Chaos theory LO22945

AM de Lange (
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:02:29 +0200

Replying to LO22924 --

Dear Organlearners,

I <> posted

>Dear Creativators,
>Bodhran Daraichean" <Bodhran22@AOL.COM> writes:

Greetings all fellow-learners,

This was an error -- I used the email address for "learning-org" whereas
the contribution was intended for another listserver on creativity. Please
forgive me. Let us make the best of it.

[Host's Note: I was wondering to whom you were replying... Sorry I didn't
catch this, but Chaos Theory can be an appropriate topic here. ..Rick]

The main problem on that listserver is whether chaos is part of creativity
or not. It is very fortunate that on this list server we have not the
problem of too little learning.

Perhaps there is something for us to learn. When any concept B (like
chaos) becomes part of another concept A (like creativity), then concept A
has changed. In this case it has become more complex. The opposite is also
possible -- delineating a concept A by taking a concept B out of it.

Here is now the problem. Think of "concept A" before the change
and then of it after the change.
(1) We may still call it "concept A" after the change.
But should we nor rather give it a new name? Two avenues for creating
a new name are possible.
(2) We may call it "concept A*" by modifying the name etymologically.
(3) We may call it "concept C" by giving it a new name radically.

The problem is: Which avenue should be followed,
(1) the conformational way
(2) the etymological way
(3) the radical way?
Let us call it the "taxonomical problem of concepts".

This is an acute problem because whenever chaos increases in any
situation, an emergence (transformation to more complex) or an immergence
(transformation to less complex) become possible. Adding chaos upon chaos
again and again without letting each level of chaos resolve into order is
a sure recipe for unsustainable chaos -- the recipe for bombs and other
destructive devices.

Should we not solve the taxonomical problem of concepts we we may end up
with just such unsustainable chaos -- one which I would like to call the
"conceptual bomb".

In my opinion we should follow the etymological way. I have
many reasons, among them
* it harmonises the conformational and radical ways
* it deals with digestions close to equilibrium where
entropy production is minimal and revolutions at the edge
of chaos where entropy production is maximal
* it follows a pattern establised in the evolution of
biological species and the evolution of natural languages

But I have three very strong reservations (conditions) on the
etymological way.
(1) It should avoid conformalism, i.e. exclude anybody
from following the the conformational or radical way
(2) It should allow all seven essentialities in its way
(3) It should avoid radicalism, i.e. including anybody who
changes names for the mere sake of changing them.
If you compare these three requirements to the problem
itself, you will notice a feedback loop with negative (1 and 3)
and positive (2) amplification, i.e the "dog biting its own tail".

All kinds of bombs come in various sizes. The same with the conceptual
bomb. Have you already experienced one going off in the organisations in
which you are involved? Is the task of a LO not to defuse and dismantle
bombs which can destroy learning. What about defusing and dismantling the
conceptual bomb?

I would like your participation in this topic very much and to read about
your viewpoints on it. Please remember -- bombs are bombs because they
create unsustainable chaos.

Best wishes


At de Lange <> 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 <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>