Item Subject: cc:Mail Text
In LO14807 At asks:
>This means that emergences/immergences, i.e. bifurcations are the
>remarkable transition from a varietypattern of variety becoming to a
>varietypattern of being. When these beings become mature, they cause
>a reverse transition, namely varietypattern of being into a
>varietypattern of becoming. Thus we get this pendulum swing which
>Winfired has written about.
>James, is this lattre formulation of chaos not probably what you
>tacitly have had in mind?
As long as we keep in mind that the implementation of this concept is
relative to the observer. Many individuals are not aware of the
dynamics of the discovery process and would tend to view it more as a
rising (expanding) vortex of knowledge as I used to.
Regarding your barrage at the end of LO14807:
>What I meant by the "origin of structure- process", is how did these
>two concepts emerged within us? Were their emergences a pure thing of
>the abstract, or were there emergences also related to something we
>sense outside us? Were their origin in the Big Bang which is so often
>mentioned nowadays, or can we observe this origin even today? Is it
>possible to admit this "origin" without the creativity of humankind
>coming into the picture? Is it necessary to know how the concepts
>structure (being) and process (becoming) have emerged within us, or
>can we simply go on and use them as we do with many of our tools?
>What if "becoming-being" is one of the contingencies which have to be
>taken into account for emergences. What if becoming-being is
>essential to emergent learning? Will we not remain ignorant to
>emergent learning if we remain ignorant to becoming-being?
Once again, I have to seriously question the concept of an origin even
in the contextual constraint of structure-process. Making order of
(perceived) chaos is not a trait specific to human beings, therefore,
I can't say that the two concepts emerged in humans at any point. It
would be tantamount to this hard-core Darwinian saying that there was
a specific origin to humans. If, however, we are to stick to
conceptual thinking, then I can definitely agree that at some point
man concluded that he has the ability to think and learn. This was
probably about the time that someone created a god to explain that
which was apparently unexplainable (Chaos). Deity worship is a
characteristic specific to Humans. Sorry, I'll stay away from
theological discourse from now on. It is necessary for humans at this
point to understand structure-process, order-chaos, and the emergent
learning involved with these concepts in order for us to further our
development as a society of rational beings.
"The highest level of individual life is that of conceptual thinking
without regard to any definite perceptual content of the concept
through pure intuition from out of the ideal sphere."
- Dr. Rudolf Steiner
All too often rational intelligent people find themselves limited by
the inability to release themselves from conventional thought
processes without even realizing that it is their own mind that is
blocking the way. It is a relief to have an intelligent dialog on high
concepts without digressing into religious dogma.
AT, I look forward to your book. Could your capsulize your concept of
imperative logic?
JHC
james_carrington@hp.com
--JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>