Competition LO18034

Mnr AM de Lange (
Fri, 8 May 1998 14:31:28 GMT+2

Replying to LO17982 --

Dear Organlearners,

Leslie Lax <> writes:

> >It sounds like what you're describing is a conceptual breakdown.
> It could also be seen as a conceptual breakthrough.

Those unavoidable bifurcations - immergence or emergence!

> Now, let me be clear that I am not an expositional expert at fuzzy logic.
> I found the book rather compelling in parts and intuitively liked the
> breadth it afforded some of my thinking. What struck a chord with me was
> a slightly different look at being. [At, I am trying to weave some of the
> essentialities into this - could well be off the mark]

No, you are not off the mark. When we view ourselves not any more as
"beings", but as "becoming beings" (or "processing structures", or
use any "verb-noun" description), our consciousness begin to change.

> Typically when looking at probabilities, we say that A has an x%
> probability of being 100% A at any given time. My read of fuzzy logic
> puts it a little differently. The interpretation may be read to say that
> A has a 100% probability of being x% of A at any given time. Then, for
> emergence to occur, A will have 100% probability of being 100% A. This is
> a special case. However, we could not preclude the possibility that A
> could have 100% probablility of being 0% A. Also a special case.
> [immergence, At?]

No, this is no immergence. It is how the essentiality
"identity-catehoricty" (sureness) operates. It begins in the fuzzy
region (x%A) of logic and the moves to one of its sharp edges (100%A
or 0%A).

Your "feeling is in the right direction". But a sudden jump from the
one sharp edge to the other, would indicate a bifurcation. Whether it
is an immergence or an emergence, is not possible to determine
without additional information.

The main problem with reductionism is that it cannot deal with
immergences - the opposite of emergences. (An emerge happens when two
or more things come together and something new is created - i.e the
total is more than the sum of the parts.)

The "eidetic reduction" of Husserl's phenomenology is brilliant way
to determine whther something is essential to a phenomenon. If you
think that "something" away and the phenomenon immerge (cease to
exist recognisable), then that "something" is essential.

Should you apply "eidetic reduction" to competition, you ought to
discover that it is not essential to self-organistion, although it
may be profitable.

> So what does this mean for the LO? Well, since we are so efficient at
> categorising things, we sometimes forget the breadth of chaos that our
> models hide, to make living and thinking more manageable. And, this
> allows us to ignore the fuzziness in our initial categorisation. We begin
> to believe in the exactness of our definitions, and so create wonderful
> dichotomies, that are much easier to cope with.

Leslie, I agree much with you.

It is when we get into a different environment (natural, like living
in the desert, or cultural, like touring in a different country)
when these "wonderful dichotomies" become shattered again into fuzzy
notions. Only when our experiences becomes rich in all seven
essentialities (liveness, sureness, wholeness, fruitfulness,
spareness, otherness and openness), then we begin to perceive the
patterns which really matter.

> I hope this helps. I'm still exploring.

Les, what wonderful sentences these two above are - sincere and rich.

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 -- <>