Peggy! You said exactly what I was trying to say, but you said it so much more elegantly than I did! Thanks for capturing the idea in so much more accessible form!
John On Feb 16, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Peggy Holman wrote: > I’ve been doing some writing on complexity and ran into a relevant quote from > Prigogine and Stengers. It’s in the section below from the chapter I’m > writing: > > A Changing World View > What is it like when your peer’s assumptions about how the world works seem > fine to them, yet your own path turns up nothing but contradictions? Such is > the fate of those who are poised to re-invent the world. The prevailing > wisdom just doesn’t fit your data. And the implications…they could change > everything. > > The cultural narrative when this story begins is often called “Newtonian” or > “classical science”. This body of knowledge dates from the seventeenth and > eighteenth centuries. “They pictured a world in which every event was > determined by initial conditions that were, at least in principle, > determinable with precision. It was a world in which chance played no part, > in which all the pieces came together like cogs in a cosmic machine > (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984, p. xiii).” It was the perfect metaphor for the > rising Industrial Age. And it still influences the dominant approaches to > leadership, strategic planning and “change management” (the name itself a > misnomer through the lens of complexity) today. > > As Wheatley characterizes it: “we have broken things into parts and fragments > for so long and have believed that was the best way to understand them, that > we are unequipped to see a different order that is there, moving the whole. > (Wheatley M. J., 1992)“ (p. 41) British physicist David Bohm captures this > dilemma when he says, ‘The notion that all these fragments are separately > existent is an illusion and cannot do other than lead to conflict and > confusion’. (Wheatley M. J., 1992, p. 24)” > > Early in the nineteenth century, a few scientists were running into that > confusion. Contradictions defied explanation. For example, thermodynamics > indicated that if the universe was a machine, it was running down. Yet > Darwin’s followers found that biological systems were actually running up, > becoming more organized. The complex whole exhibited properties that could > not be readily explained by understanding the parts (Prigogine & Stengers, > 1984). > > > > Peggy > > > > __________________________________ > Peggy Holman > Journalism that Matters > 15347 SE 49th Place > Bellevue, WA 98006 > 425-746-6274 > www.journalismthatmatters.org > www.peggyholman.com > Twitter: @peggyholman > JTM Twitter: @JTMStream > > Enjoy the award winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity > Check out my series on what's emerging in the news & information ecosystem > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:30 AM, Sharon Joy Kleitsch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It wasn’t until a couple of years ago that I was introduced to syntropy – >> the pull of life. I had found entropy to be depressing, but had accepted it. >> Funny, how it had not occurred to me that both/and is part of life. >> >> Then I listened to the webinar sponsored by the International Consciousness >> Research Lab (formerly PEAR with their 30 years of consciousness research, >> where the Global Consciousness Project birthed.) http://www.icrl.org >> >> Antonella Vannini and Ulisses di Corpo introduced us to "Syntropy: The >> Energy of Love”. (It may still be on the ICRL web site.) Antonella and >> Ulisses agreed to join us in an action research project to demonstrate how >> love can transform a community. In our case, St Petersburg FL. >> >> If you would like to join me and The Connection Partners down this rabbit >> hole, check out http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ >> http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ http://www.psyleron.com >> >> One of our fellow explorers is taking a course in Sacred Economics at Unity >> of Tampa. They spent a session on syntropy. Here’s what Sigrid shared: >> >> "This is the incredible we powerpoint I mentioned: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDA836rOW00&feature=youtu.be >> >> "The discussion about the heart being the center of the consciousness >> in the body: Ulisse Di Corpo and Antonella Vannini - West and East: Entropy >> versus Syntropy? >> >> "And the journal that has all these incredible articles: >> http://www.sintropia.it/journal.htm"; >> >> We have found these explorations too much fun to miss. >> >> Besides, indicators are that are theories are working. We live in a >> ‘territory' filled with flow and synchronicity. We even find that this field >> of love (we call it the heart field) travels with us, so they keep showing >> up everywhere. >> >> You don’t have to wait for the fair to go on wild rides! >> >> Who wants to play? >> >> Happy Valentine’s Day! >> >> Sharon Joy Kleitsch >> The Connection Partners, Inc >> - linking people, resources and ideas >> St Petersburg FL 33701 >> [email protected] >> 727-550-9660 >> >> >> From: John Watkins <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: World wide Open Space Technology email list >> <[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 12:45 AM >> To: World wide Open Space Technology email list >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [OSList] Self Organizing vs. Physics & Entropy... Who wins? >> >> Lucas, >> >> This is a great question you raise! It seems that our universe operates by >> several intriguing principles. In general, it seems to be true that overall >> entropy increases (but I think the final conclusions on that one are still >> not available to us). But the strange and really cool thing is, it does so >> by increasing order in some sub-systems. So, the big bang happens, and if >> entropy were the total picture, we would never have had any matter at all. >> All that energy would merely have dissipated into all that expanding space. >> But something happened that caused the swirls of chaotic energy to begin to >> coalesce into sub atomic particles, then particles, then atoms, then >> molecules, then stars and eventually planets and life and us. It seems that >> inherent in chaos is the emergence of patterns that result in orders, and >> orders then recursively develop themselves into complexity. One of the >> coolest things is the way that established patterns become autopoietic, that >> is, they take in energy, sort the energy into that which helps them recreate >> themselves at a higher level of organization, and then they excrete the rest >> of the energy back into the broader system. That is one definition of >> entropy, but the intriguing thing is that the excreted energy does not just >> go all random; it actually gets used in the emergence of other new orders. >> So. Classical thermodynamics does explain all this, but it does so without >> recourse to complexity theory. Complexity theory helps us understand how >> new orders emerge from open systems in far from equilibrium states. I take >> Open Space to be one of those sorts of far from equilibrium states settings >> for the emergence of new orders. >> >> John >> >> On Feb 11, 2014, at 8:19 PM, Lucas Cioffi wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I read that "Open Space works because self-organization works." But I >>> remember from physics class that disorder (entropy) in the Universe is >>> always increasing, so when the order of something increases (such as during >>> OS), the order of something else must decrease. >>> >>> Paraphrased from Wikipedia: >>> "The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy >>> of any system (the disorder, randomness, or our lack of information about >>> it) will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other >>> system." >>> >>> So when participants organize themselves during Open Space does something >>> else become disorganized? Or is it that all the disorder created (by >>> consuming the muffins, coffee, fuel, paper, electricity, etc) always >>> outweighed by the order created by the self-organization? >>> >>> For what it's worth, below is an interesting thread I found from the list >>> archives from a few years ago that mentions entropy... >>> >>> Lucas Cioffi >>> Charlottesville, VA >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: John Watkins <[email protected]> >>> Date: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:25 AM >>> Subject: Re: [OSList] Designing an OS way >>> To: Artur Silva <[email protected]>, World wide Open Space Technology >>> email list <[email protected]> >>> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> Artur, >>> >>> The term "open systems" comes from thermodynamics, especially from >>> Prigogine and Stengers, who also refer to them as "dissipative" systems. >>> It does not mean open to change; it means open in the sense of importing >>> "energy" from outside itself and excreting "energy" back into the >>> surrounding system. Such systems are most often self-organizing and >>> self-recreating (autopoiesis). They "sort" energy into that which will >>> help them recreate themselves and that which will not, and they dissipate >>> the rest, creating, paradoxically, internally order and externally more >>> entropy. Bureaucracies are actually great examples of open systems in this >>> regard. >>> >>> John >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSList mailing list >>> To post send emails to [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: >>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org >> >> _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post >> send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email >> to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your >> subscription click below: >> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org >> _______________________________________________ >> OSList mailing list >> To post send emails to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: >> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
