Structure LO14698

Mnr AM de Lange (AMDELANGE@gold.up.ac.za)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:54:17 GMT+2

Replying to LO14663 --

Dear organlearners,

Doc "Richard C. Holloway" <learnshops@thresholds.com> wrote
in LO14663:

> I believe that understanding pattern, structure and process in this
> context, and with regards to organizations, is imperative to effective
> diagnosis, treatment and healing and coping with the evolutionary traits
> exhibited by this model and our experience. The mental models frequently
> presented by those posting to this list demonstrate the incongruity of old
> and new symbols, jargon and images. Despite the seeming incongruous
> dialog, though, the common theme occurs. We continue to discuss those
> patterns of relationships--the networking--and the cognitive activities
> that continually embody that pattern in the dissipative structure of the
> organization.
>
> To conclude, it is this abstraction that continues to capture my
> imagination--and despite my frequent grounding in the here and now, I
> intuitively perceive that wrestling with this Capra model, as a new model
> for human-created organizations, is a worth-while effort.

Doc,

I have experienced myself how structure-process have captured my
imagination.

I think that you should not consider "pattern" on the same level
as "process-structure". Your "pattern" is rather the
"fractalisation" of "process-structure".

A revolution has shaked the mathematical community about 30 years
ago. Unlike previous mathematical revolutions, the rest of the
world know very little about this revolution. Let us call it CAT.

Before CAT, mathematicians believed (heralded the paradigm) that
only one concept was primordial to mathematics, namely "set". In
other words, they believed that the whole of mathematics could
be created on the undefined concept "set".

After CAT, mathematicians now believe that two primordial
concepts are needed: "set" (your structure) and "function" (your
process). Thus their paradigm shifted from "set theory" to
"category theory" in which they work with categories CAT. Any
entity is a CAT if it consists of "sets" (objects) and
"functions" (functors, arrows). Mathematicians now create the
whole of mathematics in terms of CAT. To capture the interplay
of "sets" and "functions", they make use of "diagrams". Their
"diagrams" is nothing else than your "patterns".

Maybe you would like to study the book by Robert Goldblatt
"Topoi: the categorial analysis of logic" (North Holland). Of all
the books on CAT, this is the one which I like most. However,
this book like all other valuable books require "hard core
studying".

In the world of computer programming OOP (Object Orientated
Programmng) is now the fashion. Well, what programmers do in OOP
is what mathematicians do in CAT. Is it not a pity that the CATs
and OOPs are not acquainted with each other, nor with
WLs "the Web of Life" by Capra.

This alienation goes even further. Linguists study, among other
things, the grammer of languages. For many centuries the
"noun-predicate" categorisation ruled. However, another paradigm
shift is quitely taking place, namely, that the basic
categorisation is rather "noun-verb", each with their
predicates. In other words, the "noun" is your "structure" and
the "verb" is your "process". The "adjectives" on nouns and the
"adverbs" of verbs constitute your "patterns".

I can go on and on with this alienation. For example, the
personal name of the God of the Scriptures is Yahweh. One
very strange, but apt translation for the Hebrew consonants
YHWH is "being-becoming". Another example. The reason why most
learners had so much difficulty with chemistry, is that nobody
told them to think of the chemical reaction as a being-becoming!
Another example. Physicists distinguishe between two kinds of
fundamental particles: fermions (beings like electrons) and
photons (becomings like photons). A last example: have you ever
realised that your intuition treats you as a being-becoming?

The further I go, the more some of you will really begin to
worry. What is the authentic origin of "process-strcuture"? Those
who believe in God will say that God is the origin. But God said
that He images himself in His Creation. So the believers will
also have to find the origin in His image, namely Creation. Thus
they will have to do exactly what the atheists will also be
doing.

This is the question which I now wish to pose to you all for
discussion:
What is the origin for "process-structure" (being-becoming) in
this universe, material and abstract?

Best wishes

-- 

At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>