Weak<>Strong LO30439

From: ACampnona@aol.com
Date: 07/31/03

Replying to LO30437 --

Dear At

you wrote,

>I find the title of your topic ...Strong Reactions<>Weak Ties ...
>mysterious. Can you explain it to me. Perhaps
>it is what i know of chemistry which confuses me. The weaker some of the
>bonds in a chemical compound, the stronger it will react with other
>compounds -- exactly what the title of your topic tells.

Well, what I wrote works on many levels, one quite banal level might be
summarised by the common knowledge statement that, 'familiarity breeds
contempt.' in the IBM paper there is the suggestion that "weak =
infrequency" and that people are willing to trust the authority of people
with whom they have ''infrequent + weak'' contacts. ...i am uncertain
about the ''fallibility'' of that ''assertion''...but by some form of
innered inversion of ''common sense'' i might conjecture that when i
perhaps entrust myself and actions in the authority of reason in another
that is because that which the other has informed me of is actually making
a direct 'hit' with my own tacit knowledge...the taciticity i suspect is
not some hard kernal but something altogether softer, foggy --''sfumato''
-- a visual artist might say...so that what the other person is relating
to me indirectly or directly is causing something of a stir in my field,
sensibility...i say it that way because that is what i sense happens when
i am called out to by a work of art...it is an experience close to

Polanyi's variegated understanding of reality,

 (1) The real is independent of our knowing and may be hidden from us.
 (2) Our knowledge of the real is an embodied feat accomplished through
tacit skills.
 (3) Intellectual beauty is a guide to discovering the real.
 (4) That is real which is expected to reveal itself indeterminately in
the future.
 (5) There is something inherently pleasing about the real for human
minds; it has<_>attractive power .
 (6) The real is most powerfully and significantly manifest in
comprehensive entities.
 (7) Personal knowledge of the real is characterized by universal intent.
 (8) Living beings utilize different levels of comprehension of the real
for their adaptive advantage.
 (9) Living beings' evolutionary achievement of broader contact with the
real cannot be explained solely by the principle of survival of the
fittest but also requires the capturing of random occurrences in
favourable circumstances under the guidance of higher operational
principles serving self set interests.
 (10) A token of a real object is its coherence.

"Minds and problems possess a deeper reality than cobblestones, although
cobblestones are admittedly more real in the sense of being tangible. And
since I regard the significance of a thing as more important than its
tangibility, I shall say that minds and problems are more real than
cobblestones. Dead matter, matter that is both lifeless and deathless,
takes on meaning by originating living things... The field of new
potential meanings was so rich that this enterprise, once started, swept
on toward an infinite range of higher meanings, unceasingly pouring them
into existence, for the better part of a billion years. ... Rising stages
of evolution produce more meaningful organisms, capable of even more
complex acts of understanding. What is the relationship of the
significance criterion to the revelatory criterion? Polanyi follows up his
statement that minds and problems are more real than cobblestones with
this elaboration: "This is to class our knowledge of reality with the kind
of foreknowledge which guides scientists to discovery." This foreknowledge
includes an inarticulate ability to sense clues which can be successfully
indwelt and integrated into meaningful comprehensive entities. The same
structure of coming to know underlies our comprehension of people,
problems, and cobblestones, but the former have a rich diversity of
aspects not exhausted by our knowledge of one facet of their existence.
Hence they will reveal themselves in unexpected ways, which are signs of
their significance. But our knowledge of reality is also confirmed after
the fact by the criterion we use to assess knowledge."

No.7 is beautiful to me. Many experiences of a personal nature in nature
speak of this. I had such a conversation with a dove just a few days ago -
which follows on that which we shared concerning your daughter
Ilse-Marie's artistry, of angels captured in UNISON ;-), and
synchronicities which by definition are unfalsifiable..are they knot?
Anyhow, i have a disadvantage relative to my culture from the scientists
in that I am predisposed not to cut things up, place them in sealed
containers and separate them from the environment in which they live and
''become to be''...but i have found such a life interesting nevertheless
;-) Here is how i was learned to feel for knowledge and meaning as it
surrounds me..." The moment of vision, although a fresh experience for all
of us, gains its power because it is a morsel of collective experience as
well. The poet and artist, born as we all are with a capacity for
delighted self discovery in certain symbols, finds amongst them a few
which outlive his or her childhood because they nourish the centre of his
creative being." Sir Kenneth Clark, Moments of Vision.

OK...i could get into some horrendous detail and argument here, but i
prefer ''knot two''...i prefer to say this...in the last one hundred years
leading edge science has accommodated the means by which we shall move
into a vast array of ''knew noing''...i don't think this ''knew noing''
will be anymore in the privy domain of the scientist...but a ''new
knowing'' may be arise from the whole, tacitly ''heald'' (held<>whole)
which will allow enough scope for a new scientific method to arise and
affirm itself...I am with Peate, that the new and necessary paradigms can
be overthrown not through ''particular experiments'' targeted ''one to
one'' (experienments) but through increasing mappings of ''many to one''
and ''one to many'' exerienments freely shared as narratives, anecdotes,
dreams and visions...so that perhaps the man with the proverbial fishing
line may expect to both catch and not catch the proverbial fish, but may
land in his net ;-) the butterfly (Peate, 247) as predicted long ago by
the Greeks.

There is some deal of truth in all this 'science' but there is a good deal
more ''fabrication'', ''lying'' and ''deception'' and it begins and ends
for me in the minds of the men who practice its art.

In the IBM paper and in all its power i see nought but a huge beaurocracy
hailing itself as ''judge and jury'' seeking the age old ''master slave''

Big Blue take care...today is not the day for little pea brained Andrew to
set out a comparative appraisal of Popper and Polanyi...except
this...Popper in contradistinction to Polanyi believed that objective
knowledge is possible (let is say puttable into a nice saleable
commodity)...Popper has three worlds, the real world, subjective knowledge
of the real world and objective knowledge of the real world -the latter
the product of humans as honey of the bee (how nice)...and this honey may
be set forth with all the pristine authority of mathematics (and who in
hell understands that once passed the basics?)...it is lost on Popper that
the constructs of even mathematics is a product of the metaphysic of the
age that constructs and uses it...(go back to the Greeks and my first
post)...but you tire of me..how can i put it in terms that will shine
forth in my mistiness, my ignorance of such high ideals...oh yeh! It's
like this, my take on IBM and KM in any variant form..." Garbage in,
garbage out." and we are not supposed to be clever enough, nor wit enough,
nor soul enough, nor spirit enough, no courage enough, nor education
enough, nor humanitas enough, nor feeling enough, nor compassion enough,
nor love enough to KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

Corporate America...WHO..surveying the broken world...has LEARNED?

When YOUR back is broken...what then? ---slink off one by one to some
earthly paradise, on the back of share options and the rest of IT...i
think KNOT.

Forget the ''terms'' '''Ties'' and ''Reactions'' my reasoning is between
the ''Weak'' and the ''Strong''.

That is the new ARTaScience i see in the cloudedness.

Will that do for an opener At?





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.