Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes
in reply to my:
>> "Please be easy on me ... I'm not a specialist .. just
>> a jack of all trades wanting to to care more for people".
>
>I haven't observed yet, that you operate with needles (;-)).
>If you mean by specialist: "The structure of all the processes
>are represented in the neuronal structure of the brain."
>(brain-knowledge) and by jack of all trades:
>"There is some place in my body which is quite good in
>specific responses to entropic forces." (body knowledge) you
>are right. I personally would have interchanged the two:
>A jack of all trades wants to know everything with his brain
> while the specialist keeps the specialities to the masters of
>those specific disciplines, whereever they are in the body.
Greetings Winfried,
I made that remark on the "jack of all trades" to let you all know that I
am following the topic "Interdisciplinearity" very closely. Although my
sympathy lays with the "jack of all trades", in think that the issue of
"Interdisciplinearity" is an extremely complex one. Furthermore, for me it
requires not only brain intelligence, but all the other intelligences
also. The chaos within me is still too much to respond orderly to that
issue -- unless, of course, you want me to tell about the chaos itself.
>>If anyone want me to tell something about "magnetosynthesis",
>>just make a call for it.
>First, my eyes come to mind. Doesn't the ability to see include
>processes of "electromagnetosynthesis"?
Winfried, perhaps I should give a short account for fellow learners on the
relationship between "electro-", "magneto-" and "electromagneto-"
processes.
It all begins with the property "electrical charge" which many (but not
all of the elementary particles of matter have. This observation is very
important to LOs -- some people have something while others do not have
it. It brings binary logic into the picture.
Some elementary particles have a positive charge while others have a
negative charge. Also this observation is very important to LOs -- some
people having something will manifest different kinds of that thing. It
predicates binary logic into deeper layers.
>From these elementary particles emerge the nuclei of atoms and eventually
the atoms themselves. From these atoms many kinds of polyatomic structure
like molecules and metal crystals emerge. The nuclei in these structures
have a positive charge while the electrons surrounding the nuclei have
negative charges. By adding||removing electrons from these polyatomic
structures, they become positively||negatively charged. Billions of these
microscopically charged units are needed to get an electrically charged
object which is macroscopically observable. This observation is also very
important to LOs -- sometimes we need many rather than one person to
observe a trend. It brings modal logic into the picture.
This macroscopic object with a positive or negative charge is simply
refered to as the "charge" for electromagnetic purposes. To detect
electrical, magnetical or electromagnetical behaviour, we need TWO charges
(the system charge and the test charge). This observation is extremely
important to LOs -- it takes two to tango. It brings dialogue into the
picture. It comples us to caegorise between object and subject, between
system and surrounding.
When the position of the system charge is FIXED with respect to the test
charge, the test charge will experience only an electric force. (In short:
displacement <==> electric field.) When the position CHANGES, the test
charge will also experience a magnetic force perpendicular to to the
electric force. (In short: velocity <==> magnetic field.) As before, even
this observation is important to LOs -- change something fixed and a new
behaviour emerge. It brings dimensionality into the picture.
When the CHANGE in position CHANGES itself, the system charge loses energy
by radiating it as electromagnetic waves (packets of oscillating electric
and magnetic fields) in a direction perpendicular to the electrical and
magnetical fields. (In short: acceleration <==> propagating
electromagnetic field.) Again this observation is extremely important to
LOs -- the change of change propagates energy-entropy packets from one
system to another. This dance (change) of change sets the upper limit for
dimensionality.
To summarise:
When distance
is fixed <==> electric
change <==> electric and magnetic
dance in changes <==> electric, magnetic & electromagnetic
It affords us some viewpoint on all the various intelligences:
When creativity
is fixed <==> brain intelligence
change <==> brain and heart intelligence
dance in changes <==> all intelligences & deep intelligence
>Second, I think of my daughter Luisa, 3 years old. She used
>to sleep in a baby bed and just got a childs bed a few weeks
>ago. The direction of the new bed is at right angles compared
>to the baby bed. Whenever I look after her before I go to bed,
>the lies across the bed, in the direction she used to sleep in
>her old bed. So there seems to be a directional preference.
>Could this be a sign of "magnetosythesis" of some "sleep well"
>compounds?
I strongly suspect it. Somehere between WWI and WWII a person in Canada (I
cannot remember the exact reference any more) conducted a series of
experiments on the germination of seeds within (and without for control) a
magnetic field. The seed germination of some species improved impressively
(percentage and time) while for some others it was repressed extraodinary.
The rest fail to respond positively or negatively.
When I stumbled on this report in 1969, I was intrigued for two reasons.
The first was that it was the only report of its kind. Nobody else (up to
1969) went deeper into this strange behaviour of magnetic fields on seed
germinations or any other physiological process in biological systems.
Neither did anybody (up to 1969) in pure chemistry did any reserach on
"magnetosynthesis", despite the several billion of experiments done in the
entire history of chemistry.
The second reason was actually the reason why I searched the literature
for any report on "magnetochemistry" in whatever setup. In a complex
system there is a complex network of relationships between entropic forces
and antropic fluxes. This network is expressed by the so-called Onsager
coefficient matrix of reciprocal (cross-inductive) relationships. All the
intensive quantites (which play a role in generating entropic forces)
influence all the coefficients symmetrically, except for one intensive
quantity, namely the magnetic field which has an asymmetrical influence!
When individuals think scientifically, it involves firstly observations,
then speculations and finally falsifications. When humans communicate
scientifically, they have to use various kinds of metaphors open to the
experiences of one another. I can give you all a very technical
description of asymmetry. However, the technical metaphor is but one of
many. Here are some others.
Asymmetry is like the mouth turing upwards at the one side for a smile and
downwards at the other side for a grimace. It is like fower with order in
its outer petals and chaos among its inner petals. It is like a statue of
Rodin, exquisitely finished in one part of it and almost left untouched in
another part. It is like a grandfather and his granddaughter walking hand
in hand, sharing two different world views in reaction to signals from the
same environment.
So what about a little speculation to enrich our observations?
A magnetic field emerge from an electric field when the 3D displacement
between two charges changes. Like an emerging magnetic field upon change,
learning emerges from creativity when "all kinds of displacements" (called
objectification by continental philosophers) between the human and his/her
environment changes. This makes us think of brain intelligence. The back
action of learning on creativity is to change the creativity
asymmetrically. This asymmetrical change in creativity lead to the
emergence of what we think of as heart intelligence. The physical heart is
not merely a massive mechanical pump, but also a delicate electric and
magnetic reactor producing minute quantities of fine quantities which have
to react immediately to have any effect because of their instability.
Likewise the heart intelligence sends out trace signals for immediate
action upon the major signals processed by the brain intelligence.
We can paint a dazzling image with out imagination. But we will also have
to move from speculation to falsification. Brute denials will never
suffice as falsification. I think that the best place to begin with
falsifications is in terms of our experiences. From experiences we then
move to scinetifically planned experiments. The first thing to do is try
proving that our brain intelligence alone determines our learning, i.e
falsifying the influence of heart intelligence.
As a teacher in 1972-75 I experienced that IQ is but a fair indicator of a
pupil's learning capabilities.
I tried to find another quotient for especially "learning in science" and
used pupils' performances in various subjects to obtain by regression
analysis a PQ ("Performance Quotient") to supplement the IQ. On its own
the PQ did not fare better than the IQ, but together they worked better to
indicate the "deep intelligence" of a pupil. I was still contemplating on
how to improve on the PQ when my experiences with some pupils convinced me
that I was barking up against the worng tree. (I still remember the faces
and surnames of a few after so many years: Els, Botha, Van Lutterveldt and
Brink.) I helped them to come to peace with their hearts and they helped
me to break the crusts covering my own heart.
The learning which ensued in them turned all my IQ and PQ work upside
down, destroying the correlation which I valued so much. The learning
which ensued in me was that once again I have to stop barking at a few
trees and rather focus on the forest as a whole. I began to perceive that
creativity is much more important in learning than intelligence. I also
became aware that trying to find a CQ ("Creativity Quotient") would be
adding insult to injury. There is more complexity to creativity (as with
intelligence or performance) than merely trying to express it with a
single number.
Winfried, one thing was very outstanding in my percpetions in the period
1972-79. My mind intelligence was telling me that I was slowly meandering
away from the traditional education and its account of learning. My mind
also told me to take recognition of very recent developments in the
frontiers of education to see if I could not find any short cut. But my
heart intelligence was telling me that I had to stick to my search for the
relationship between entropy, creativity and learning, come hell or high
water. Thus my heart caused me making many a "boksprong". (A "boksprong"
is that graceful jump, a high and long leap with body outstreched, which
antelope like the springbuck make when they flee from danger.) As soon as
I my heart was telling me that I was barking up against the wrong tree, I
stop whatever I was doing to proceed to the next thing.
It was then when I began to experience intensely the inner nature of what
others easily labeled as chaos -- the diversity of becoming. My mind was
telling me that this chaos made it more difficult for my colleagues to
understand me. But my heart was telling me that this "diversity of
becoming" was most important to my own understanding. Only three years
later (1983) did the significance of this chaos struck me with its full
force, leading to several intellectual and spiritual bifurcations.
Finally, a very practical issue which concerns kids like your Luisa (3
years) and Jesicca (7 years). Perhaps you may try the following with
Luisa. When Jessica begins to think in a way which other people perceive
as chaos or irrational, I have to use all my powers of perception to see
the high, long, streched and graceful leaps in her thinking -- the
"bokspronge". I neither encourage her, nor discourage her. I merely try to
accompany her. Sometimes I follow her dance of thinking and sometimes I
get lost.
[Host's Note: "bokspronge"... Like a spring bok. I like this. ..Rick]
In both cases (understanding or not) I frequently ask her to tell me the
"how and why" of her "bokspronge". I do it for two reasons. Firstly, I
want to let her know that we are together in her learning. Secondly,
since I know that the "bokspronge" signal that her heart intelligence is
working, I want her to make sure that her mind intelligence is also
working and especially commuting with her heart intelligence so that her
"deep intelligence" involving all her faculties can emerge. Sometimes the
emergences surpass even my expectations.
By the way, the "how and why" made sense for Jessica only at age 6. Before
that age my accompaniment was more on the tacit level rather than formal
level of her knowledge. My most recent midwifery success two weeks ago was
to help her formalising her intuitive idea of Systems Thinking. Can you
believe it -- a kid of 7 years exploring the idea of Systems Thinking!
Obviously, we call it something different, namely a "thinking plan".
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>