Categories
Life Thinking Thoughts

Craig Holdrege on Living Thinking

I want to show that it is possible to move beyond object thinking and develop what I will call living thinking. Living thinking is a participatory way of knowing that transcends the dichotomies of man-nature, subject-object, or mind-matter, which are so ingrained in the Western mind and form the bedrock of object thinking. One of my main guides in developing a participatory, transformative, and living way of relating to the world has been the work of the scientist and poet J. W. von Goethe.

―Craig Holdrege, Thinking Like a Plant: A Living Science for Life

Craig Holdrege described Goethe’s approach to living thinking in a talk at Schumacher College:1

Now, what I’d like to do is to bring together the significance of Goethe’s approach. His different facets. So, one the on hand, he was able to see things in relationships and in a dynamism. … How does this relates to that? How does an organism transform? An organism, a living being, lives through transformation. Can I see how it transforms, and yet remain an integrated whole? So, this very dynamic way of looking. When I say looking at the world, it’s really wrong, because the world is not an act. He is participating in the phenomenon of relationship and dynamism in nature. He is participating in that.

So, his approach is a participatory, or … dialogic, approach. … He is giving himself over the the phenomena, perceiving it very direct, gentle – what he calls gentle empiricism – going with the phenomena, but the thinking goes with that. The thinking is in that. The thinking isn’t abstracted at a distance, but participating in, and realizes what’s happening. This is where is says: My perceiving is a thinking, and my thinking is a perceiving. … It’s objective, not by distancing, but by connecting, becoming intimate with the object. The object looses its object character, and it becomes a partner in a dialogue.

So, this approach is different from what we normally think of a science today. Event if many scientists can do this in their own ways, but it doesn’t become part of scientific discipline. Because what this means is that the scientist needs to develop.

I’d like to let Goethe speak again: If we want to behold nature in a ??? way, we must follow her example and becomes mobile and malleable as Nature herself. She has something to teach us. We have to follow her example and change ourselves.

It’s not about us coming with a particular paradigm, or theory, and impressing that upon Nature, but trying to enter into the phenomena to see what they have to tell us, and to try to adapt our sensibilities to the phenomena themselves. … What’s showing itself here in the natural world?

So, he has this sense of the greatness of the world: An organic being is externally so many-sided and internally so manifolded inexhaustible that we can not choose enough points of view to behold it.

We need to go at it from different sides. Look at the plant in different development stages, in different contexts. Looking at the animals in its relations to its environments. … So this gets into this weaving from different points of view to be able to begin to fathom this manifolded inexhaustible nature of organic life.

He continuous: We cannot develop enough organs in ourselves in order to examine it―the organic being―without killing it. … He means…mental organs, in English perhaps. … It is the sensibility, the way of thinking, that we can begin to learn by following the example of nature, and that forms an organ of perception in us, that we begin to see more the living qualities of the world. And that’s what it’s about! … I am speaking from the biological sciences.

So, there is a delicate empiricism: It makes itself utterly identical with its object, thereby becoming true theory―meaning, understanding―but this enhancement of our mental powers belongs to a highly evolved age. It’s clear this is not easy. The intellectual and analytical capacities we have today… This morphodynamic way of thinking, contextual seeing, that’s what he saw we needed to develop. He had a gift, but it was work for Goethe, and it’s certainly work for us who are trying to practice this approach. That you come up against your own limits, and you try to overcome them through continually going back to the phenomena, immersing yourself in the processes, and trying to listen to what the phenomena are telling you. That’s the dialogue part. The plant doesn’t speak with words. The animal doesn’t speak with words. It speaks with its processes, with its forms. The questions is: Can we hear that? Can we understand it?

So, this element of…the metamorphism of the scientist. Science is a process of development of human capacities…to interrogate nature. And I would call it a nature world friendly approach, where one is tries to participate in that which nature has to show, and then to develop one’s ideas, and then, of course, one’s actions in relation to that. That seems to me to be very important!

Today, where the tendency of the fragmentation, what we do in nature is to bring fragmentation. The way we think about the world is often fragmented. We have all sorts of different opinions and theories, and the question of actual conversation, actually trying to hear what the other are sayingit can be a plant, another human being, a landscapethat we integrate ourselves consciously into the organic nature of life. I really think that is what Goethe’s approach is about.

It’s not about having to follow exactly what Goethe did, of course. There was no ‘one’ method,…but there is an intentionality of the way to turn towards the world in a new way. That, I think, is very germinal still, as germinal as lots of potency.

So, I’d like to close by letting Goethe speak: As human beings we know ourselves only insofar as we know the world. We perceive the world only in ourselves, and ourselves only in the world. Every new object clearly seen opens up a new organ of perception in us.

Thank you! I’m done.

Notes:
1. Goethe and the Evolution of Science with Craig Holdrege, YouTube, https://youtu.be/AmzXTuoqjMU?t=2810, YouTube. Accessed: 2022-11-04. Published: 2021-03-16.

Categories
Thinking Thoughts

Zettelkasten: A Thinking Tool

Niklas Luhmann (1927–1998) was a sociologists. All in all, he wrote 50 books and 550 articles. The number of publications is unprecedented in contemporary sociology.1 The large number of publications would have been impossible without his filing system (Zettelkasten, or anteckningslåda in Swedish).2

Of course, I do not think of all this on my own; it mostly happens in my file. … In essence, the filing system explains my productivity. … Filing takes more of my time than writing the book.

Niklas Luhmann 3

Luhmann made notes on what came to his mind in the process of reading. He always asked himself how what he read could be integrated into the Zettelkasten. After he had completed his reading, he prepared the notes and decided where to insert them into the Zettelkasten. The position of a note was decided in relation to the other notes.4

Luhmann called the Zettelkasten his ‘secondary memory’? He perceived it as a thinking tool that could give surprising answers, even if person who asked was the author of the note. This was accomplished by the positioning of each note in combination with an internal system of references, and a comprehensive keyword index (see below).5

The Zettelkasten is an aggregation of a vast number of notes on specific concepts and topics.6 When Luhmann came across an idea about one of his notes, he inserted an additional note in the sequence of notes. This could be done again and again, which enabled the collection to grow.7

Luhmann organized the notes based on the principle that they must have some relation to another note. There is no privileged position in the web of notes.8 The notes may be inserted in different places and different contexts.9 Luhmann deliberately avoided a fixed system of order. His approach allowed the collection of notes adapt to his thinking.10

Luhmann’s Zettelkasten is not built on content, but on positioning.11 Each note is given a position in relation to other notes.12 There are three different types of references to other notes:13

  1. References in an outline form. This resembles a table of contents.
  2. Collective references to a subject matter.
  3. Single references to another aspect or idea.

Each note…derives its quality from the web of references and cross references within the system.

Niklas Luhmann 15

Accessing the Zettelkasten via the keyword index does not limit the search to the exact word. The references open up a web of notes.16 Referencing leads to other subjects and creates connections to other aspects or ideas.17

Writing things down enables disciplined thinking. The evolution of the Zettelkasten reflects the thought process. Original ideas were never removed, and new or revised ideas were added as needed.18

The Zettelkasten was not only a thinking tool but also a publication machine. The book format makes the great depth of the Zettelkasten accessible. A book or an article inevitably reduces the number of references that can be traced due to limited space and the linear mode of presentation.19

Notes:
1. Johannes Schmidt, Niklas Luhmann’s Card Index: Thinking Tool, Communication Partner, Publication Machine, in Cevolini, Alberto (ed.). Forgetting Machines: Knowledge Management Evolution in Early Modern Europe, p. 289. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-11-27. Accessed 2022-10-20.
2. Ibid., pp. 290–291.
3. Niklas Luhmann, Biographie, Attitüden, Zettelkasten, p. 142f
4. Johannes Schmidt, Niklas Luhmann’s Card Index, p. 293.
5. Ibid., p. 295.
6. Ibid..
7. Ibid., p. 298.
8. Ibid..
9. Ibid., p. 299.
10. Ibid., p. 300.
11. Ibid..
12. Ibid., p. 301.
12. Ibid., p. 302.
13. Ibid., pp. 302–303.
14. Ibid., p. 305.
15. Niklas Luhmann, Kommunikation mit Zettelkästen, p. 225.
16. Johannes Schmidt, Niklas Luhmann’s Card Index, p. 307.
17. Ibid., p. 309.
18. Ibid..
19. Ibid., p. 311.

Categories
Thinking Thoughts

David Bohm on thought processes

Thought processes have a striking resemblance to quantum processes. David Bohm writes in his book on Quantum Theory that:

If a person tries to observe what he is thinking about at the very moment that he is reflecting on a particular subject, it is generally agreed that he introduces unpredictable and uncontrollable changes in the way his thought proceed thereafter.1

…a person can always describe approximately what he is thinking… But as he tries to make the description precise, he discovers that either the subject of his thought or their trend or sometimes both become very different from what they were before he tried to observe them.2

…thought processes appears to have indivisibility of a sort.3

…thought processes and quantum systems are analogous in that they cannot be analyzed too much in terms of distinct elements, because the “intrinsic” nature of each element is not a property existing separately from and independently of other elements but is, instead, a property that arises partially from its relation with other elements.4

The logical process corresponds to the most general type of thought process as the classical limit [of the quantum theory] corresponds to the most general quantum process.5

In the logical process, we deal with classifications. These classifications are conceived as being completely separate but related by the rules of logic…6

In any thought process, the component ideas are not separate but flow steadily and indivisibly. An attempt to analyze them into separate parts destroys or changes their meanings. Yet there are certain types of concepts…in which we can…neglect the indivisible and incompletely controllable connection with other ideas. Instead, the connection can be regarded as…following the rules of logic.7

…just as life as we know it would be impossible if quantum theory did not have its…classical limit, thought as we know it would be impossible unless we could express its results in logical terms. Yet, the basic thinking process probably cannot be described as logical.8

…a new idea often comes suddenly, after a long and unsuccessful search and without any apparent direct cause. …if the intermediate indivisible nonlogical steps occuring in an actual thought process are ignored,…then the production of new ideas presents a strong analogy to a quantum jump.9

We may…ask whether the close analogy between quantum processes and our inner experiences and thought processes is more than a coincidence. … [Niels] Bohr suggests that thought involves such small amounts of energy that quantum-theoretical limitations play an essential role in determining its character.10

Bohr’s hypothesis is not…in disagreement with anything that is now know. And the remarkable point-by-point analogy between the thought processes and quantum processes would suggest that a hypothesis relating these two may well turn out to be fruitful.11

…the behavior of our thought processes may perhaps reflect in an indirect way some of the quantum-mechanical aspect of the matter of which we are composed.12

Maybe thought processes provide the same kind of experience of quantum theory that muscular force provide for classical theory? The concept of force obtained from common experience is correct when there is a great deal of friction. (Force is proportional to the acceleration according to Newton’s second law of motion.)

Notes:
1. David Bohm, Quantum Theory, p. 169.
2. Ibid..
3. Ibid..
4. Ibid..
5. Ibid., pp. 169–70.
6. Ibid., p. 170.
7. Ibid..
8. Ibid..
9. Ibid..
10. Ibid..
11. Ibid., p. 171.
12. Ibid., p. 172.

Categories
Creativity Life Organization Organizing People Thinking Thoughts Values

New orders reflect new values

The world crumbles. New orders are emerging.
Conditions are getting worse and worse.
There is less and less to hold on to.
There are fewer givens to assume.
How to live? What to do? How to organize?

The world is falling apart.
Fear deepens as necessary orders are lost.
Events force rapid reassessment of everything,
    events of such scope that no one can escape.
Everyone is forced into the melting pot of survival.
Life as we know it is shattered.

As survivors find each other, new orders begin to form.
New social institutions spring into being,
    reflecting new values, and new ways of thinking.
Every aspect of life is marked by new priorites,
    and new perceptions of what is good.
The new orders reflect new states of awareness,
    and elicit still deeper levels of self-awareness.
Creativity flourishes and aliveness is expressed in new ways.
Categories
Books Dialogue People Philosophy Research Thinking

Posts on David Bohm

David Bohm is one of the most interesting thinkers that I’ve encountered during all years of reading. Here’s an overview of posts where I mention David Bohm in one way or another:

2018

Organizing retrospective 126 — A retrospective of 2018.

Book Review: The Supreme Art of Dialogue by Anthony Blake

Book Review: Mind and Nature by Gregory Bateson

2017

Organizing retrospective 74 — A retrospective of 2017.

Paavo Pylkkänen on David Bohm’s interpretation of the quantum theory

Interviews with Basil Hiley

Book Review: Artful Leadership by Michael Jones

Book Review: The Future of Humanity by Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm

Book Review: A Key to Whitehead’s Process and Reality Donald W. Sherburne

2016

Organizing retrospective 22 — A retrospective of the 2nd half of 2016.

Analysis of pattern languages

Analysis of the systems view of life

Free flow of meaning

Meaning as being

Book Review: Mind, Matter and the Implicate Order by Paavo Pylkkänen

The meaning of meaning

Information vs. misinformation

Implicate vs. explicate orders

David Bohm on ecology, organization, thinking, dialogue, and wholeness

The very quality of livingness

Analysis of process thinking

Authentic vs. counterfeit orders

Organizing in between and beyond

Book Review: Science, Order, and Creativity by David Bohm and F. David Peat

What is life?

Book Review: Infinite Potential by F. David Peat

Book Review: Synchronicity by F. David Peat

2015

The uncovering of the U-process

2012

The differences between discussion and dialogue

Categories
Retrospectives Thinking Thoughts Workplaces

Retrospektiv 2019-12

Detta är en återblick på veckan.

Arbetsplatser som möjliggör tänkande

Under veckan har jag läst Clever Digs: How Workspaces Can Enable Thought av Jenny Quillien, som under sex års tid arbetade tillsammans med Christopher Alexander. Jenny Quillien skriver (min översättning):

När det gäller platser för arbete, känner de flesta av oss en brist; det finns ett obehag, en kvardröjande hunger efter något bättre…

Jenny Quillien identifierar ett antal arkitektuella mönster (patterns) som lämnar mig med fler frågor än svar. Det är en sak att identifiera ett antal mönster, en helt annan att kombinera dem på ett djupgående sätt?

Språket och vårt tänkande

I förordet till David Bohms bok On Creativity hittar jag några intressanta tankar om hur språket påverkar vårt tänkande. Leroy Little Bear, som är svartfotsindian, skriver (min översättning):

Ett språk leder den som talar det längs en särskild väg av tänkande.

Det är ganska svårt för en engelsktalande att uppskatta det faktum att ett språk som svarfotsindianernas helt och hållet handlar om handling.

Engelska leder dess talare att tänka i termer av dikotomier (motsatspar): bra och dåligt, helgon och syndare, dag och natt, svart och vitt, och så vidare.

Svartfotsindianernas språk leder inte talaren ner i dessa vattentäta kategorier.

Dagens fråga

Under veckan har jag börjat tweeta dagens fråga (#QuestionOfTheDay). Hittills har jag hunnit med att ställa följande frågor:

Vad skiljer kreativa processer, hos människor och i universum i stort, från sådana som enbart är mekaniska?

Vad är relationen mellan fantasi, rationalitet och intelligens? Vad är intelligensens natur?

Vilka är våra underliggande antaganden?

Underliggande antagande

Den sista frågan (ovan) kommer från ett samtal med Skye Hirst för två år sedan. Vi kom fram till att det finns ett behov av att klargöra underliggande antaganden, i relation till livet självt, så att människor kan dra sina egna slutsatser, i sina egna liv, utifrån sina egna erfarenheter.

Prioritet 1: Klargör underliggande antaganden så att människor kan dra sina egna slutsatser, i sina egna liv, utifrån sina egna erfarenheter.

Antaganden är ofta sanna inom givna ramar, men inte nödvändigtvis när man går utanför dessa. Ett exempel: Antaganden som gäller för maskiner gäller inte för människor!

Språket skapar vår verklighet

I våra organisationer skapar språket vår verklighet, och det språket har sitt ursprung i den industriella revolutionen. Vi är fortfarande informerade av ett språkbruk som var relevant i en värld som fanns för 300 år sedan. Rationell logik bestående av olika kontroll- och mätsystem är den verklighet vi rör oss i.

Om chefer inte ser till att prestationsmålen uppfylls, vad ska de då göra? Det är svårt att lyfta blicken och se större perspektiv när mätning och prestationsmål får all uppmärksamhet. När det enda vi fokuserar på är det ‘tekniska’ är det svårt att hitta en djupare mening bakom det vi säger och gör.

Categories
Reflections Thinking

Organizing reflection 5

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The purpose of this post is to reflect on subjects occupying my mind. I make no claim to fully believe what I write. Neither do I pretend that others have not already thought or written about the same subject. More often than not, I take up, combine, and add to already existing thoughts and ideas.

What is on my mind?
Mechanistic vs. dynamistic thinking
Mechanistic thinking is everywhere. Not only do we see our organizations as machines. We even view ourselves and our bodies as machines. They are not. Goethe explained two hundred years ago why mechanistic thinking has become the order of the day (my emphasis in black):

We can grasp immediately causes and thus find them easiest to understand; this is why we like to think mechanistically about things which really are of a higher order. . . thus, mechanistic modes of explanation become the order of the day when we ignore problems which can only be explained dynamistically.1
—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The belief that we can stand outside a system and make up a series of rules and suggestions for actions (like “best practices”) is everywhere too. Possibly for similar reasons as Goethe pointed out (my paraphrasing of Goethe in black):

We can grasp immediately processes and rules and thus find them easiest to understand; this is why we like to think algorithmically or procedurally about things which really are of a higher order. . . thus, computational modes of explanation become the order of the day when we ignore problems which can only be explained non-computationally.2

We need to replace our fixed strategies by approaches involving a constant dance forward into the doing and then back again to take into account the overall context and meaning of a situation. It is a dance that each individual and the organization as a whole need to perform together.

Notes:
1 Stephen Harrod Buhner, The Secret Teachings of Plants, p.62.
2 An algorithm is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other operations. A procedure is a series of actions conducted in a certain order or manner.

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts

Categories
Books Reflections Thinking

Organizing reflection 2

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. The purpose of this post is to reflect on subjects occupying my mind. I make no claim to fully believe what I write. Neither do I pretend that others have not already thought or written about the same subject. More often than not, I take up, combine, and add to already existing thoughts and ideas. Here is my previous reflection. Here is my next reflection.

What is on my mind?
Treasure trove of quotes
Dee Hock’s Autobiography of a Restless Mind Volume 1 & 2 are a treasure trove of quotes. I’ve now started to tweet quotes from Volume 1. I get interesting replies.

Dee Hock, Autobiography of a Restless Mind Volume 1 & 2.

Language is inadequate to convey what is in one’s mind
Dee Hock writes that language is inadequate to fully convey what is in one’s mind.1 Stefan Norrvall (@norrvall) replied that this reminds him of Michael Polyani who said we know more than we can tell.2 Polyani stated that not only is there knowledge that cannot be adequately articulated by verbal means, but also that all knowledge is rooted in tacit knowledge.

Jan Höglund (@janhoglund) and Stefan Norrvall (@norrvall) 2018-01-02. Tweets.

Stefan Norrvall’s reply reminds me of Eugene T. Gendlin’s Thinking at the Edge (TAE), which is thinking from what is unclear and only a bodily sense. TAE requires familiarity with focusing. Focusing enables you live from a deeper place than just thoughts and feelings.3

New book arrived today
F. David Peat’s Gentle Action: Bringing Creative Change to a Turbulent World arrived today. Gentle action involves an initial creative suspension of action, with the aim of developing a clearer perception of the situation in hand. Out of this will flow a more appropriate and harmonious action.4 Peat’s gentle action seems related to Gendlin’s living from a deeper place.

F. David Peat, Gentle Action.

Notes:
1 Dee Hock, Autobiography of a Restless Mind: Reflections on the Human Condition Volume 1 (iUniverse, 2012), p.19.
2 Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, (University of Chicago Press, 1996), p.4.
3 Eugene T. Gendlin, Focusing: How to Gain Direct Access to Your Body’s Knowledge (Rider, 2003, first published 1978), p.4.
4 F. David Peat, Gentle Action: Bringing Creative Change to a Turbulent World (Pari Publishing Sas, 2008), pp.16–17.

Related posts:
Book Review: Focusing by Eugene T. Gendlin
Organizing in between and beyond posts

Categories
Organizing Thinking

Organizing retrospective 41

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. This is a retrospective of what has happened during the week. The purpose is to reflect on the work itself. Here is my previous retrospective. Here is my next retrospective.

What has happened? What needs to be done?
This week, I’ve started writing poems – in English! I never thought it would happen since my native language is Swedish. Anyway, here is my first poem, and here is the second one. They are about pain, melancholy, and sadness. But also about love, connection, and life.

I’m currently working on my review of Artful Leadership by Michael Jones. I love the book! There are gems on almost every page.

I’ve also started reading a new book coming on Company-wide Agility with Beyond Budgeting, Open Space & Sociocracy by Jutta Eckstein and John Buck.1 It’s an interesting read and enjoyable read. I fully agree with the authors that the “collision of values may be the biggest factor inhibiting companies ability to cope with our rapidly changing world.”2 My personal view is that the “collision of values” goes very deep indeed. And I don’t think the authors go deep enough into this at the moment, but the book is only 50% complete. There’s also a collision of assumptions. I think it’s important to make a clear distinction between machines and organisms. The notion of “living machines” is an oxymoron.3 Treating an organism as a machine is, well, deadening. Mechanistic thinking is ubiquitous. While Open Space emphasizes self-organization, Sociocracy really focuses on self-regulation.

  • Before Philosophy: The Intellectual Adventure Of Ancient Man by Henri Frankfort, H. A. Frankfort, J. A. Wilson, and T. Jacobsen.
  • The Future of Humanity: A Conversation by Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm.
  • Reclaiming the Wild Soul: How Earth’s Landscapes Restore Us to Wholeness by Mary Reinolds Thompson.

What was good? What can be improved?
Writing my first poem. I’ve also started drawing. I need to consciously nourish my creativity.

Notes:
1 Jutta Eckstein and John Buck, Company-wide Agility with Beyond Budgeting, Open Space & Sociocracy: Survive and Thrive Disruption (Leanpub). The book is 50% complete, (accessed 13 May 2017).
2 Ibid., p. 8.
3 Ibid., p. 6.

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts

Categories
Organizing Thinking

Organizing retrospective 30

This is a post in my series on organizing ”between and beyond.” Other posts are here. This is a retrospective of what has happened during the week. The purpose is to reflect on the work itself. Here is my previous retrospective. Here is my next retrospective.

What has happened? What needs to be done?
My conversations with Skye Hirst has continued this week. I share Skye’s view that we need to shift from a rigid mechanistic to a more dynamic organismic worldview. I also believe that Robert Hartman’s value logic (axiology) supports this new emerging paradigm. Hartman was born in Germany in 1910. Seeing the Nazis “organize evil,” he fled Nazi Germany for his opposition to Hitler, and devoted the rest of his life to “organize good.” This led him to a life-long quest to define “what is good?” and how to apply goodness both in our individual lives and on a broader scale. Hartman formulated a definition of good as fulfillment of the intension of a concept.1 There are three fundamental types of value – intrinsic, extrinsic, and systemic. There’s also a hierarchy of value where the intrinsically good is richer in value – and thus has more worth – than the extrinsically good, which in turn, is richer in value than the systemically good Looking at Hartman’s definitions I get the impression the systemic value dimension is a more explicate order of value, while with the intrinsic dimension lies deeper and thus is more implicate, with the extrinsic dimension lies somewhere in between.

Several new books arrived this week – The Art of Leading Collectively: Co-Creating a Sustainable, Socially Just Future by Petra Kuenkel, Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead, and A Force More Powerful: A Century of Non-violent Conflict by Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall – but I started to re-read another book which I already have – EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution by Elisabet Sahtouris. This is a book which I read in April 2013. I love the book and will write a book review.

I see connections between Elisabet Sahtouris’ book and the papers Skye Hirst sent two weeks ago. Living organisms are autopoietic and autonomous, while mechanisms are allopoietic and allonomous.2 The balance between any holon’s autonomy and holonomy must be worked out as mutual consistency if the holon is to survive as part of a holarchy. The concepts of embeddedness or holarchy, and of the autonomy at every level of holarchy, tempered by holonomy, are important to understanding how life itself works.3 Here are Elisabet Sahtouris’ principles of healthy living systems.

I suspect that the aspects of nature which we cannot measure, and cannot abstract. may be the most essential aspects there are. This has consequences for the logic of life. Traditional reasoning is based on dividing up the world. Mathematics itself is a perfected man-made language. The world of algorithms, nowadays embodied in software, is a very small world, a world of machines.4 A mathematics of life has to be less mechanical, more flexible, more like living nature. I wonder if such a mathematics is possible?

What was good? What can be improved?
The coaching sessions with Skye Hirst (based on the Hartman Value Inventory) have been very helpful to me. This stone reminds me of what I’ve learned so far and need to practice on.

Notes:
1 Robert Hartman, The Structure of Value (1967), pp. 101–106.
2 Elisabet Sahtouris, Earthdance: Living Systems in Evolution (iUniversity Press, 2000), p. 247.
3 Ibid., p. 52.
4 Robert Rosen, Essays on Life Itself, p. 99.

Related posts:
Organizing in between and beyond posts