only when the definition is traced throughout its
applications when its full meaning become clear (the "context" part of
Getting stuck at a definition leads to splitting of hairs while the greater
issues get neglected. For example, every day i get a email news report on
what happened the previous day in Zimbabwe, the country just north of
ours. Pres Mugabe defines his presidency in terms of getting elected by
a majority of voters. But the opposition leader Mr Tsvangirai challenges
the election in high court as a fraudelent one. Both accuses one another
of having caused the great calamity which Zimbabweans now experience.
Thus both want each other as far as possible out of the way to begin
restoring the country. But both, each on his own, have done very little
to prevent the crisis developing. I can see only two possibilities:
(1) Forget about the definition and begin to work shoulder to shoulder
in solving the country's problems. The Zimbabweans are worth far more
than a definition
(2) Both have to go into exile and the country rule in an interim period
by a representative team elected by other leaders from other African
I think that (1) is the better option, but also the least likely workable
The personal knowledge of Mugabe and personal knowledge of Tsvangirai are
invaluable. However, the crisis is exaberated since there is no love
between them. Why? The last few months the pattern became clear to me.
When dealing with each other and their parties, they intuitively impair
all the 7Es for the other side as far as possible. It is impossible for
love to emerge. Furthermore, this spirit of destructive creativity
strengthens others in powerful positions to do what would never be allowed
in a normal society.
>It seems to me that there is yet another way which you are
>hinting at: to search for the meaning of a word in terms of it
>being a force or a flux. This would be closely related to
>approach number 4, but a more specific methodology.
>Actually, this 5th method can be applied to the 3rd also.
You are thinking in the right direction. But i myself see it as making use
of both the entropic force and flux, or perhaps even more of such pairs,
to create the conditions for the emergence of the meaning. Artistic writers
often do it intuitively without being explicitly aware they take the mind
to the edge of chaos. Take Andrew as a delightful example ;-)
(With respect to the 7Es)
>As for the "explicit awareness", i can put it at level 3 as you
>did, but as for the "implicit operation" i cannot do so.
>I am not sure I quite understand you here. Did my expansion
>on what I meant change anything?
Not really. I think we are "writing past each other" here.
Let me try to explain it again. The 7Es had to exist otherwise i could not
have discovered them. As such they are for me, metaphorically the "roots
which feed all evolution". With the metaphor "roots" i try to capture how
deep down rather than high up they go.
>> For me the 7Es cannot be destructive.
>I meant for example that letting a mad rapist into ones house
>would be too much openness. Or one could say it is too little
>sureness. Perhaps it is a "the glass is half empty or half full" issue?
This is a great example which i will remember. Thanks.
It can be either openness, or sureness or both of them.
But allow me to say something more on opennes itself. I have often
compared openness to the joker in a pack of 7 cards. By this i mean that
the greater the "opening" the greater the complementary "closing" should
also be. Think of the following example which figured in the media the
last week or so. A prince is a public figure who entails a greater opening
up to the public. Thus the greater closing down of his private life
becomes vital in maintaining a healthy balance. But many recent reports on
that prince seem to overthrow this complementary action between open and
Thank you Terje for a delightful dialogue. Of all the things you have
written about, the phrase "because it applies to so many things" (i.e.,
love) struck me the most profoundly. (I would have changed it to "because
it connects to so many things", but that is besides the point now ;-)
The point is that love affords us increasing experiences in each of the
7Es. For example, that "many things" can be "many different things" which
points to otherness. It can also can "many connected things" which then
points to wholeness. As a last example think of "many changing things"
which will point to liveness. I think you are capable of constructing
examples for the four remaining 7Es.
Thank you Andrew for setting this topic in front of our LO-dialogue. And
by writing "Take Andrew as a delightful example ;-)" i do not mean
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.