Leo, your msg on rhythm is very interesting. I found several points which
made me think. please can I ask you patience for a couple of more days?
i'd like to discuss this a little further but i'm travelling tonight and
have no time to write a proper answer now.
A couple of things to work on, though:
>As I said in the start this message, rythm is the dynamics between
>attractions and rejections.
As I stated elswhere, I believe that rhythm is a measure of movement, not
the movement itself. I have been reading with care the 'Primer on Entropy'
by At de Lange from the LO Archive and I think my idea of rhythm may be
very close to what he brilliantly states to be entropy production. Let me
think a little more and write again. The thing is: seeing movement the way
you do it, Leo, as dynamics between attractions and rejections (please
agree with me you were refering to movement, not to rhythm), opens a lot
of doors to us.
But it also poses a question. In Communication, assuming that when we talk
about 'attraction' we are talking of 'motivation' (for instance: the will
to read the book, dramatic poles, violence and sex;-)) or, in other cases,
the will to learn from others) what do you think could stand for the
'rejector'? 'Knowledge', maybe, or 'ego', or 'emotional locks'? Could be?
What do you think may be the alternative poles?
I like your distinction between rhythm of form and rhythm of content and
will say more next time, but let me ask you provocatively;-): if rhythm is
a pattern in movement, isn't form itself a way of controlling rhythm? And
if so, a rhythm in form, isn't it a meta-rhythm?
Food for thought. We'll talk again.
Bom Natal,
Bruno
--"Bruno Martins Soares" <bmartins.soares@mail.EUnet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>