Dear Organlearners,
Steve Eskow <seskow@durand.com> writes:
>This is a misunderstanding of the nonChristian, nontheological
>approach to the creation and transmission of knowledge.
Greetings Steve,
I am not sure what your refered to as a misunderstanding.
The purpose of my writing was to illustrate to Don Dwiggens that
irreversible self-organisation as a paradigm is alien to even the
Christians attending the mini conference.
I myself do not want to use the word "Christian" in undertakings such
"Christian Systems Thinking" and "Christian Philosophy" if Christ is not
central to these undertakings. We have learned a durable lesson here in
South Africa with the call for "Christian Nationalism" to justify
apartheid. We caused immense harm to all people with apartheid. I was for
the first 6 years of my own independant thinking a supporter of apartheid
because it was the system which I grew up in. But when I began to
question apartheid in the middle seventies, I found that except for a few
referances to the Old Testament, very little of apartheid was based on the
values which Jesus Christ taught.
In my systems thinking, because wholeness is essential to it, the
"Scientific Accounts" (SA) and the"Christian Accounts" (CA) of reality
form a complementary dual. I know that you prefer to call my systems
thinking a mental model. Whether systems thinking or mental model, it is
because of wholeness that I have to give an account of both SA and CA. To
talk about the one while keeping quiet on the other one, for example SA
among Christians and CA among scientists, is something which I can do, but
is not a true reflection of my spirituality. Furthermore, since I stopped
fragmenting creativity and believing since the middle eighties, my own
creativity benefitted much from it.
>Nontheological scientists do not believe that knowledge is
>"out there" waiting to be "imported": indeed, all of Kuhn's
>work is an attempt to make clear that science is the ongoing
>construction and reconstruction of "reality". Our linguistic and
>material tools--telescopes, microscopes, all of the physical
>and conceptual tools by which we attempt to grasp the stuff
>out there--reshape continually the world they seek to describe.
What you have written is fine for me, except that it does not identify the
agents who change (construct and reconstruct) reality continually. For a
couple of millenia up to the sixties of this century, it was believed that
it was the priviledge of a small minority of thinkers while the great
majority of thinkers had to follow in their footsteps strictly.
The situation is changing. Research on creativity since WWII show that
creativity is not something which only a few geniusses possess. Sadly, the
lack of creativity in people is much more acquired than innate. It is the
pressures of society which impair the creativity of its members.
The role of irreversible self-organisation in creativity and in learning
has received very little attention. However, one of the most interesting
and rewarding studies to do, is to trace the role of irreversible
self-organisation in the history of science and its findings. Whenever a
Kuhnian paradigm shift occured, it was because a small band of roamers
allowed themselves the priviledge of "saltotorial (revolutionary)
irreversible self-orgnisation".
Here is an example concerning the paradigm shift from Newtonian mechanics
to quantum mechanics. Late in the previous century most emminent
physicists tried to give an account of the second law of thermodynamics
(the Law of Entropy Production) in terms of the Law of Energy Conservation
and Newtonian mechanics. However, Max Planck wanted to learn more of LEP
from the viewpoint of black body radiation. In other words, he set out on
course of saltotorial self-organisation beginning with electromagnetism
rather than mechanics as the others. He did not arrive at his destination,
but along the course he discovered the quantum effect, namely that
electromagnetic waves had definite quantums of energy equal to their
frequency. Planck knew that this fact did not fit into the theory of
electromagnetism of Maxwell and that by publishing it he would be severly
criticised. Eventually he did publish it and his foreboding became true.
However, by that time scientists were struggling with two phenomena which
did not fit into their theories: photo-electricity and the spectrum of
light emmited by hydrogen atoms. The patterns (rules) in these two
phenomena were already established by measurements. But there was no way
how their esteemed theories could predict or accomodate these patterns.
These patterns were becoming a great mystery (anomaly). Then the young
Einstein did a remarkable thing. He did not criticise Planck as the rest,
but took his finding and showed that it was a perfect explanantion for the
pattern of photo-electricity. This saltotorial irreversible
self-organisation of Einstein was soon followed by the saltotorial
irreversible self-organisation of Bohr. He took Planck's finding and
showed that it was a plausible explanation for the pattern of light
emmision by an electron in a hydrogen atom.
Thus the stage was pratically set for the saltotorial irreversible
self-organisation of Heisenberg (matrix mechanics) and Schroedinger (wave
meachnics). Later, especially through the saltotorial irreversible
self-organisation of Dirac, it was realised that matrix mechanics and wave
mechanics were two sides of the same coin which is now called quantum
mechanics.
I have used the phrase "saltotorial irreversible self-organisation" above
many times, so much so that it can become irritating. I could also have
used "innovation" because innovation is the saltotorial (revolutionary)
phase of irreversible self-organisation. Should I have used "innovation",
I would have merely repeated what many have said before. But by using
"saltotorial irreversible self-organisation", I signify that I myself are
on a course of "innovation" by viewing it in a much wider context of
"entropy production" (irreversibility) causing "changes in organisation",
material and abstract.
Human rights play an increasingly important role all over the world. For
example, a human has the right to access information which involves that
human. I believe that every human has the right to "saltotorial
irreversible self-organisation" or "innovation". Unfortunately, you will
not find that right described in any document on human rights. But in
every human right some people had to pave the way as leaders. Likewise I
will do my best to show why "saltotorial irreversible self-organisation"
is a human right and how it works.
>And there is no evidence that Jesus or Jehovah or Buddha
>help in this work, except as they fortify the scientists for
>the work of grasping and reshaping the world.
I do not think that Jehova fit with the other two. The God Jehova is a
Spiritual Being while Jesus and Buddha were humans. Except for the
additional complication that Christians believe on the basis of His
resurrection that Jesus is the Christ, Son of God and thus part of God,
these two people had an immense influence on the shaping of the minds of
their followers. Through these followers they had a vast influence on the
minds of large sections of humanity. For example, both Jesus and Buddha
emphasised truth as essential to life. Eventually scientists developed
the scientific method to discover truth independent from the teachings of
these two persons.
>Indeed, there is ample evidence that the reverse is the case:
>the science of an era reshapes our picture of God. In an
>agricultural age God is a shepherd; in a mechanical age he
>becomes the Great Watchmaker who starts the mechanism
>running and keeps it running; and as each new "paradigm"
>emerges God changes. The process is poignant, and at times
>vulgar: Bruce Barton and others have written about Jesus as
>the "world's greatest salesman," reflecting a capitalist's eye
>view of divinity.
Yes, the majority of humankind did use their prevailing paradigms to make
a picture of God which would fit into their paradigm. No, not all of
humankind did so because we must not confuse meatphors with paradigms. The
Bible, for example, has many warnings against this practice. Some people,
also outside the Bibilical context, knew what problem they were up to,
namely the creature trying to decribe its Creator. Thus they often used
metaphors from daily life to decribe properties of the Creator. And as you
have reminded me, metaphors can cause dangerous perceptions.
Steve, a most interesting exception to your thesis is the Xhoi (Hottentot)
peoples (like the Namaqua, Giriqua and Outeniqua) of Southern Africa. They
entered South Africa many centuries before the Banthu peoples. Their
languages (rich in clicking and guttural sounds) are completely different
to the Banthu languages. Their languages are somewhat related to that of
the San (Bushmen) peoples who already lived millenia before them in South
Africa. The Xhoi peoples migrated along the dry western side of Southern
Africa downwards whereas the Banthu people migrated along the moderate
interior (Suthu peoples) and wet eastern side (Nguni peoples) downwards.
Their agriculture was exclusively husbandry whereas that of the Banthu
peoples was also crop farming. Unfortunately, like the Banthu people they
had no written languages. Thus very little of their original religion was
documented. The little which we have come from European explorers and
missionaries. Furthermore, they accepted the Christian religion so fast
and spontaneously, unlike the Banthu people, that soon after contact with
Christians from Europe very little of their original religion remained to
be documented. Why?
In their religion they did not try to picture God from the "husbandry"
paradigm. They worshiped one Spiritual Being which they addressed as the
Father of all fathers. He was the Creator of all things. He was the
Merciful One who helped them to ammend their ways so that they could live
a better live. He taught them His ways through men among men (Xhoi-Xhoi).
In difficult times the Xhoi people prayed to Him for deliverance. From the
little we know of their orginal religion, it is easy to understand why
they shifted so spontaneously and fast to Christianity. Even today in the
secular New South Africa, they are among the most steadfast of Christain
believers.
One of their legends concern the famous and extraordianry succulent plants
called the "half-human" (Pachypodium namaquanum). Long ago a Xhoi clan was
fleeing form their foes. Their foes gained on them and were on the point
of exterminating them. They prayed to the Father of all fathers for
deliverance who immediately transfomed them into these plants. Up to this
days the "heads" of these plants face north, the direction into which they
were fleeing.
Today only one of their languages still remain, namely Nama. I can sit
hours just listening to its strange, yet beautiful musical qualities.
Only a couple of thousand of Xhoi descendants in South Africa can still
speak Nama. But in Namibia several hundreds of thousands (Basters at
Reheboth and Damaras at Xhorixas) speak it daily.
>Einstein, and perhaps Bohr, were Jews, evidently able to
>reshape the worldview of science without the help of the
>Christian god.
Yes, Einstein was not only a Jew by birth, but also a serious believer in
the Judaistic faith. Bohr's mother (Adler) was a member of a prominent
banking family in Denmark. Both men were giants among the scientists of
the twentieth century.
Why did they, as well as an unsual high number of other scientists of the
Jewish faith, contributed so much to the advancement of science? Is it a
merely a case of serendipity (stupendous luck)? Or is it because their
specific faith gave them an advantage? Or is it because their specific
faith did not impair their creativity?
But let us look at all kinds of faith and not look at either the
Jewish faith or the Christian faith otherwise we might end up making
claims which are not true. In other words, we even have to include the
atheistic faith. Wholeness require that there are two very important
questions we must ask ourselves and try to answer:
1 What role does each faith play in creative thinking?
2 What role does creativity play in more specialised
forms of thinking thinking like scientific thinking and
systems thinking?
Obviously, the opposite of wholeness also exists by way of belief, namely
fragmentarism. Fragmentarists will easily claim that faith, creativity and
thinking have nothing in common so that these questions have no meaning.
They are free to make such claims, but they are not free to prescribe
others to upheld such a claim. How much has this freedom to do with
question 1?
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>