Essentiality - "identitity-categoricity" (sureness) LO17956

Mnr AM de Lange (
Sat, 2 May 1998 23:27:31 GMT+2

Replying to LO17919 --

Dear Organlearners and especially Winfried,

You (Winfried Dressler <>) writes:

> may be I get a clearer picture of this essentiality, when I just go down
> your essay and ask a few of the questions I noted with pencil.
> >What is disturbing to me is that the categorical identification of a
> >racist did not play any role.
> What do you mean by "categorical identification"? Do you mean the
> definition of the category "racist" in such a way, that one can surely
> judge whether a specific identity (person) belongs to that category?

In my contribution, I have used the example ".... believes that one
race is EITHER superior OR INFERIOR to all the rest...." to show how
we move towards a more categorical indetification. What I tried to
show, is that we have to provide for all possibilities. Study each of
the other six essentialities. Try to understand how each of them
contributes to "all possibilities".

We have a very interesting situation now in South Africa with respect
to Apartheid. Black people have experienced white people's apartheid.
Black people have convinced most white people that this is wrong.
Unfortunately, black people are now practicing, having a position of
power, their own form of apartheid (affirmative action, black
empowerment, black owenship of transformation). White people are
beginning to experience it. They will have to convince black people
that this is also wrong.

> >Furthermore, observe how
> >important the last phrase " and thinks and acts accordingly" is to
> >the catgoricity of the identification.
> What would be an uncategorical identification? Later you discribe partial
> identity as uncategorical. Is this just an example or generic?

This is how "becoming-being" (liveness) contributes to "all
possibilities". It is generic with respect to liveness.

Here is an example.

Taxonomy (the identification of living species such as bacteria,
plants and animals, is at a crossraads. We now have, near the end
of this century, what is called, the "lumpers" and the "splitters".
The "lumpers" wants to reduce the number of species, generas,
families and orders while the splitters wants to increase them.
In my opnion it is because taxonomy has been based on only
morphological features, i.e. being. Physiological features, i.e.
becoming, has played no role FORMAL role in taxonomy (although the
"better" taxonomists have used becoming features tacitly/intuitively
to make sound identifications.)

> >The axiom of identity is basic to all mathematics.
> (including inverse transformation and isomorphismus)
> Pure logic is based on identity and diversity. Identity: A = A, Diversity:
> A is not Non-A. In order to establish uniqueness, a third axiom "Tertium
> non datur" - B = A and B = Non-A is prohibited. Uniqueness is essential to
> the ability to express meaning by means of language in the widest sense. I
> feel this to be close to sureness - and to demarkation.

You are now very close to the "deficiencies of pure logic". Pure
logic considers "Non-A" as a unique entity. It is not unique. It is
as rich as any of the other six essentialities will allow. For
example, if A is a lion ( a big cat?), "Non-A" is not merely an
antelope. It can also be an elephant, or a mouse, or a mosquito, or a
tree, or a succulent passion fruit (such as Adenia spinosa <bg>), or
even a piece of rock, or a stretch of sand or the blue sky above, or
my thoughts.

Sureness about the uniqueness of "that lion" depends on how much we
can relate it to other things through all the six essentialities.
Have you ever seen a dog sniffing at the faeces of a lion? Although
it might never have encountered a lion before, even ten generations
back, the behaviour of the dog is extraodinary. It curves its back
and pulls its tail between the legs. And if sniffs ever so carefully,
making soft whipering sounds. A slight flick of the fingers is enough
to send the dog sky high.

Sleep one night in the wilds without a gun or protection and hear
that lion roar 100 yards away from you. The next morning you will at
the first dawn quickly go and wash your clothes. You will realise
that you are not better than any of the other primates when a lion

> The existence of inverse tansformation, isomorphism, seems to be
> reversibility. Are selfreferential pairs the outcome of reversibility? Are
> thus future and past not selfreferential only by means of irreversibility
> - - the second law of thermodynamics or entropy production? Sounds like
> entropy production impairing sureness...(I am tapping in the dark).

Reversibility is made up by two irreversible actions which are
inverses of each other. These two irreversible components localises
the law of entropy production, making the reversible phenomenon to
appear as a local universe - a system at equilbrium.. Chemists make
immense use of this feature. Most chemical identifications are made
in terms of the equilbrium state.

But two irreversible actions (becomings), inverses of each other,
yet none happening at equilibrium, is just as important to establish
identity. I have use analyses and synthesis (inward and outward) as
an example.

> >Isomorphic transformation are very important because any one labels all its
> >inputs in a unique manner to its outputs.
> and
> >We make frequently use of isomorphisms to establish categorical identities.
> What in the process of labeling is categorical? Labeling by means of
> isomorphism is identifying identities by means of other identities. Where
> is categoricity here? Labeling "my cat" as a "cat" would be a simple
> example of what I understand to be categorical identification, but it is
> not isomorph anymore, because there are other cats, which also belong to
> the category "cat".

Winfried, we are now dead centre into Wittgenstein's dilemma. - our
imprisonment by language. I will try to explain it as carefully as
possible how I understand it.

You had a thought which you wanted to use as an example. You
have labeled that thought with the words "my cat". The thought is not
the label. For example, being a German, you could have used a
different label, namely "meine Katze". Let us now think of the
abstarct thought (for which we can use two different labels, namely
"my cat" and "meine Katxe")

Maybe you do have a cat or maybe you dont have a cat. These two
inverse possibilties tells me that whatever label you use to codify
your thought, the codification is not yet an isomprophism! If you
would have added "I swear on my word of honour", then we come closer
to an isomorphism. But people can tell lies. Thus, although I might
accept your assurance, I will still be on the lookout for a lie. This
is then where logic comes in - to find out when you are telling
lies. Maybe I catch you out at lying by using logic. But maybe your
udse of logic is inconsistent and incoherent. Thus, what appears to
me as a lie, is not a lie on your behalf - merely bad expression. I
can go on and on with all sorts of possibilities. The crux of the
matter is that only when I have exhiausted all the essentialities
(liveness, wholeness, fruitfulness, spareness, otherness, openness).
I will for sure have a categorical identification.

Since I do not know for sure the truth, I postpone a final judgement
on the categorical identification of your words "my cat". But this do
not mean that I do not evaluate these words at every possible
opportunity. In other words, I am working towards a categorical
identification - the being becomes. (In my office their is a red
plaque with the wording "Office of being for becoming". Maybe you
will now understand what it means . My colleagues dont - and it
puzzels my students out opf their wits.)

It is very important to understand what the sentence "the
codification is not yet an isomprophism" says. It says that when we
express our thoughts by speach or script, we acknowledge that such
expressions are emergents of unique thoughts - thoughts never
knowable to other people. It is because the emergence of something
from something else is never, never an isomorphism! It has an even
more important consequence - an destructive immergence is never the
inverse of a constructive emergence For example, when we destroy a
house, the ruins are not the same situation as before the house
has been built.

It is because of this "the codification is not yet an isomprophism"
that we have to postpone our final judgement. We have to allow for
all possible entropy production so that the context can develop
fully. That is why we have to take great care when somebody else
speaks or writes something. For me the moment of "final judement" is
a moment of profound emergence. Profound emergences are very, very

> This should be enough for the beginning. A have some duties as a father
> tonight. ("I am a father" - partial identification, although I think and
> act accordingly, because I am not only a father.)

Give your child a hug from all of us. Tel him/her(?) that there are
people all over the world knowing about him/her. I have told my own
granddaughter Jessica a number of times that I have written about her
life to people all over the world. It helps to make her an incredibly
open child, willing to speak with any other person on any topic.

Have you people ever noticed how children postpone their judgements?

> May be you can see where I stuck.

Winfried, I am not sure, but I think it is because you think of an
emerging process as an isomophism. It is definitely what I did for
many years - until I have discovered that entropy production
(irreversibility) also happens in the world of mind. Thank you for
asking thse questions. It helped me to relive my own hours of
immense uncreatainty.

Best wishes.


At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email:

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>