Dear Organlearners,
Leo Minnigh <L.D.Minnigh@library.tudelft.nl> writes:
>Parallel thinking and dialoguing is a way to explore, it
>spreads out the thoughts. It expands the boundaries of the
>subject. Defending by argumentation is a contraction of
>thoughts towards a nucleus. The position of this nucleus
>is inside the subject of dialogue but lies not necessarily
>in the centre.
Greetings Leo,
I have already answered to your contribution with respect to other
matters. But I have kept this paragraph out for a reply all on its
own. It contains for me much gold.
You write about parallel thinking and dialoguing, qualifying them as a
way to "spread out the thoughts". I want to fix your attention on the
part in quotation marks. Spreading out thoughts and spreading out
energy involves two different things, the one abstract and the the
other one material. But in both cases it concerns "spreading out", i.e
dissipation of dispersion. Now, with respect to energy, this
dissipation (spreading) is the first and automatical consequence of
"entropy production".
What about thoughts? Are their dissipation (spreading) also the result
of something? Are they the result of "entropy productiion? You say
that they are the result of "parallel thinking and dialoguing".
Clearly, "parallel thinking and dialoguing" and "entropy production"
are not the same thing. But entropy is produced by "force-flux" pairs.
Consequently, can you identify entropic force-flux pairs in "parallel
thinking and dialoguing"?
Here is something to think about. In the last section of the Primer on
Entropy, I discussed the Onsager reciprocal ("cross induction")
relationships. They concern the phenomenuon that one entropic force
gives rise not only to its own corresponding flux, but also to other
entropic force-flux pairs. For exmple, a concentration difference in
an electrolyte will not only lead to mass flow of ions, but also to
apperance of an electrical potential difference and the flow of an
electrical current -- something which happens in our brain in order to
generate thoughts. How much similarity do you find between the Onsager
relationships for the material world and "parallel thinking"?
Leo, your second sentence which I want to draw attention to, is
"Defending by argumentation is a contraction of thoughts towards a
nucleus". (I will even go so far as to say that defending by
argumentation can lead to an implosive immergence.) It is closely
connected to a topic in two other ongoing threads ("What is culture"
and "Spirituality in workplace"), namely the relationship between
OBJECT and SUBJECT. In the contribution "Spirituality in workplace
LO20149" I have tried to explain by two diagrams what John Zavacki's
warning "Sprituality is another subject that should not become an
object" means to me. The diagrams are
--[object]-->--[thinking]-->--[subject]--
| |
---------------<--[thinking]--<----------------
and
--[object]-->--[thinking]-->--[subject]--
| |
------------------<----------------
In the upper digram the part [object]-->--[thinking] plays an
essential role while in the lower diagram the [object] is cut out.
Because this part {object]-->--[thinking] is so important to me, I
prefer to give it a name and specifically the name "principal object
diversifier". This "principal object diversifier" is very important to
my own Systems Thinking, leading to the branching of many subjects
from one object. This can be symbolises by
/-->--[subject]
[object]-->--[thinking]-->--[subject]
\-->--[subject]
As soon as the thinking on any one of these subjects begin to cut out
the object, the subject "contracts towards a nucleus" to use your
words. You have pointed out an important way how this can happen,
namely argumentation on the subject. Another important way is avoiding
the object because of the complexity involved. But I think that for
the time being we should rather concentrate on the argumentation
angle.
This argumentation seems to play a profoundly important role here in
South Africa on all walks (social, economical, political, religious,
etc.) of life. People are arguing continually on who have the best
rendering of the subject while ignoring the object almost completely.
This argumentation is probably worst in politics -- some days so much
so that it makes me mentally sick.
Argumentation played an important role in oratoric tradition of the
Roman civilisation. Thus, when Christianity became the state religion,
apologetics became an important branch in the dogma of the Church.
Gradually theologians began to study dogma an apologetics much more
than the Bible itself. Eventually, a millenium later, the protestant
Refomation became of necessity in bringing the object (seemingly the
Bible) back into the picture (see the upper diagram above). But herein
lies an important lesson. The Bible, although the primary source of
information for Protestants, is not the actual object. The actual
object is the "interaction between God and humankind". This is the
case for each book of the Bible from Genesis in the Old Testament to
Revelations in the New Testament. Each book (subject) has this
"interaction between God and humankind" as its object rather than any
other book (subject).
In my opinion this relation between OBJECT and SUBJECT is an important
problem to solve in Systems Thinking. This relation is also important
to the manner in which we will conduct our dialog on this list. I want
to encourage all, including myself, not to let the subject become the
object. Thus we need to remind ourselves continually what our object
is. Leo wrote that "The position of this nucleus
is inside the subject of dialogue but lies not necessarily in the
centre." What lies at the centre of our dialogue?
As for me, I prefer to think of it as the object. But what is this
object?
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>