Entropy, Creativity & Learning de Lange

ENTROPY, CREATIVITY
AND LEARNING:
HOW TO MANAGE CHAOS, ORDER
AND COMPLEXITY IN NATURE AND
CULTURE
At de Lange
University of Pretoria
Pretoria
South Africa
email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Copyright: Adriaan M. de Lange

DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to all who have been such a great
help to me, and especially to
Philip Rudolph de Lange (19xx/xx/xx - 19xx/xx/xx)
who practised the art of midwifery so exquisitely.

iii
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
PREFACE
Chapter 1 THE CHALLENGE 1

Are we approaching the grand crossroads? 1
Can we read the signs along the route? 2
Which path shall we take at the crossroad? 5
Will the journey be worthwhile? 9
Summary of chapter 13
PART I CREATING THE BRIDGE 15
Chapter 2 THE BRIDGE EXPERIMENT 17

Preamble 17
History related to the experiment 17
The moncat patterns 19
The measurements of 1982 21
The paradigm shift of 1982 26
The measurements of 1983 30
Conclusion 34
Appendix 1 - Example of objectives which exhibit the
moncat patterns among themselves 36
Appendix 2 - Example of moncat question 37
Appendix 3 - Principles of the marking scheme 39
Appendix 4 - Chromatographic consistency of the 1982
tests 40
Chapter 3 THE ADJUNCTED BRIDGE 45

Self-organisation on the bridge experiment 45
Finding the two topics to bridge 48
Mathematical categories and chemical systems 50
0 Properties of mathematical categories 51
1 Objects and arrows 53
2 Identity 56
iv
3 Associativity 57
Further chemistry of logical thoughts 59
4 Finite complete 59
5 Finite co-complete 62
6 Exponentiation 65
7 Subobject-classifier 66
What about subjects other than toposlogic and chemistry? 69
Do we have two bridges now? 71
PART II CROSSING THE BRIDGE 77
Chapter 4 THERMODYNAMICS 79
The primordial cause 79
The history of entropy production 82
Do energy and entropy oppose each other? 90
Energy and entropy taken together 97
The manifestations of entropy production 102
Chapter 5 DYNAMICS OF CREATIONS 113

Dynamics and mechanics 113
How to produce entropy 113
How to increase the entropy production 117
Increase a force 118
Increase a flux 118
Increase the degrees of freedom 119
Massive entropy production 123
Revolutionary creations 129
The Digestor 132
Evolutionary creations 138
Revolutionary and evolutionary creations 144
Chapter 6 MECHANICS OF CREATIONS 151

Sufficiencies and essentialities 151
How comprehensive are the essentialities? 153
Becoming-being 156
Identity-categoricity 160
v
Associativity-monadicity 165
Connect-beget 170
Quantity-bounded 174
Quality-variety 177
Open-paradigm 181
The essentialities and the neural system 185
PART III LEARNING BEYOND THE BRIDGE 191
Chapter 7 TO LEARN IS TO CREATE 193

Education, teaching and learning 193
Educational reform 198
A remarkable case study 202
Managing the dynamics of learning 206
Managing the mechanics of learning 211
What is wrong with our education? 216
Chapter 8 THE LAWS OF TEACHING 221

Content and form 221
Singular and composite commands 224
A structure-process calculus for logic 231
Creating the formal, imperative system 235
Formally creating consistent commands 238
The wishes of society 241
The law of ubuntu 243
Chapter 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 251

Quotations 251
Bibliography and creativity 253
Selected references 258
NAME INDEX 2??
SUBJECT INDEX 2??

vi
FOREWORD
vii
PREFACE
In his enchanting book The Web of Life Fritjof Capra (1996) writes about
'deep ecology' to help understand the ‘web-of-life’. This book will go
even further. Reality (physical and spiritual) is alive! To understand
this living reality, we will also need ‘deep’ concepts to help us. They
are 'deep entropy', 'deep creativity' and 'deep learning'. They are
necessary to extend the “web-of-life” so that it covers the whole of
reality.
The ‘deepening’ (enriching) of the concepts entropy, creativity and

learning in this book is so profound that it may cause a destructive
conflict of the reader’s own concepts. To transform this destructive
conflict into a dynamical construction, the reader should remember that
these three concepts will be used in the book in a ‘deep’ sense and not
according to their ordinary, common meaning. Some readers may
perceive them as too deep to step into. But then we shall just have to
swim or fly where we cannot walk, shall we not?
Capra writes about the “web-of-life”, as do Prigogine and Stengers in

their book "Order out of Chaos" or Maturana and Varela in their book
"The Tree of Knowledge". But this book is different. The intention is
to guide readers into the new epoch of the living reality. It is also the
intention to help readers to follow the main strands of the ‘web-of-
living-reality’ all the way. Lastly, it is not only intended to illuminate
and rejuvenate readers, but also to haunt and enchant them.
As such this book will be any publisher's nightmare. It will cover a

variety of subjects from the hard-core physical sciences to the soft-core
humanities. At a first glance this inclusion of many subjects would seem
to reduce the reader market considerably. However, the inclusion is
done in such a coherent and consistent manner that the reader may begin
to move around anywhere in this “web-of-living-reality” despite his/her
original strand of specialisation.
This book will also be the nightmare of any librarian. Every book is
placed somewhere in the library's image of reality. Even the
philosopher's contemplation about reality has a place in this image.
viii
However, since this book itself images living reality through a number
of subjects, it can be placed anywhere in the library’s image.
This book may even appear to be a nightmare to any prospective reader.

The reader may have glanced through the book. Readers trained in the
basic sciences will be attracted by the mathematical equations, but they
will be horrified by the pages of pure verse. Those trained in the
humanities will react contrary. The fact is that every symbolic equation
in this book has been articulated somewhere else in the book in verse,
and vice versa. Thus, neither the lover of equations nor the lover of
verse will have an advantage over the other. Why then not a book for
each broad class of specialists - why not cut the “web-of-living-reality”
into fragments? Because any such fragmentation (isolation), how well
intended, will eventually choke the life out of the personal mastery of
each person who wants to scout living reality.
Nightmares are vivid and terrifying. Yet they are merely dreams, often
reminding us of unfinished business - mental changes we fear to make.
This book will introduce a transformation of consciousness, the
abscence of which is responsible for the nightmares mentioned above.
This transformation can be compared with the mental shift brought about
by Sir Isaac Newton. He discovered the laws of mechanics, the law of
gravitation and infinitesimal calculus once he had concluded that earthly
and heavenly bodies follow the same basic mechanical laws. In this
book the conclusion will be reported that the physical and the abstract
worlds follow the same law - entropy production is the primordial cause
of all creations. This conclusion is based on empirical findings which
will be documented in chapter 2. Thus three other major discoveries
following from this initial discovery will also be reported in chapters 2
& 6, 4 and 8.
Only two things are required of the reader. Firstly, the reader must be
acquainted with a form of higher education, i.e. the reader must have a
learning experience of 14 years or more. Secondly, the reader must have
the burning desire to understand living reality. There are millions of
such readers - people who want to shape their own future while
promoting life in all of reality Thus the target market of the book is
extremely broad.
ix
The book has been carefully constructed so that no more than the
equivalent of two chapters should appear as black holes to the reader,
whether it be a scientific documentation, a mathematical description, a
teaching manual, a philosophical treatise, a psychological study, a
managerial communique, a spiritual confession or what other manifesto
the reader may wish to avoid. The reader is advised to skip these black
holes until such time that the reader is strong enough to steer a course
through them.
Apart from the black holes, the reader may find many things difficult to
comprehend at first sight. This is quite natural - no two persons are alike
in the way they comprehend. However, be assured, the author did not
write anything which he did not thoroughly comprehend himself. There
is also another side to this difficulty of comprehension - the creative
course of time. Comprehension does not come instantly, nor does it
happen fluently. But once the majority of what has been articulated in
this book has been mastered, the reader will comprehend what it is to
live in the “web-of-living-reality”. The reader will have experienced
that radical transformation of consciousness which will lead to a
tremendous change in world view.
In a remarkable book on the history of a section of the Low-Saxons

(Stroink, 1962), the following sentences occur (p 44), now translated
into English: "Humankind gradually became from a gatherer of food a
producer of food. Thus also the roaming existence of humans came to
an end and of necessity they had to choose a fixed dwelling place." This
production of food three millennia ago led to order out of chaos.
Nowhere was the emerging order more brilliant than in Greece. The first
epoch of human creativity had ended. The creative child had become a
creative teenager.
But slowly a new chaos began to be manifested. Humankind was not

satisfied to remain a creative teenager. Once again humans became
gatherers of food, but now abstract food rather than material food. Their
minds began to roam - one day here, the next day there. This mental
movement also set matter into motion. The older the teenager became,
the more intense the storms and desires in order to transform from a
gatherer to a producer. Eventually the mental fist became so strong that
it moved the nuclear bomb into reality; and the mental genitals so
x
passionate that they moved artificial life into reality. But even that
second epoch of human creativity is now ending. Humankind is about
to become a creative adult.
Each epoch has had its disempowered members - those who had to
gather while others were already producing. Whether they gathered in
the garments of a beggar in the childhood of their creativity or in the
garments of an armed robber in the adolescence of their creativity, no
law forced upon them could really prevent their pathetic beggary or
violent crime. No law could really speed up their development into
maturity. The reason is simple: empowerment has had to come from
within, guided by those who have already been empowered. Only the
spiritual law of love written in the hearts of humans can drive this
empowerment - no written law in whatever book can force it, despite the
amount of work put into it.
As with the body, the roaming existence of the mind will come to an end
and the mind will of necessity have to choose an ordered dwelling place
for itself. The deep intention of this book is to empower its reader to
choose and order such a spiritual dwelling place. May a new
civilisation, full of justice, harmony and love emerge in this spiritual
dwelling place.
In the preface "Man's new dialogue with nature" of their book Order out
of Chaos Prigogine and Stengers (1984) write:
Our vision of nature is undergoing a radical change
toward the multiple, the temporal, and the complex.
For a long time a mechanistic world view dominated
Western science. (p xxvii)
and then
We hope that our unification of dynamics and
thermodynamics will bring out clearly the radical
novelty of the entropy concept in respect to the
mechanistic world view.
They firmly believe that the concept entropy will unify what we know
of the inanimate and the biological realms of the material world, freeing
it from a mechanistic interpretation.
This book will go much further. It will show how much of both the
xi
material and abstract worlds of this universe can be unified in terms of

the concept “entropy production”. It will even free us from any kind of
interpretation by showing that even our interpretations are subjected to
the consequences of an irreversible production of entropy. This will
probably make this book one of the most radical books ever written. The
book will not change much the immense body of facts and the laws
(patterns) concerning them, but will definitely change how we
comprehend them. The author is fully aware that this will make the
book extraordinarily controversial wherever anybody is concerned with
the ‘web-of-life’.
However, this book is primarily intended to accompany and empower

the pilgrim in the “web-of living-reality”:- to discover living reality, to
care for it, to enjoy it and to love it. And to those who can read between
the lines attentively, this book is also intended to acknowledge our
Creator as the transcendental alpha and omega of Creation.
1
Chapter 1
THE CHALLENGE
Are we approaching the grand crossroads?

We are reaching the end of this millennium. By comparing its beginning
with its end, we realise what remarkable developments have taken place.
It began during the dark Middle Ages. Formal learning for ordinary
people was unheard of. Universities did not exist. Primitive schools
were restricted to a few monasteries. Many words commonly used today
such as 'literacy', 'information', 'industry', 'science' and 'technology' did
not even exist. Had people of those days undertaken a time travel trip
to the present, they would have felt extremely alienated from our world.
Upon arriving back in their own world, they would also have believed
their world to be at the crossroads.
In a narrow sense they would have been right. The metaphor 'at the
crossroads' concerns a phenomenon which will play a very important
role in this book, namely a bifurcation. We will learn in this book that
bifurcations are not only necessary in life, but also common. A
bifurcation in the development of any organism or organisation refers to
a forking event which can lead to either an emergence (birth) or an
immergence (collapse). An emergence refers to something exceptional
which happens unexpectedly or seemingly miraculously. Thus, for
people from the 10th century to transform themselves into people suited
to the 20th century, they would have had to experience thousands of
emergences. Likewise we also need to experience many emergences to
be prepared for the future.
However, in a broad sense they would have been wrong. We are in dire
need of an extraordinary emergence to become prepared for the 21st
century. More information and technology have been produced in this
20th century alone than in all the previous centuries of all the millennia
2
put together! Within the space of a few years each person has to
command much of what the human race has developed through many
millennia (see Ritter, 1979, ch 1). Everyday tasks have become
immensely complex while human limitations have become the major
constraint. The complexity of human creations is finally catching up
with its creators. Our world has become the mother of all labyrinths
with the father of all minotaurs lurking in it, namely complexity which
intimidates. That which was once wildly imagined by artists through
their intuitive attunement has now become the object of serious
scientific study: how to deal safely with complexity. We cannot bear
sacrificing our youth any more.
Are we able to cope with the new millennium of complexity? Will we

survive (see Gruber, 1989)? Do we realise what changes will be
involved in dealing with complexity? Do we expect to experience a
grand bifurcating emergence lying ahead? Do we have any idea what
this grand paradigm shift will embrace (see Jones, 1980, ch 6)?
On the other hand, we may believe that we are managing just fine and
that we will be able to cope with the future. Do we then realise that if
a grand bifurcating emergence should become inevitable, we will
experience it as an insurmountable crisis - the Malthusian trap? Do we
know that our inability to shift our paradigm will cause us to become
ignorant fools in the new millennium of complexity? Do we have any
idea of what enslavements we will be subjected to then?
Can we read the signs along the route?

There is one sure way of knowing that our world is indeed approaching
the most profound of all crossroads. We only have to study our
dependence on energy resources. Every year we become more
dependant on energy. We are consuming non-renewable energy sources
at such a rate that they will not last another century. After that we will
not be able to do even 10% of what we are doing now. Twenty years
ago we experienced the so-called 'energy crisis'. It brought the
realisation that energy was becoming expensive because the supply
could not meet the demands. Since then a number of wars have followed
3
in which energy has become the ultimate prize. Energy expenditures

have become a major item in the budgets of ordinary people.
However, the energy crisis is insignificant compared to the oncoming

'entropy crisis'. Even the name 'energy crisis' was a misnomer. It was in
fact the first birth pain of the entropy crisis. This entropy crisis is a sign
pointing to the grand crossroad lying ahead. Because we are completely
ignorant of the role to be played by entropy, we are approaching this
grand crossroad as if we were blindfolded. (We may substantiate this
claim by checking the occurrence of the word entropy in books on
subjects concerning the preparation for the future.) Will we be able to
fork in the right direction to emerge into a brighter future, or will we
follow the path of extinction?
Energy and entropy are closely related. Both are physico-chemical

quantities. Both are subjected to universal laws known as the First Law
and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law quantifies the
principle of energy conservation:
energy cannot be created or destroyed anywhere in the
universe, but can only be changed from one form to
another.
The Second Law quantifies the principle of entropy production:
the universe can only change irreversibly in such ways
that its entropy increases, alternately equilibrium is the
final end.
Even from the bare formulation above, we should try to perceive how
these two quantities qualify each other. The one cannot be studied
without the other. Entropy production drives energy changes while
energy conservation limits entropy changes. Entropy marks energy so
that energy carries entropy (see Miller, 1978, p 15). Accordingly,
paying careful attention to energy while ignoring entropy is the very
reason why the entropy crisis is developing. We should also study
entropy changes. For example, knowing about entropy helps us to
answer a question such as:
why can a lump of coal be a source of chemical energy
while its ashes, which contain much more nuclear
energy, cannot be utilised spontaneously as a source of
energy?
4
This book is about entropy, creativity and learning. What does an inert
piece of rock or a burning lump of coal have to do with creativity or
learning? At this stage it is difficult even to suspect any relationship.
Rocks and coal belong to the material (physical, substantial) world
whereas creativity and learning belong to the abstract (spiritual, mental)
world. These two worlds are considered to be independent of each
other, especially as attempts to join them together, have failed miserably.
Just think of materialism in which the abstract world is reduced to
comply with the patterns of the physical world. Also think of
spiritualism in which the converse is attempted. Despite these miserable
failures, entropy, creativity and learning have much in common. A
burning lump of coal and a motivated learner are both examples of
spontaneous systems running on entropy production.
We must be careful not to conclude that the failure to join these two
worlds points to their independent existence. We can only go so far as
to postulate that either they exist independently or they are intimately
connected. Much of what we know today, has been derived from the
assumption that they exist independently. Unfortunately we now also
have many unsolved problems. How sure are we that none of these
problems has developed exactly from maintaining this very assumption?
Consider, for example, the increasing difficulty of becoming motivated

and remaining motivated in our complex society. Related to it are the
growing problems of poverty and depression. A growing fraction of
people become like inert rock rather than burning coal. They have no
need or desire for education. Schools, colleges and universities have to
cope with increasing numbers of learners, failing to complete their
courses. Once these learners perceive that they cannot create their own
bright future, many of them revert to crime or begging for a living.
Think of the metaphors 'inert rock' and 'burning coal'. We are discussing
a phenomenon in the abstract world (losing motivation), but the
metaphors come from the material world! If it is assumed that these two
worlds exist independently, then the relevancy of these metaphors is but
a remarkable coincidence. However, if these two worlds are intimately
connected, then we should wonder to what extent spontaneous
combustion is related to motivated behaviour.
5
We know that the spontaneity of a chemical reaction or any other

physical process is determined by the Second Law of Thermo-dynamics,
employing the physico-chemical quantity entropy. We can calculate that
for a lump of coal burning in oxygen the entropy of the whole system is
increasing. Similarly we can calculate why a rock does not remain inert
when placed in a solution of hydrofluoric acid - again the entropy of the
system increases. But all this knowledge concerns the material world.
Let us think about the abstract world. Can we expect the 'Second Law
of Thermodynamics' to determine the motivation of mental processes?
Is the 'Second Law' of the abstract world the same as the Second Law of
the material world? How can we knowingly change the environment of
a demotivated learner so that spontaneous learning can take place again?
Think of the rock again: inert (non-spontaneous) in oxygen, but reactive
(spontaneous) in hydrogen fluoride. Is it enough to change only the
environment of the learner, or should some definite changes also happen
in the learner? Who is capable of making such changes in the learner,
the teacher, the learner or both? It is questions such as these, we must
attempt to answer in this book.
Which path shall we take at the crossroads?

The one path assumes that the material and abstract worlds exist
independently. This is the path of fragmentation and demarcation. It is
the path traditionally followed. Once on this path, it is easy to fragment
and demarcate again and again. For every demarcated fragment we
simply create its own science.
For example, we may fragment and demarcate the Second Law of

Thermodynamics so that it has little application outside the fields of
chemistry, engineering or physics. Consequently the biosphere is treated
independently from the lithosphere (inanimate world). This has led to
the point of view that life is the very principle which defies the Second
Law. Life exhibits an ordering from simple to complex organisms. On
the other hand, the Second Law is traditionally interpreted as increasing
the chaos in a system. Therefore it was concluded that the Second Law
could not govern the development of life. Furthermore, if the Second
6
Law supposedly has no influence on material life, why should we

assume that it has any influence on abstract life - the world of mind?
The path of fragmentation and demarcation is usually safe because of the

large number of people involved in it. It could also have been called the
'normal' path because people on it consider their science to be normal.
The term 'normal science' was created by Thomas Kuhn (1962) to
describe the background against which scientific revolutions take place.
People practising a normal science have one very important thing in
common, namely the paradigm of their science - a way of looking at
science. However, after a new paradigm has been created, most
scientists find the shift to the new paradigm too difficult. Consequently
a new generation of scientists then develops a new normal science
according to the new paradigm. Despite the large numbers involved in
the old normal science, practising it will eventually become unsafe.
The other path is much more complex with far fewer people on it. On
this path we will not only assume that the material and abstract worlds
are intimately connected into one reality, but we will also have to
produce empirical evidence that it is definitely the case. Furthermore,
we will also have to create theoretical certitude how to treat both worlds
as one reality. On this path we will have to avoid fragmentation and
demarcation as much as possible. We will even have to show why we
must avoid fragmentation and demarcation. This path will leave many
traditions behind it by way of bifurcating emergences. It is the path
which this book will follow.
This book has been designed in terms of the bridge as metaphor. We

may think of all human-made bridges as bifurcating emergences. At
some crossroads we have to decide to follow either the one road
avoiding the bridge or the other road crossing the bridge. When we
come to the bridge, we seldom think what that place was like before the
erection of the bridge and the path leading to it. If we could imagine an
erected bridge which actually did not exist there in that region's pristine
times, the product of our imagination would certainly be regarded as
unexpected and exceptional. Thus our imagination has led to an
emergence.
The first generation of readers of this book will have to experience the
7
emerging of a bridge simply because there was no bridge before. Some

of them will go back to the crossroads to follow other already paved
roads rather than contributing to the emergence of the bridge. Later
generations of readers might rush over the bridge without thinking of
what it was like in pristine times. This book has been carefully designed
to provide information for all generations of readers.
The bridge will be erected on two fulcrums (tenets). Both tenets are of
a practical rather than a theoretical nature in terms of the new paradigm.
The first tenet is examined in chapter 2, namely entropy production is
the primordial cause of all creations. Enough information is given in
chapter 2 for readers to repeat the experiment themselves. The second
tenet is examined in chapter 7, namely to learn is to create that which
is desired to be known. Eventually many other bridges will become
erected on their own fulcrums.
Engineers who erect bridges have to solve problems. Each bridge has
its own peculiar set of problems. Bridging the material and abstract
world also has its own set of unique 'problems'. Each of these 'problems'
and its 'solution' will be examined in due course in this book. We will
refer to them again in the next section
The first problem is that workers on the first path (fragmentation and
demarcation) outnumber by far the workers on the second path. (We
will learn that this is a consequence of the Second Law.) Max Planck
(1950), the discoverer of the quantum effect, was very honest in telling
us how lonely a person becomes on the second path of original
emergences in the world of science. Kay (1990) reflects on the same
affair in the world of business management. Furthermore, any work on
the second, narrow path is often met with considerable scepticism and
even contempt by workers on the first, broad path.
The second problem concerns the ordering of both worlds. More

complex organisations have to emerge from lesser complex ones.
(Again this is a consequence of the Second Law.) The more complex an
organisation becomes, the more its variety in qualities and the less
obvious its quantitative properties. The abstract world emerges from the
material world and not the opposite. Thus workers schooled in the lower
order sciences of the material world such as physics and chemistry,
8
accustomed to large amounts of quantitative work which involves

numbers and equations, find it difficult to communicate consistently and
coherently with workers schooled in the abstract world. The latter
workers often work with qualities and their descriptions rather than
quantities. Thus they would prefer workers schooled in the material
world to pay more attention to qualities rather than quantities and use
fewer numbers and formulae.
The third problem concerns the use of terminology. The more complex
the domain becomes to which a particular term is applied, the more
complex the meaning of the term itself becomes. Eventually different
terms from the two worlds begin to meet each other in meaning. For
example, in the material world the term 'entropy' leads to 'entropy
dissipation', then 'rate of entropy dissipation', then 'high rate of entropy
dissipation' and finally to 'far from equilibrium'. In the last case a
metaphoric value has been introduced. When going from the material
to the abstract world, the term 'revolution' summarises very much what
is described by 'far from equilibrium'. Communication in terms of
metaphors and even parables cannot be avoided any more (see Morgan,
1986 and Prigogine, 1980).
The fourth problem is that of motivation. Scientists, for example, should

be extremely sceptical, as Karl Popper (1972) has noted. However,
scientists should never become infatuated with scepticism and
fallibalism. Scientists have to promote their creativity because they first
have to create before they can scrutinise their creations sceptically. It
would be even better if they knew how to create scientifically.
However, trying to create on suspicion usually fails because a belief
cannot be replaced by a suspicion. Belief can evoke much stronger,
more constructive powers than suspicion (see Gelatt, 1991, p 43). In
some business management circles it is now even expected of managers
to err in order to succeed, as Morgan (1989) points out.
Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine (Chemistry, 1976) believes that the Second
Law of Thermodynamics has the power to unify the various domains of
the material world consistently and coherently. In his monumental work
"From Being to Becoming" we may observe this belief in action for
much of the material world. This book will simply extend the belief
(thesis) of Prigogine to encompass both the material and the abstract
9
worlds. The title of this book summarises our belief, namely that
entropy, creativity and learning form a close unit with which we can
safely and productively tackle any future complexity.
Since we have now formalised our belief, it becomes of paramount

importance to establish beyond any doubt that this belief is not a myth.
In other words, we will have to provide empirical evidence which will
show that entropy, creativity and learning are definitely closely
connected. This will be done in chapter 2. This evidence will then
empower us to examine all the subsequent chapters, making the
necessary emergences. In other words, this experiment will do what the
Michelson-Morley experiment (1881) did for 20th century physics
(relativity theory and consequently the utilisation of nuclear energy).
Will the journey be worthwhile?

An eminent mathematician once said that he would drink a toast any day
to mathematics with no value. Did he 'denigrate' mathematics with this
'heresy'? No. Mathematics concerns true statements. Truth cannot be
bought. Truth is priceless. The reason is that truth belongs to the
highest order of reality. As such it has immense power which can lead
to a wealth of things of a lower order. Many people try to buy truth
because of this wealth of power. They can buy the wealth that is evoked
by truth, but they cannot buy truth nor its power. Very much the same
applies to creativity. Although creative artifacts and even highly
creative people can be bought, creativity itself cannot be bought.
Creativity is priceless.
When bridging creativity, entropy and learning a price has to be paid.

The price is summarised by the four 'problems' discussed in the previous
section: loneliness, disarrangement, misunderstanding and quiescence.
These 'problems' are typical of a paradigm shift, i.e. an immense
bifurcating emergence. We call them 'problems' and not problems
because they are natural to paradigm shifts. Their 'solution' lies in
knowing how and why they are natural to paradigm shifts, i.e. to
understand that they are necessary expenditures. They cannot be
avoided. When a person tries to avoid them, they retaliate by preventing
10
that person from experiencing the paradigm shift. The reason is that
they have to contribute to the necessary entropy production.
However, much more is to be gained than lost in bridging creativity,

entropy and learning. Our first gain is a better grasp of the temporal
(chronological) nature of reality (nature and culture). The past will be
more fruitfully connected to the future. The transience of the present
will be better managed. We will begin to understand that the essence of
time is in its creative course.
Our second gain is an elevated understanding of reality. Obscurities will

become transparent and difficulties will become tractable. Our power
of observation is determined by our mental preparedness. Knowledge
of mental creativity will afford an advanced state of mental
preparedness. It will be like being supplied with mental observation
instruments like gyroscopes (being-becoming), microscopes
(categoricity), telescopes (monadicity), spectroscopes (quantities),
kaleidoscopes (qualities), etc.
The third gain is a rejuvenated interaction with reality. Intuition will

break new grounds and sensible crafts will develop. Our curiosity will
burn more intensely. We will enjoy mental excitements which even the
ancient Greeks would have envied us. Even the era of enlightenment
will be seen as merely the dawn after the darkness of the middle ages.
Sciences of both the material and the abstract world will benefit. The
greatest benefit will be to those sciences which have to deal in both
worlds like education, sociology, economics and politics.
Last, but not least, the scientific interpretation of the relationship

between the Creator and His creatures will begin to make sense. Science
and religion will not be able to maintain a Janus face any longer. Let us
digress a little into the last gain because in the rest of this book we will
avoid a study of religion.
Whenever we conduct an experiment to discover the Second Law of

Thermodynamics in the inanimate world, the results are measurements
(data) with patterns among them. The most general and concise manner
in which we can formulate the results, is a mathematical formula,
namely
11
)SUN > 0
The symbol ) stands for “change”, the symbol S stands for “entropy”,
the superscript UN stands for “universe” and the symbol > stands for “is
greater than”. Thus the interlinear translation of this formula into
English as a natural language is:
"the change in universal entropy is more than nothing"
To understand this last sentence is not easy. Since it has not been
formulated in mathematical symbols, the difficulty has nothing to do
with our mathematical abilities! By formulating it in mathematical
symbols, we may begin to grasp its mathematical meaning by
interpreting it mathematically. Yet the sentence lacks meaning in all
other academical subjects. Thus physicists gave it another
interpretation:
"the chaos of the universe has to increase".
Engineers interpreted it as:
"the inability of energy to do work under any circumstance".
Chemists interpreted it as:
"the cause for the free energy of a compound".
A few biologists have now even succeeded in interpreting it as:
"the agent for autopoiesis"
If we finally include the interpretation of the Brussels' school led by
Prigogine, we have:
"first always chaos, then possibly order".
By now the meaning could have become obscure and bewildering to

most people whereas we had hoped it would become more clear. The
reason is that we have not taken the context of the various experts into
account. Should we do so, we would not think of how to 'interpret' this
law, but rather how this law 'manifests' itself throughout the universe.
We will acknowledge that this law has even manifested itself in our
interpretations of it! It is one of the goals of this book to show how this
happens. Nevertheless, at this stage of the book the meaning of the
Second Law is still obscure. However, note how the development from
the first to the last interpretation affords us a close connection between
what experiments tell us:
"the change in entropy is more than nothing",
and what mosed Bible based religions tell us:
"first God created chaos, then order and only some will
12
believe it"
This chain of connections is remarkable because the experiment refers
to a low order of the material world while religion refers to a high order
of the abstract world. This line of though shows how the Janus face will
be shattered.
Consider a second example. We have already noted that bifurcating

emergences will play an important role in this book. We will study them
and also acknowledge them in the preparation of such studies. Paradigm
shifts, i.e immensely and inclusively bifurcating emergences, will play
a special role because of their directive action. In the Christian religion
the rebirth (renaissance) plays a central role in the spiritual life of a
believer. The rebirth is nothing but the paradigm shift necessary to enter
the kingdom of God. St Paul recognises the Law of Moses as the driving
force (entropy producer) which has to precede the rebirth. We will have
ample opportunity in chapter 8 to study the logical relationship between
commands and emergences.
To keep this book within manageable bounds we will have to avoid

religious matters as far as possible. We will also have to avoid social,
artistic, political and economical matters for the same reason. This does
not mean that there is nothing to be said. For example, the phenomenon
of conjunctures (cycles) in the money market is a fine example of the
push-pull action between revolutionary and evolutionary creativity.
However, the mission of this book is to bridge entropy, creativity and
learning in such a manner that all the other bridgings will become
possible.
The above discussion on interpretations in different languages (natural,

mathematical, religious, etc) brings us to the last matter to be discussed
in this chapter. English is not the author's home language. This has
made the writing of this book difficult. The mother tongue of each of us
plays a special role. We use it to verbalise our creative endeavour in any
particular context. In that sense the mother tongue of a person is that
person's creative language. For example, when that person prays to God
Creator, it happens most fluently and effortlessly in the mother tongue.
To use an international lingua franca to convey the findings of this book
is somewhat contradictory because it partially conceals the complexity
involved. The author accepts responsibility for the obscurities involved
13
due to the language processing.
Summary of chapter
The aim of this chapter is to keep the reader mptivated upon studying
this book. This book is about reality. Reality becomes more complex
by the minute. Complexity confuses and intimidates. Thus it may
become demotivating.
A turning point or critical moment in the progress of events is

experienced as a crisis by any person who is ignorant of what is going
to happen and is unable to influence the course of events. A potential
crisis need not be experienced as such. But for this to happen the person
has to prepare himself or herself in advance with appropriate theoretical
and practical knowledge.
An unprecedented crisis is looming in the near future. It will be more

ghastly than the recent world wars or the black death almost a
millennium ago. The crisis concerns chaos, order and complexity in all
walks of life. Since the cause of it all is the production (creation) of
entropy, it may very well be called the entropy crisis. The entropy crisis
will be most deadly because it will destroy the motivation of people
trying to deal with it. Those who do not care about the crisis will be
destroyed automatically by it.
To be prepared for this crisis, each person has to grow in his or her
knowledge of chaos, order and complexity despite their pernicious
nature. This book is offered as a guide. Since the book itself has to deal
with chaos, order and complexity, like the crisis it may become deadly
in its destruction of the motivation of the reader. May this never happen.
But how can it be prevented?
Consider the study of this book as the inoculation against a deadly virus
by means of its essential dead remains. The book is not the deadly virus,
but it is its essential dead remains. Just as the body prepares itself
against a deadly virus by reading the information in its outer protein
casing and then creating the antibodies to destroy it, the mind has to do
14
the same. The book has been carefully designed to serve the creation of
the relevant mental antibodies. A moderate mental reaction to the
inoculation is a good sign of its success. The only bad signs are either
a deadly reaction or no reaction at all.
Once the inoculation has been successful, new worlds may be entered
where the deadly virus previously prevented such ventures. Thus the
reader will gain immensely in an enduring, elevated and rejuvenated
interaction with reality which includes spirituality.
15
PART I
CREATING THE BRIDGE

Natural and artificial drugs can and do change the
workings of the mind. This makes it appear as if matter
has control over mind.
However, cultural artifacts such as pottery or plastics

owe their existence to the human mind. Thus it appears
as if mind has control over matter.
It could become important to know which of mind or

matter has decisive control. No doubt remains that mind
and matter do not exist independently. They simply
influence each other too much.
How then are mind and matter mutually related? What

persisting patterns are common to both? Can we create
a bridge between the material and the abstract world?
16
17
Chapter 2
THE BRIDGE EXPERIMENT
Preamble
This is the first public report on an experiment which took place during
1982-1983. The results of the experiment were totally unexpected.
They also had such profound implications that some of them had to be
explored before the results could be published. Max Planck, the
discoverer of the quantum effect, experienced a similar predicament.
The contents of this chapter have been compiled from the original
unpublished report. That report is too complex for the purpose of this
manuscript. Here it is better to concentrate on those issues which will
promote an understanding of the relationship between entropy, creativity
and learning.
History related to the experiment

In the years before 1980 a chemistry syllabus was created for the
training of teachers in the physical sciences. The mission of the course
was specific: to make teachers creative in chemistry. The syllabus was
delineated in terms of learning objectives. To ensure a comprehensive
and balanced course, the objectives were surveyed in terms of Bloom's
taxonomy (Bloom et al, 1956). It was observed that the taxonomical
method did not promote superior creativity in chemistry despite all its
other advantages. It was then decided to formulate each objective as
precisely as possible with the aim of promoting the creativity of teachers
in chemistry and only afterwards to discover which 'taxonomy' was
underlying all the objectives.
After all the objectives had been created, two observations could be
18
made:
* the objectives still surveyed favourably in terms of Bloom's
taxonomy, although it became difficult to classify some of these
objectives to a single taxon,
* three important patterns appeared among the objectives which
could not have been anticipated by Bloom's taxonomy or any
other taxonomy available at that time.
It was almost as if Bloom's taxonomy were incomplete. However,
attempts to include these patterns by modifying Bloom's taxonomy were
difficult because they did not fit into the order. It gradually became
apparent that these patterns were of a higher order as if emerging from
the taxonomical order.
[The remarks in italics refer to intuitive thoughts which the author had
during those times. The author simply became aware of these thoughts,
even though many of them made little sense then. Now, only after many
years, do these thoughts make sense. Moreover, it is also clear now,
how important they were to steer the author in the correct direction.]
What was this emerging higher order? It had a strange logical flavour.
Objectives, goals and missions are collectively known as commands, ie.
imperative sentences. Were these patterns then part of an underlying
imperative logic? Scientists and mathematicians employ declarative
logic. Most studies in logic (>99%) concern declarative logic. The few
studies into imperative logic did not uncover any system for imperative
logic such as the many systems which are now available for declarative
logic. Those studies also have little to say about these patterns. Thus
the relationship between this emerging order and logic was mysterious.
(Chapter 8 will shed more light on this relationship to logic.)
This emerging order also had an extraordinary existential flavour. These

patterns were essential to the realisation of the objectives. If one or
more of these patterns were impaired, it became difficult or even
impossible to master the objectives. It was easier to deny and contradict
them than to honour them. They could be discovered, but they could not
be created because they are essential to creation. Their apriori character
made them quite distinct from the imperatives (mission, goals,
objectives) of the syllabus. Where then did these patterns fit in?
(Chapter 6 will shed more light on the essentialness of the patterns.)
19
Relating these patterns to the rest of reality and thus understanding them,
became a hard problem. We will return to this problem in the next
chapter. Let these patterns be described now because they will
frequently be referred to in this chapter.
The moncat patterns

The three major patterns observable among the objectives to promote
creativity in chemistry are as follows:
Being-Becoming
The objectives clearly belong to one of two classes; either they affect
being or they affect becoming. When assessing the being objectives a
structure has to result in which order is important. When assessing the
becoming objectives a process has to result with the accent on disorder
or chaos. The being objectives relate to the traditional list of concepts
(definitions, conventions, formulations, etc) used in the syllabus while
the becoming objectives relate to the behavioural objectives.
Monadicity
All the objectives are related to each other in a gigantic organisation
(network, monad). Being objectives get connected by means of
becoming objectives while becoming objectives create the opportunity
for being objectives to follow. It is easy to identify chains of objectives
containing more than a hundred objectives. A break in any chain is
detrimental to the learner's creativity in chemistry. The objectives in any
chain are ordered according to their complexity.
Categoricity
Each objective with an outcome in the abstract world (mind),
corresponds to an entity or property of the chemical system which
belongs to the material world. A number of objectives are usually
needed to identify such entity or property uniquely. They often concern
both the inner and outer relationships needed to comprehend the identity.
In appendix 1 to this chapter, a small section of the objectives of the

syllabus is given. It constitutes only one learning module (unit)
20
concerning the phases of matter. The being-becoming pattern is clearly

observable. The monadicity pattern is perceived when mastering these
objectives in a particular order. The categoricity pattern becomes
apparent in the various identification procedures.
If one were to work with only these three patterns, one might call them
the moncat (monadic categorical) patterns. Questions which test the
mastering of objectives while honouring these patterns, may then be
refered to as moncat questions. In appendix 2 to this chapter, an
example of a moncat question is given.
In a certain sense the three moncat patterns form a unit. In the next
chapter we will learn that they are directly related to the general
framework of Mathematical Category Theory (MCT). The being-
becoming pattern is related to the two kinds of entities used in MCT,
namely objects (sets) and arrows (functors). The monadicity pattern is
necessary to allow for the axiom (diagram) of associativity. The
categoricity pattern is necessary to allow for the axiom (diagram) of
identity. MCT has only two axioms or laws, namely associativity and
identity.
These three patterns are not important only to mathematics, but also to
epistemology and philosophy. Monadicity and categoricity may be
contrasted directly by respectively fragmentarism and demarcationism.
Fragmentarism is that way of thinking in which a certain aspect of
reality is studied without tracing its relationship to the rest of reality.
Demarcationism is that way of thinking in which a certain fragment of
reality is assumed to be an independent (autonomous) entity. For
example, it is typical of fragmentation and demarcation to study gases
and liquids independently of each other and not as both belonging to the
more general class of substances called fluids. The being-becoming
pattern is basic to the problem of the ontology/ontogeny of reality.
In another sense the three moncat patterns are incomplete. We will learn
in the next chapter that these three patterns together with four other
patterns are essential to logical thinking in mathematics and productive
chemical systems. Later in the book it will be argued that these seven
patterns are essential for all creations to happen. Hence these seven
patterns will be called the seven essentialities of creativity. Thus the
21
three moncat patterns are essential to creativity. However, it should be

remembered that originally the moncat patterns were discovered
empirically among the learning objectives which had been created to
promote creativity in chemistry.
The measurements of 1982

The first opportunity to test the objectives thoroughly with the moncat
patterns among them, arose in 1982. It was the second half of a first
year undergraduate course in chemistry. The course was designed for
students majoring in chemistry (to be called BS students) and students
majoring in chemical engineering (BE students). Consequently the
students who enrolled for this course were more homogeneously
distributed than usual. (This fact is important. The more compounds a
mixture contains, the more difficult it becomes to undo the mixture or to
recognise such an unmixing when it occurs.)
The second half of the course dealt with analytical and physical
chemistry. The author was solely responsible for the whole course,
except for the usual external moderation on official tests and the final
examination. The students were given a detailed study guide in which
all the moncat objectives were listed. (See appendix 1.) Also included
in the study guide were moncat questions based on case studies. (See
appendix 2.) The students could use these moncat questions to monitor
their mastering of the objectives.
Under no circumstance were the answers to these moncat questions

given to the students. In other words, these questions had to be treated
as authentic problems not yet solved before. It is imperative that this
point must be grasped. Later in this book we will learn that it has much
to do with autocatalysis in emergent systems. The moncat questions
themselves had sufficient check points built in. Furthermore, the
prescribed textbook provided many examples (questions with answers)
in the traditional manner. The students were encouraged to form
discussion groups on these moncat questions, to check their answers
among themselves and to find out specifically which objectives were
evaluated by each question. Less than 1% of the students had any
22
previous experience of learning by means of objectives or discussion

groups.
The roster of the university called for two compulsory official tests per
semester after 5 and 9 weeks. They were followed by the examination
after 14 weeks. In the chemistry course only the two official test were
given. However, in some other subjects the students had to write tests
as often as once per week.
The time allocated for the first test was 120 minutes. The principles of
the marking scheme (see appendix 3) allowed for 120 marks to be
allocated. The author was afraid of the political repercussions if
multiple choice and singular questions (traditional and typical of the
textbook) were not included. Thus 30 marks were allocated to multiple
choice questions and 30 marks to singular questions. The balance was
allocated to moncat questions. However, the singular questions were
interspersed between the moncat questions in such a manner that they
also contributed to the monadicity and categoricity of the test.
After the test, a model answer was given, indicating where marks had
been allocated. Apart from the usual external moderation of the test and
the marked answers by colleagues, the students themselves could check
the marks allocated and raise any appeal. The strategy followed in
marking a paper, was to mark all the answers of a student before moving
to the next student, rather than marking the answers of all the students
to a particular question before moving to the next question. This
strategy proved to be of vital importance because by following it the
author became aware of a strange phenomenon, namely 'flocking of
students'.
In figure 2.1 a bar graph of the distribution of students' performances is

given. It resembles the typical bell shape (normal distribution).
However, two things caused anxiety. Firstly, the asymmetry or
skewness with respect to the normal distribution was unexpected. So
much careful work had gone into, first the study guide (curriculum) and
then the test that a perfect, normal distribution would have been most
rewarding. Secondly, no sign of the 'flocking of students' was to be seen.
23
Figure 2.1: Bar graph of students' performances in test 1, 1982.

Total number of students is 214.
It was then decided to present the performances of the BS and BE

students separately. It was also decided to use line graphs rather than
bar graphs. Some kind of interpolation (horizontal weighting) was
introduced by not selecting the abscissa values halfway (5, 15, ..., 115)
in each interval (0-9, 10-19, ..., 110-119), but as the mean value for the
performances in each interval. Furthermore, the ordinate values were
normalised with respect to 100 students. The results are shown in fig
2.2.
24
Figure 2.2: Line graph (relative numbers versus grid averages)

of students performances in test 1, 1982. Students majoring in
either chemistry (BS) or chemical engineering (BE)
Indeed, the 'flocking of students' was clearly apparent. It was quite a

relief that this 'flocking of students' was not a surrealistic perception.
But these very results were also immensely disturbing. Even less of an
expected normal distribution (bell curve) was visible than in the bar
graph of fig 2.1. What was the message of the unexpected deviations in
fig 2.2? Were they pointing to a disaster in the making so that it would
be better to terminate the experiment? It was then decided, in
consultation with the head of the department, to continue the experiment
for another six weeks to see if results could be obtained which were
traditionally acceptable.
Although disturbed by these graphs, the author was also intrigued by

them. Being a chemist, he should have recognised their implication
immediately. But since they had to do with learning and not a chemical
system, he did not suspect any connection. The next six weeks became
some of the most stressing in the author's life: conserving what integrity
was left and procuring more integrity than apparently could be achieved.
25
Extreme care was taken in the construction of the second test. The 30:90
ratio of multiple choice questions to moncat questions was retained.
Everything possible was done to make the test as open as possible. For
example:
* Each singular question on a topic formed a closed operation.
Thus singular questions were to be omitted from the test.
* Three moncat questions of 45 marks each were created. After
having completed the second, and time permitting, the student
could commence with the third moncat question.
* The test was to be an open book test. Thus newly created
moncat questions were used. Not even a subquestion from
sources known to the student was used.
* Stress was laid on becoming (process) objectives rather than
being (structure) objectives.

of students' performances in test 2, 1982. Total number of
students is 202.
The marking, appeal and moderation of answer papers were done as

before. The results are depicted in fig 2.3.
26
The 'flocking of students' could be even better observed. It is shown by

three distinct peaks. However, these very results were immensely
disturbing. The more prominent the peaks were, the less a single normal
distribution was possible. The graph showed a spectrum while
traditional education requires one single bell shaped curve!
It was then decided to see how the distribution of the BS and BE

students would compare with each other since both made provision for
an internal measuring standard. This comparison is illustrated in fig 2.4.
There was no possibility for any deception - the three peaks were again
apparent for both groups of students.

of students' performances in test 2, 1982. Students majoring in
either chemistry (BS) or chemical engineering (BE)
The paradigm shift of 1982

As soon as the last two graphs took shape, the author began to
27
experience a most extraordinary state of mind. It was as if in him, two

orders were moving apart. The past order cried: "You should have
obtained a normal distribution curve. Everybody expects it. You err by
thinking that the deviations from the normal signify categorical
information." The new order cried: "You have worked as consistently
as possible, although with fear and anxiety. You have used external and
internal control measures. Marks have not been given arbitrarily, but
with logical precision. Thus these graphs represent pure empirical data.
Find the message of the deviations."
Figure 2.5: The distribution of students' performances (test 2,

1982) resolved into three distinct distributions A, B and C.
Fig 2.5 depicts a spectrum with three peaks. The spectrum results as the
superposition of three bell shaped curves. The first two bells overlap
circa 30% and the last two overlap circa 5%. Assuming a symmetrical
distribution for each curve around its centre (average), these distinct
distributions A, B and C may be calculated and isolated. They are
illustrated in fig 2.5. Each of A, B and C is approximately a bell shaped
curve. Traditional education requires only one bell curve per test. Such
curves have been studied extensively (see Kendall and Stuart, 1979).
28
Somehow the mission "become creative in chemistry" and the moncat

patterns produced a spectrum which resolved into three such bells.
In no other branch of science do spectra play such an important role as

in chemistry. Modern chemistry without spectra is impossible. Shut
down all the spectrometers in the world and it will play havoc with the
entire developed community. Whole industries and institutes will grind
to a halt. Little chemical identification would still be possible. It would
be like being flung back to the 19th century. But now a large number of
fundamentally different spectra are possible, all 20th century
accomplishments. They are known to the chemist by acronyms such as
MS, NMR, UV and IR, GC and LC, etc .
Let us then ask a chemist what he would say of the spectra depicted in
figs 2.2 and 2.4. The only additional information we give him is that
these spectra represent a sequential development. We definitely do not
give the information that they are concerned with learning in the abstract
world. Then he would probably refrain from making any comment.
The chemist's first comment would be that although the resolution in fig
2.2 is bad, it is better in fig 2.4. His second comment would be that the
spectra depict some separation which develops temporally, somewhat
like in chromatography. He might even make calculations to determine
chromatographic consistency (see appendix 4). He will think of BS and
BE as two mixtures and that each mixture contains the same three
distinctive compounds A, B and C, but in slightly different ratios. If he
were then informed that both mixtures contain approximately only two
hundred molecules in total, he would immediately rectify his criticism
on the resolution because it happened at the threshold of the sensitivity
of chromatographs. Usually thousands of molecules are needed to
obtain satisfactory results and to overcome the noisy background.
If the chemist is asked how chromatography happens, he will explain it

in terms of forced diffusion and differential retentions in a
chromatographic column. A carrier phase consisting of inert molecules
forces the mixture's molecules forward through the pores of a stationary
phase. The molecules can be adsorbed on the surface of the stationary
phase for certain time intervals and thus be immobilised, only to be
released again. Thus the most mobile molecules (all of one type) will
29
move away from the less mobile molecules of other types. He will
mention that the diffusion happens according to Fick's law. If he is an
expert on his subject, he will say that Fick's law for diffusion, like
Fourier's law for heat conduction, cannot be explained or predicted by
Newton's laws of mechanics or modern quantum mechanics. He will
know that both Fick's and Fourier's laws as well as inumerous other
seemingly disconnected phenomena find a coherent and consistent
explanation only in irreversible thermodynamics (see De Groot and
Mazur, 1962). In other words, chromatography is a magnificent
technological application based on the production of entropy and its
consequences.
Let us then show the empirical results and the chemist's comments on
them to anyone working in the humanities. Let us, for example, show
them to an educationalist. If that person also happened to have graduate
training in chemistry, then some meaningful comments could arise.
However, this is so unlikely that we have to think what could possibly
have happened. That person would have refused to make any comments,
leaving such comments for the chemist. If we had insisted that such
comments were of paramount importance, the person would probably
have laughed it off with: "That is chemistry. I have nothing to do with
chemistry. Nobody can force me to have anything to do with chemistry.
My speciality is education and not how inanimate matter reacts."
However, the fact is that the empirical data of the two graphs do not
refer to chromatography in the material world. The microscopic units
which have separated into three distinct groups are not molecules, but
the minds of the individual learners. The stationary phase is not some
solid with adsorptive properties, but the information profile of the
course. The carrier phase is not made up of inert molecules which drive
the mixture's molecules along, but the objectives, goals and mission of
the syllabus with the moncat patterns among them. Yet, for all empirical
purposes, this system in the abstract world appears to behave exactly as
chromatography in the material world.
How is that possible?
A simple answer would be to say that it was a unique coincidence which

would probably never happen again. The scientist's response would be
30
that this possibility could be ruled out if the experiment and its results
could be repeated. Many other simple answers are possible, for example
that it had been a hoax, that it was not necessary to take the experiment
and its implications into consideration, etc. All these simplistic denials
will have one thing in common, denying one or more of the moncat
patterns or the other four essentialities of creativity.
Not to deny is to accept. But to accept the experiment and its

implications is to leave the mythical world of simplistic answers once
and for all by stepping right into the complexity of reality. For example,
how is it possible for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be applied
to both the material and the abstract worlds? What are the most far
reaching implications of having this strange law for both worlds? What
other undeniable bridges can be set up between these two worlds? How
can anybody, schooled in the one world, also work professionally in the
other world? How is entropy related to human creativity?
The author soon became aware of an overwhelming intimidation.

Although it all sounds immensely interesting, the Second Law and the
complexity into which the law unfolds, make spontaneous enquiries
almost impossible. Why is complexity intimidating? How can one
overcome the lack of spontaneity or motivation which is induced by
complexity? Chemists know how and why chemical reactions become
non-spontaneous. The Second Law plays a key role in their answer.
Thus the answer why mental reactions failed to happen spontaneously
also had to be based on the Second Law. In other words, how is entropy
related to learning?
Thus the essence of the new paradigm became clear. It concerns

entropy, creativity and learning.
The measurements of 1983

The objectives of the syllabus were rewritten to improve on the moncat
patterns among them. Twelve tutor classes were also introduced. Each
class was guided by colleagues, from the head of the chemistry
department down to junior lecturers. Each tutor class gathered each
31
week to study a moncat question specially created for that week. The
balance of the infra-structure remained the same as in 1982.
The first test was constructed in much the same way as the first test of
1982. It had 25% multiple choice questions, 25% singular questions and
50% moncat questions. The multiple choice questions and singular
questions were included in such a manner that it raised the 'moncat'ness
of the test from 50% to circa 85%. The marking, appeal and moderation
of the test and answer papers were done as before. Furthermore, the test
and a model answer to it, was the topic of the tutor classes in the week
after the test. The results are shown in figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6: Profile of students' performances (test 1, 1983).
The splitting is quite dramatic. The effect of the tutor classes was two
fold:
* They synchronised the peaks of the BS and the BE students.
* They lowered the first peak and raised the second peak. The
third peak also became more noticeable as a bulge.
Then followed the second test. It was sadly not possible to make the
32
second test an open book one. There was simply too much criticism
against it. However, the multiple choice questions as well as the
singular questions were left out completely. Thus the test was fully
moncat. Again the test was moderated, appealed and tutored as before
by external experts. The results are shown in fig 2.7.
Figure 2.7: The profile of students' performances (test 2, 1983).
Were it not for the now familiar 'flocking of students' experienced by the
author, the outcome would have been extremely disappointing. What
had happened to the peaks? Were the three peaks of the second test in
the previous year a unique coincidence after all? This apparent failure
was a great worry to the author. Only in 1988 did the solution to the
problem became clear. The ordinate grid was (0-9, 10-19, .., 110-119).
This grid coincided with the peaks so that the back half of a peak would
lie in a previous interval while the forward half of the peak would lie in
the next interval. This would cause an averaging of peaks and valleys!
The solution would thus be to move the grid by 50% and redo the
calculations. The results are shown in fig 2.8.
33
Figure 2.8: The profile of students' performances (test 2, 1982).

Grid displacement of 50%.
The change was indeed remarkable. By using exactly the same data, the
peaks could be made to appear and disappear by simply moving the grid!
But even more important was the fact that the experiments of 1982 and
1983 were indeed fully consistent. Chromatography of the mind is real.
The Second Law operates on both worlds, material and abstract.
Finally, how does the second test of 1983 compare with the second test
of 1982? Consider the comparison in fig 2.9. The comparison is made
in terms of equal migration distances. Thus the ordinate values of the
1982 test (the open book one) had to be reduced by approximately 20%.
The positive effect of the tutor classes in 1983 can be clearly observed.
The first two peaks have migrated somewhat further to the front.
Furthermore, the second peak has increased. On the other hand, the
open book nature of test 2 in 1982 allowed the third peak to develop
clearly. In the case of 1983 only a bulge can be seen. Clearly the
resolution had failed. In the typical gas chromatography of the material
world, this happens when the end of the chromatographic column
34
becomes clogged by a sticky substance. The molecules of the third peak

cannot migrate forward as usual, but are retarded by spending more time
in the immobile solid phase. However, these spectra refer to abstract
minds and not material molecules! Closing the migration path is like
making the path more sticky for those in front. This stickiness is
experienced as inhibiting the creative endeavours of learners.
Figure 2.9: Comparison of test 2, 1982 with test 2, 1983.
Conclusion
Students perform differently, but not necessarily stochastically. When
they have to learn creatively, their performances are not distributed as
if governed by equal probabilities. Thus their marks are not distributed
in one big normal (bell shaped) curve as might be expected. They flock
together in their differences, producing a number of bell shaped curves
superimposed on each other. The netto result is a spectrum. These
spectra are very much like chromatographic spectra concerning
separating mixtures. The bridge experiment gave rise to three peaks A,
35
B and C in the spectra (see figures 5 and 6). There may be even more
peaks. Exactly how many peaks and under what conditions they will
appear will have to be discovered empirically by other educators. The
details of the bridge experiment are sufficiently clear for this type of
experiment to be repeated at other places and times. At least the three
moncat patterns are essential.
The name 'bridge' refers to the fact that this experiment has set up a
bridge between the material and the abstract worlds. The nature of this
bridge is that both worlds operate according to the same law, namely the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus these two worlds are parts of
one universe which we may call reality.
Now we also have a new viewpoint about what has to happen in

education.
Teachers in formal education should strive to make the peak A at the

back of the spectrum significantly smaller. This means that the peaks in
front of the spectrum must increase, especially peak C right in front.
This can only happen by jumping from one peak to another. Any such
a jump (quantum leap) from one peak to another means that an
extraordinary event has to happen in the mental life of a learner. This
event may also be called an emergence or a paradigmatic shift.
Preventing such events from happening in learners is a moral crime.
Teachers in formal education should never inhibit the growth and

advancement of peak C in front. The result, namely a bulge in front of
the second peak B, could be disastrous. These bright students in peak
C, already capable of immense mental powers, could be lost for ever or
employ these powers for delinquent means.
It will be the task of educators to explain theoretically how these spectra

arise. It is even more important that they will provide a theoretical
framework for the movement of a student from the back slope of a peak
to its front slope and especially for the jump/emergence/shift from one
peak to another. However, the most important task will be to guide
practically any learner in accomplishing these extraordinary events.
It should be crystal clear by now that three concepts will always be

36
central to all these tasks, namely entropy, creativity and learning.

Exactly how these three concepts are related to one another and the rest
of reality, is not at all clear. This book will try to shed some light on the
relationship.
Appendix 1
EXAMPLE OF OBJECTIVES WHICH EXHIBIT THE MONCAT
PATTERNS AMONG THEMSELVES.
(The objectives are concerned with the chemistry topic of phases.)
Structure objectives
s1 Define with words and diagrams the following terms: phase,
phase diagram, PV diagram, PT diagram, isotherms, isochores.
s2 Define with words, symbols and diagrams the following terms:
evaporation, condensation, fusion, solidification, sublimation.
s3 Define with words, symbols and diagrams the following terms:
boiling point, normal boiling point, melting point, normal
melting point, critical point, triple point, super heating, super
cooling.
s4 Draw a PV phase diagram of any pure substance in a closed
system which has only one solid phase and which contracts with
solidification. Identify all marks and regions on the diagram.
s5 Draw a PV phase diagram like the one in s4, but for a solution
(mixture) in which the substance of s4 acts as the solvent.
Process objectives
p1 Given any annotated PV phase diagram of a pure substance,
construct an annotated PT phase diagram from it or vice versa.
p2 Given the following phase data of any pure substance with one
solid phase, draw an approximate a PT phase diagram and
annotate it completely: melting point, normal boiling point,
critical point, triple point, specific volumes of liquids and solids
at specified temperatures.
p3 Given any annotated PV phase diagram, any two points on it
and any continuous path connecting these points, describe the
successive processes as well as changes in the volume V,
pressure P and temperature T which the system has to undergo
37
to follow the prescribed path.

p4 Given any annotated phase diagram, determine with reasons
whether it refers to a pure substance or a homogenous mixture.
p5 Given any phase diagram of any pure substance or homo-genous
mixture, measure the following:
(i) depression of freezing point at any prescribed pressure
(ii) elevation of boiling point at any prescribed pressure
(i) lowering of vapour pressure at any prescribed temperature.
Notes:
1 The being-becoming pattern is depicted by the distinction
between s (for structure) and p (for process) objectives.
2 The monadicity pattern among the objectives is depicted by the
sequence s1, s2, s3, p1, s4, p2, p3, s5, p4, p5 in which they have
to be strung while they are being mastered. The monadicity
pattern is also quite clear within objective p3.
3 The categoricity pattern among the objectives is depicted by the
former string rather than s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, p1, p2, p3, p4, p5.
The categoricity pattern is also clear within p1.
Appendix 2
EXAMPLE OF A MONCAT QUESTION.
(The question is concerned with chemical thermodynamics.)
Question 1 (14 - 10 - 1983)

One of the most important industrial processes is the contact process:
2 SO2(g) + O2(g) = 2SO3(g)
ªHfo/kJ.mol-1 -296,1 -395,2
So/J.K-1.mol-1 -248,5,1 205,0 256,2
ªGf /kJ.mol
o -1
-300,4 -370,4
M/g.mol-1 -64,06 32,00 80,06
Assume that the process takes place at standard conditions in a closed
system in which 8,000mol SO2(g) and 4,000mol O2(g) are available
initially .
Accept R = 8,314J.K-1.mol-1, To = 298,2K and Po = 101,3kPa.
Answer the following questions.
38
(i) Demonstrate that the change in enthalpy of the system for

complete conversion is given by ªHo = -792,8kJ. (4)
(ii) Calculate the heat transfer for the complete conversion. (2)
(iii) Discuss the meaning of the sign of
ªHo in terms of bonds,
Q in terms of systems. (2)
(iv) Calculate ªng of the system for complete conversion. (3)
(v) Show that the PV work transfer for complete conversion is
equal to +9,917 kJ. (2)
(vi) Explain the meaning of the sign in the work transferred. (1)
(vii) Calculate the change in internal energy of the system for
complete conversion. (3)
(viii) Demonstrate that the change in entropy of the system for
complete conversion is given by -754,8J.K-1 (4)
(ix) Discuss the meaning of the sign of the entropy change in terms
of disorder. (1)
(x) Considering the value in (viii),
(a) can one conclude that the reaction is non-spontaneous?
(b) motivate your answer in (a). (2)
(xi) Calculate the change in free energy of the system for complete
conversion by means of the Gibbs-Helmholtz formula. (3)
(xii) Control the value in (xi) with a calculation based on the free
energies of formation. (3)
(xiii) Demonstrate that the pressure equilibrium constant is given by
Kpo = 3,34 * 1024 (3)
(xiv) What happens to the enthalpy and entropy changes when the
temperature of the system is increased above the standard value?
(1)
(xv) Calculate the temperature at which the system will be in
equilibrium with its surroundings. (4)
(xvi) Discuss the meaning of the sign of the free energy change at a
temperature of 1100K (2)
Notes:
1 The answer for each question is a datum which often has to be
used in subsequent questions. Thus there is emergence and
order among the questions.
2 Questions (i), (v) (viii) and (xiii) are called beacon questions.
39
They serve as attractors for identity and associativity.

3 The moncat question terminates with (xvi) merely because the
preset total of 40 marks has been reached. It is possible to
extend the moncat question by incorporating questions on
stoichiometry, Le Chatelier's principle, irreversibility and useful
work. Thus a moncat question of up to 100 marks can easily be
constructed in chemistry. It could be much more difficult in
other sciences.
Appendix 3
PRINCIPLES OF THE MARKING SCHEME
The following marking postulate was employed:

All logical activities which are necessary in procuring the answer to each
question are given one mark each without giving the immediate iteration
of such an activity any additional marks. Thus all logical activities are
equally quantified in a generic sense.
Some of the logical principles were:

Universal instantiation (including substitution):
(œ:)M:/M<
Existential instantiation (including enumeration):
(›:)M:8M<....p9
Universal generalisation (including formulation):
M</(œ:)M:/M:v< (free)
Existential generalisation (including interpretation):
M</(›:)M:
Equality of indiscernables (including isomorphisms):
MLv(:=<)/M<
Any inference in terms of a binary proposition:
p v (pYq) Ö q
Any Inference in terms of a relation or function
Notes:
1 These marking principles are objective and not subjective in so
far as symbolic logic is considered to be an objective science.
40
Thus the marks given to an answer were as objective as any

physical measurement.
2 These marking principles were not discussed with the students,
nor were they even named, since they would only have horrified
the students. They were simply used and had to be accepted by
the students. The students did manage to grasp these principles
intuitively.
3 An answer would be marked up to an error. Marking stopped
when the error was inconsistent or irregular. If the error was
contingent or systematic, the rest of the answer was again
marked. Thus one contingent error in an answer would lead to
one mark less.
Appendix 4
CHROMATOGRAPHIC CONSISTENCY OF THE 19982 TESTS
A peculiar phenomenon complementary to the resolution of peaks

migrating along the length of a column is the broadening in width and
contraction in height of each peak during its migration. See fig 2.10 for
an illustration. This phenomenon (omnidirectional diffusion) is a
secondary effect on the original separating effect (directional diffusion).
The explanation of both is done in terms of the production of entropy
(irreversible thermodynamics).
Figure 2.10: Movement of peaks along a chromatographic

column
41
Van Deemter was first to model this phenomenon in gas chromatography

by a mathematical equation. Applying this equation to the tests of 1983,
we may obtain as a first order approximation that:
(breadth A test 2)/(breadth A test 1)
. (breadth B test 2)/(breadth B test 1)
. (resolution A:B test 2)/(resolution A:B test 1) > 1
There are actually two 'mixtures', namely BS and BE. Applying the
above to each then leads to
(BS breadth A test 2)/(BS breadth A test 1) = 28/24 = 1,17
. (BS breadth B test 2)/(BS breadth B test 1) = 30?/21 = 1,43?
. (BS resolution A:B test 2)/(BS resolution A:B test 1) = 22/19 = 1,16
and
(BE breadth A test 2)/(BE breadth A test 1) = 30/20 = 1,36
. (BE breadth B test 2)/(BE breadth B test 1) = 32/28 = 1,14
. (BE resolution A:B test 2)/(BE resolution A:B test 1) = 21/18 = 1,17
In the case of the third peak C no calculations can be made for BS since
this peak is not apparent in test 1. However, for BE one has
. (BE resolution A:C test 2)/(BE resolution A:C test 1) = 72/60 = 1,20
The calculations above prove within 5% deviation that the spectra of

migrating minds are indeed isomorphic to gas chromatographical
spectra. In other words, it has been proved within a 5% deviation that
something akin to the Second Law of Thermodynamics works in the
world of mind!
Summary of chapter
The aim of this chapter is to put empirical evidence before the reader
that the material and the abstract world may be indissoluble parts of one
reality. The evidence was obtained while emphasising creativity during
the mastering of a chemistry course. Three mysterious patterns emerged
during the investigation: being-becoming, categoricity (sureness) and
monadicity (wholeness). They will be called the moncat patterns.
The evidence is that the performances of the students did not follow a
42
single bell shaped curve (normal distribution), but a spectrum of three

bell curves superimposed on each other. Furthermore, the three curves
became more separated and flattened during the course of time. It
happens almost exactly (5% deviation) as in the physical
chromatography of molecular substances. The evidence has an internal
consistency in the sense that two different groups of students produced
similar spectra. The evidence has an external consistency in the sense
that the spectra were produced again the following year.
Physical chromatography itself can be described by Fick's law for forced

diffusion. But the set of laws of irreversible thermodynamics is needed
to give a coherent and consistent explanation, description and prediction
to chromatography. The set consists of the First Law (energy
conservation) and the Second Law (entropy production).
The reported evidence does not concern physical chromatography of

molecular substances in the material world, but the mental
chromatography of human minds in the abstract world. Thus either two
identical and disjunct sets of laws exist, the thermodynamical set for the
physical world and the 'other' set for the abstract world, or one set exists
for both worlds belonging to one reality.
Some would argue that this evidence is no proof that reality is one
whole. They will argue that a theory must be falsifiable. However,
falsification cannot be applied to the two laws of thermodynamics. It is
because these two laws themselves are results based on negative
experiences: the impossibility to create energy (First Law) and the
impossibility to transform energy without creating entropy (Second
Law).
Others would rather scrutinise the given evidence. The best ways to do
so is to repeat the experi-ment or to relate it to experi-ence. Some
working in the field of education may have experienced similar spectra.
This experience, although now set in a new perspective, does not
confirm the 'chromatography of minds'. It is also the becoming of
chromatography which matters, namely how the peaks behave during the
course of time in their separation and broadening.
The experiment may be repeated by using the information given in the

43
chapter and its appendixes. It may even be repeated for other subjects
than chemistry. Nevertheless, it is important in these experiments to
endeavour for creativity while mastering the subject. Furthermore, none
of the three moncat patterns should be denied and measurements
(allocation of marks) should be made with logical precision.
The experiment is called the bridge experiment because it connects three

seemingly disjunct topics: entropy, creativity and learning. The
traditional manner of scientific reporting is to refrain completely from
referring to the experimenter so as to ensure objectivity, free from the
experimenter's interests and capable of settling factual disputes.
However, the very nature of the bridge experiment calls for an exception
to this rule. Note that all references to the author concern specifically
the dynamics and mechanics of a paradigmatic emergence.
44
45
Chapter 3
THE ADJUNCTED BRIDGE
Self-organisation on the bridge experiment

In this chapter, certain discoveries will be reported. They will have a
direct bearing on uncovering the essentialities of creativity. Whereas
creativity concerns people of all walks of life, these discoveries require
a knowledge of both chemistry and mathematics as specialist subjects
which relatively few people have. The purpose of this section is to assist
the reader in navigating these discoveries.
In the previous chapter we examined the results of the bridge

experiment. This extraordinary experiment showed that not only do
learning minds migrate along a path of reality, but that these minds can
also be resolved into distinct groups, depictable by a spectrum. This
resolution happens within 5% deviation as in physical chromatography.
Only irreversible thermodynamics is able to provide a sound theoretical
framework for chromatography.
Normal education will probably buy the concept of 'migration along a

path of reality'. It concurs with the idea of personal advancement
through knowledge. People certainly migrate along the ladder of
success. Normal education will probably also buy the concept of
'experimental resolution into distinct groups'. It concurs with the idea of
differentiation in didactics. People certainly migrate into definite social
groups.
Our problem begins when trying to fit the results of the bridge
experiment into a theoretical framework. We require that such a
framework should be justified empirically. We also require that it
should accommodate and predict the results of the bridge experiment as
well as all other sound educational results. However, normal education
46
does not yet have an empirico-theoretical framework which can

accommodate and predict the results of the bridge experiment.
The problem becomes worse if we remember that the results of the

bridge experiment were obtained by endeavouring for more creativity in
chemistry through learning. This means that whatever framework
education offers for the bridge experiment, it should also accommodate
and predict human creativity and learning.
Psychology, like education, cannot furnish a empirico-theoretical

framework to accommodate and predict the results of the bridge
experiment either. Mario Bunge (1980, p23), while reviewing the main
views and approaches to the mind-brain problem, writes that we are in
dire need of "extremely general theories (not just stray hypotheses or
programs)" to fit the growing amount of undigested data. Although he
believes that emergentist materialism will provide the clue, he writes
(pp63-64) "if we wish to understand mind we had better study animals
rather than machines" thereby fixing his paradigm. In this book we will
learn that we have to study not only machines and animals, but also all
other creations.
The problem becomes very hard if we remember that the three moncat
patterns (being-becoming, monadicty, categoricity) played an essential
role in the bridge experiment. If any one of these patterns had been
impaired, the bridge experiment would have failed. In other words, the
framework should also clearly delineate the role to be played by the
moncat patterns.
We may pinpoint the hardness of the problem as follows. Let us

formulate the problem again:
to provide one empirico-theoretical framework which will
accommodate and predict the results of the bridge experiment
as well as related topics such as entropy, creativity, learning and
the moncat patterns.
The problem itself exhibits the three moncat patterns! This can be seen
as follows. To accommodate and predict is to accept being and
becoming. To distinguish between the bridge results, entropy, creativity,
learning, etc, is to accept categoricity. To endeavour for one framework
is to accept monadicity.
47
Furthermore, the moncat patterns induce a complexity into the problem

which causes a feeling of hopelessness within us. The complexity
intimidates us! Can we exclude anything when monadicity is at stake?
Can we be satisfied with a mediocre understanding of something when
categoricity is at stake? Can we accept the fact (being) of the
discoveries without having their derivation (becoming)?
One way to solve the problem is to destroy the problem. This curious
possibility has to be seriously considered because of the very nature of
the moncat patterns. No problem - no solution! The problem can easily
be destroyed by denying any of the moncat patterns since they are
essential to creating the problem and its solution. We will learn later in
the book that they are essential to all creation.
Another way to solve the problem is to accept the mechanics of the

moncat patterns, but to slow down the dynamics of creating the solution.
In other words, not to practise what has been preached. By retarding the
solution enough it eventually becomes the task of a later generation to
solve the problem. We will learn later in the book how important it is
to distinguish between the mechanics and dynamics of creativity, each
having their own role to play.
The last way to solve the problem is to accept the problem in all its
horrendous complexity and work towards the solution as productively
as possible. To accomplish this, we need immense controllable power
like that of a nuclear, electricity generator rather than a nuclear bomb!
We will learn later in the book that such power stems from the qualities
of the highest self-organised order such as love, truth and compassion.
Thus, respecting truth, we have to accept the empirical results of the
bridge experiment and their logical implications. They are:
* The Second Law is also valid for the abstract world of
the mind.
* The material and abstract worlds are intimately related
as one real world.
* The Second Law is the bridge by which to unite the
material and abstract worlds.
Quite a number of eminent scientists were intrigued by the Second Law

such as Boltzmann, Gibbs, Eddington and Prigogine. Prigogine (1980)
48
has written a remarkable book on irreversible self-organisation, namely

'From Being to Becoming'. He divides the book into three parts. The
first part is called 'The Physics of Being' and the second part is called
'The Physics of Becoming". In the third part 'The Bridge from Being to
Becoming' he unveils what he envisages in the Introduction: the
constructive role to be played by the Second Law in uniting the
inanimate and biological realms of the material world. Likewise the
message of this book is clear:
We cannot unite the material and abstract worlds
without the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The
Second Law is the bridge between these two worlds.
This is the first message which Chapter 2 brings to us.
Chapter 2 also has another message which is less important only to the
first message. This message is that the moncat patterns are essential to
creating, learning and the role to be played by the Second Law. If we
wish to understand more about these moncat patterns, it is necessary to
concentrate on the bridging of the two worlds. Do we realise the
difficulties which we will experience in our enquiries? A bridge needs
two fulcrums to rest on. Likewise we will have to work with two topics,
one from the abstract world and one from the material world. Assume,
for example, that these two topics are mathematics (abstract) and
chemistry (material). Are we ready to delve into mathematics and
chemistry whatever it takes?
Unfortunately, many readers will be intimidated by the specialist nature

of the two fulcrums. Hence they will skip the rest of this chapter, or
criticise it fragmentarily and demarcatorily or try to assimilate it in blind
faith. This will lead to little success.
Fortunately, intimidation may be overcome by acquiring qualities of a

higher order than those which intimidate. These qualities can only
emerge from within and cannot be assimilated. Later on in this book we
will learn that emergence is central to revolutionary creativity. This
chapter can merely be a guide to understanding the moncat patterns.
Finding the two topics to bridge

49
It is clear that the secondary bridge should be between the material and
the abstract worlds. It is also clear that it should accommodate at least
the three moncat patterns as some kind of essentiality. But it is not clear
at all what else this bridge should entail. It is not even clear that it
should employ two topics or subjects (one from each world). Thus we
have to look again what gave rise to the bridge experiment:
the desire to teach, to learn and to use chemistry creatively.
While exploring many avenues which led to dead ends, it slowly dawned
on the author that two exemplars of superior creativity had to be bridged.
The one exemplar had to concern the material world and the other one
the abstract world. Hundreds of thousands of workers had to participate
in the being and becoming of each exemplar. They had to be very sure
of the patterns in the exemplar which they were studying. The bridging
had to be accomplished by finding patterns common to both exemplars,
i.e. corresponding patterns. These patterns might then shed light on the
three moncat patterns since all the other avenues had lead to dead ends.
Chemistry was selected as the prime exemplar from the material world
and mathematics as the prime exemplar from the abstract world. (See,
for example, Penrose 1989, ch 9 on the relationship between
mathematics and reality.) Then the arduous task of finding
corresponding patterns began. It was like trying to find something in
almost complete darkness.
Eventually seven corresponding patterns were found. The biggest

surprise was that the first three patterns discovered were nothing else
than the moncat patterns in a particular context, chemical and
mathematical! Were the author to have looked for these patterns 15
years earlier, he would not have found them. They depended on
discoveries to be made after 1970 at the frontiers of both chemistry and
mathematics. Noticeable were the discoveries in chemistry of
dissipative quantum mechanics with operators such as the Liouville
operator and the discovery in mathematics of category theory with
categories such as the topos. The novelty of these discoveries will be
partially responsible for difficulties in comprehending the rest of this
chapter.
Let us now work through these discoveries. It will be done on an

50
intermediate level. They are also available on an advanced level in

terms of four papers ready for publication.
Most readers will experience the next two sections as a black hole. They
may even come under the impression that the rest of the book will
similarly be a closed subject and thus be tempted to put the book away.
It will be a pity if that happens. The next two sections are included for
historical reasons. The discoveries reported in them, especially the
seven corresponding patterns, paved the way for the author to recognise
the seven essentialities of creativity in a formal and objective manner.
It is not necessary for the reader to follow exactly the same route. The
reader may discover the seven essentialities by following another path.
For example, another way to discover them, is to realise that they are
essential to the form of the equation describing the production of
entropy. If the reader discovers another way, then the contents of the
next two sections may be treated merely as an application of the seven
essentialities. In that case the reader may skip the next two sections if
they are not interesting enough.
Mathematical categories
and chemical systems
Mathematics has a rich history of foundational studies, i.e. providing
mathematics with a consistent theoretical framework. At first it was
widely believed that logic was the foundation of mathematics. When
mathematicians began to formalise this belief, Brouwer took noticeable
exception. He believed that the foundation was related to intuition and
construction. Eventually G"odel came, proving that if logic is the
foundation of mathematics, then the arithmetic of whole numbers
implies that logic contains some theorems which cannot be proved by
using that logic. For some mathematicians this was the death blow to
logic as the foundation. This paved the way for set theory to become
possibly a better foundation for mathematics. Meanwhile the
intuitionists contributed much to topology and a complementary under-
standing of logic, algebra and functions. Gradually it became clear that
in order to keep the whole complexity of mathematics in one framework,
51
both the notions set and function were essential. (An essential notion
may also be thought of as a primitive concept). Mathematical Category
Theory (MCT) was thus created to study mathematics from this
viewpoint, having set and function as its primitive concepts (see
Goldblatt, 1979).
0 Properties of mathematical categories

Many notations exist for the notion function. The one which will be
used in this book is as follows. Assume that element b may be
calculated from element a by the formula b = 3a2 + 4a + 5. In order to
refer to all possible particular formulae by one single formula, the
notation b = f(a) will be used. This literal notation may often be
supplemented by anyone of the two diagrams.
The diagram tries to capture the idea that the function f transforms an
input a into an output b. The sets a and b may be thought of as beings
while the function f may be thought of as a becoming. The set a is called
'dom f' (domain of f) while b is called 'cod f' (codomain of f). These sets
may coincide. In MCT they are known as objects while the function f
is known as an arrow.
To understand MCT, it is important to consider objects and arrows as

the primitives to work with. They are thus basic parts without having
any parts (internal structure) themselves. When they are used to create
any conceivable pattern, one basic pattern has to be used consistently:
an object can link only to arrows and an arrow can link only to objects.
This basic pattern is called commutability. The previous diagram also
symbolises this basic pattern. Let us study the commuting of objects and
arrows more closely
Think of a composite pattern where a is the initial input and c the final
output while b acts as output and input. The basic pattern is the reason
why the next diagram (i) is not allowed. The two objects b and c cannot
commute without the intervention of an arrow. In diagram (ii) this
happens by means of the arrow g. First arrow f acts on object a to
produce b and then g acts on b to produce c. It is said that arrows f and
52
g (note the order) form the composite arrow g o f .
Think of objects and arrows as a sub pattern. Apart from one sub pattern
and one basic pattern, two super patterns are also required by MCT.
They are usually referred to as the identity law and the associative law.
They are depicted respectively by the next two diagrams (i) and (ii). In
diagram (i) for the identity super pattern the arrow on the object b in the
middle is called the identity arrow
1b: b --6 b of object b.
These two laws, for example, are necessary to make expressions such as
the following valid:
2 + 0 = 2 and 2 + (3 + 4) = (2 + 3) + 4
We now have to note for the purposes of this book that the objects and
arrows as sub pattern and the identity and associative laws as super
patterns are all essential to MCT. The essentialness of the sub pattern
(objects and arrows) lies in using them as primitives or notions. No
creation happens in a void. The essentialness of the two super patterns
(identity and associativity) lies in using them as axiomatic laws. Thus
one may refer to these three patterns (one sub and two super) as the three
essentialities of MCT.
It is now easy to accept the following as the definition of any category

C:
(i) It must have the sub pattern consisting of objects ~ and arrows
6
53
(ii) It must have the basic pattern of commutability symbolised as

~6~
(iii) It must have the two super patterns of identity and associativity
symbolised as
~: = ~ and (~6~)6~ = ~6(~6~)
The : is the identity arrow of ~. It symbolises that it leaves the object
~ just to come back to the object ~.
Any category C with (i), (ii) and (iii) behaves like a background against
which all conceivable patterns can happen. Any other pattern is
allowed, unless it destroys this background, i.e. the category.
Mathematics is superiorly rich in such additional patterns. They lead to
categories such as
category objects arrows
SET all sets all functions
TOP all topological spaces all continuous functions
VEC vector spaces linear transformations
GRP groups homomorphisms
Since almost all of mathematics has this background, MCT is now
becoming a serious contender for providing mathematics with a
theoretical framework.
MCT may change mathematics from a prescriptive science to a

descriptive science. The patterns which will actually happen in a
category then depend only on the creativity of the categorist! The
former revolutionary insistence of Brouwer on the role of intuition and
construction is slowly becoming the norm. Hence it is vitally important
to be able to create superbly. Thus we need to know more about
creativity in general.
1 Objects and arrows

Enough of mathematics. What about chemistry? Chemistry is central
to the natural sciences and technologies. Chemists endeavour to base
chemistry on the fundamental laws of physics. Chemists also have to
provide a basis for understanding what happens chemically in the
biological world. Furthermore chemists have to provide a service to the
technological and industrial worlds. If that is not enough, chemists have
their own agenda which is to clarify the relationship between chemical
54
structure and reactivity. No wonder that students experience chemistry

as extremely difficult. These students have to handle the complexity of
chemistry while they get little guidance on how to handle complexity
itself.
Because of its complexity, it is often forgotten what is central to

chemistry. The heart of chemistry is the chemical reaction. Chemical
reactions may be symbolised by the general stoichiometrical equation
aA + bB + ... = dD + eE + ...
The symbol A symbolises the formula of a definite chemical substance
while the symbol a symbolises the stoichiometrical coefficient of A. The
stoichiometrical coefficient is a relative (intensified) collection. (We
will use the term collection rather than 'amount of substance'. It is that
quantity which is measured in mole.) The substances A, B, ... are called
the reactants and the substances D, E, ... are called the products. The
equation is initially a macroscopical description, but it may also be used
for microscopical descriptions.
Even with what has now been said, much confusion arises among people
about what A actually means, whatever its details. (For example, the
details of A may be H2SO4 which is the formula for sulphuric acid). To
think of the reactant A in the chemical reaction as the substance A
which occurs in the reaction vessel at any instant of time is wrong. We
have to think of reactant A in the chemical reaction as that subset of
substance A which is actually becoming transformed into products.
Thus the reaction is often symbolised as
aA + bB + ... 6 dD + eE + ...
by replacing the = with the 6. When we wish to think of the substance
A which occurs (does not react) at any specific time in the reaction
vessel, many people try to use the expression
aA + bB + ... W dD + eE + ...
This is also wrong. The symbol A in this equation refers to the
substance at the equilibrium state when it disappears and appears equally
fast according to the reactions
aA + bB + ... 6 dD + eE + ...
and
dD + eE + ... 6 aA + bB + ...
To give the two arrows different lengths to escape from the equilibrium
state will not rectify matters. The symbol A still refers to that
55
subcollection of the substance which is actually becoming transformed.
Consequently, using the MCT ideas expressed previously, we should not

think of the substance A in the reaction as the isolated sub pattern ~, but
as part of the basic pattern ~6~. In other words, we should think of
substance A and how it commutes. Since A commutes both as reactant
(forward reaction) and product (backward reaction), we have to think of
A as ~]~ rather than as ~6~. We will call ] the production arrow
of the chemical reaction.
The chemical reaction thus exhibits the sub pattern (object and arrow)
and the basic pattern (objects and arrows commute) of mathematical
category theory. But what about the two super patterns identity and
associativity?
Consider how the transformation ] of a substance happens. Every

molecular unit (molecule or ion) of substance A is almost continuously
colliding with other molecular units of the reactants A, B,... As soon as
the products D, E, ... are formed, their molecular units also participate
in these collisions. In most of these collisions, a molecular unit of A will
maintain its identity and hence will not disappear. But if it makes a
productive (chemists say effective) collision with a molecular unit of B,
both of them will disappear so that the corresponding molecular units of
products D, E, ... appear. Thus the production arrow ] refers to the
productive collisions.
The productive collision is selective. This means that it will only

happen when the colliding units have high enough kinetic energy while
they connect with each other with the correct spatial orientation. The
prospect of having to surpass a lower limit will figure in the book again
where revolutionary creativity and emergence will be discussed.
The productive collision is also dissipative. This entails that the

molecular structures of the reagents and the products differ and thus
their potential (structural) energies differ. The principle of energy
conservation requires that this difference in potential (being) energy has
to be compensated for, since energy cannot be created or destroyed.
This compensation happens in terms of kinetic (becoming) energy.
Hence changes occur in the kinetic energies of the products compared
56
to those of the reactants. This change in microscopical kinetic energy

is macroscopically observable as the irreversible flow of heat from or to
the reaction vessel. Consequently, for example, an exothermic reaction
will become endothermic if it has to happen in the reverse direction.
This flow of heat is studied extensively in thermodynamics.
The direction in which the reaction will irreversibly proceed is

determined by the collections (numbers) of each molecular unit.
Chemists determine this direction in terms of the so called reaction
quotient Q and equilibrium constant K for the reaction. The constant K
is the value of Q at equilibrium conditions. The quotient Q is a function
which has the form
Q = f (nDd x nEe x ... / nAa x nBb x ....)
where each n is the collection (number, amount of substance) not
becoming, but merely being. Now, for example, if Q < K, then reagents
will transform faster into products than vice versa. All these myriads of
molecular units know of each others existence through the exchange of
virtual photons. The equilibrium state is thus the attractor for the
chemical reaction.
2 Identity
What is meant by saying that Q depends on being and not the becoming
collections of the substances? To answer this question, we have to think
about those collisions which are not productive (not effective). (In MCT
language, what other arrow is operating apart from the production arrow
]?) These non-productive collisions are all elastic. They are in the
majority. They are responsible for properties such as temperature and
pressure in terms of the immense number of particles participating.
Many studies in physics have been undertaken to explain these
properties in terms of the basic mechanical (Newton's) laws of physics.
A new branch of physics resulted from these studies, namely statistical
mechanics. In these studies one equation becomes very important,
namely the Hamiltonian equation. It is the complex version of the
principle of energy conservation.
Although the basic mechanical laws and statistics were successful to

explain the properties stemming from the action between molecular
units, they were of little use to explain the inner properties of these
57
units. This led to the discovery of quantum mechanics and its many
successes. Again the principle of energy conservation is central to
quantum mechanics, but now in a new version as the Hamiltonian
operator H. The operator H acts on the so-called eigenfunction of the
system to produce the eigenvalue (fixed energy value) of that system as
it exists at that time. It identifies a particular state (structure and energy)
of the system from many possible states and thus preserves the identity
of the system.
The preceding description (conservation of the identity of the substances

in the reaction vessel) may be formulated in object-arrow diagrams.
They are:
A: B: ..... D: E: .....
and will be called protection diagrams. Their literal equivalent is
nothing else but:
A + B + ... + C + D +... = A + B + ... + C + D +...
This equation describes the chemical 'reaction' devoid of any chemical
change! Chemists would say that all the substances in it are passengers.
Thus this equation is of no interest to the chemist. However, this is the
very equation which we have to use if we wish to think of the substances
in the reaction vessel as non-reacting entities. Immediately one is struck
by the fact that although each diagram is commuting on its own, there is
no commuting between the different diagrams and thus no chemistry.
In other words, since physicists use a theoretical framework by which
they can study conservative (protective) phenomena, they cannot study
productive (dissipative) phenomena such as chemical reactions with the
same framework.
It should now be clear that the chemical reaction also exhibits, but in a
tacit manner, the super pattern identity of mathematical category theory.
But what about the super pattern of associativity?
3 Associativity
Let us write the object-arrow diagram for the chemical equation.
Although unfamiliar at first, it is:
-aA ] -bB ] ... ] +dD ] +eE ] ...
and will be called a production diagram. This diagram is associative on
a macroscopical level as witnessed to by millions of stoichiometrical
58
calculations. Many global industries depend on this macroscopical

associativity.
But what about associativity at the microscopical level? Consider the

reaction
aA + bB + cC = .....
and its two associative possibilities
(aA + bB) + cC = .....
and
aA + (bB + cC) = .....
At first one is inclined to say that it is not associative because in many
multistep reactions there is a definite order in which the reactants have
to react. This apparent lack of associativity stems from the fact that we
have to mix all the reactants before they can react. However, once a
substance is in such a mixture, we are unable to control at a
macroscopical level its reactivity. This is due to a lack of connected-
ness on the microscopical level! But if we consider one complex
molecule with two reaction sites X and Y on it which are sufficiently
separated so that they do not form one complex reaction site, then the
reaction
A + XBY + C = X + ABC + Y
is indeed associative. Hence
(A + XBY) + C = .....
and
A + (XBY + C) = .....
will lead to the same products.
It is clear that the chemical equation also exhibits the super pattern
associativity of mathematical category theory. Together with the
previous findings we may conclude that mathematical and chemical
systems have at least three corresponding patterns: object/arrow, identity
and associativity. Just as these patterns are essential to mathematical
creativity, they are also essential to chemical creativity.
However, from the chemical point of view we have learnt something

more about these patterns. Each pattern has a context (richness)
depending on the various levels of descriptions we employ such as
stoichiometrical, thermodynamical or quantum mechanical. The context
of these patterns can be summarised as follows:
59
pattern context
object/arrow being/becoming
identity categoricity
associativity monadicity
Since these patterns are essential to mathematical creativity in the
abstract world and chemical creativity in the material world, one would
suspect them to be essential to creativity in whichever science is
involved with mathematics or chemistry. By bridging these patterns to
any such a science, understanding of these patterns will be further
enriched.
Further chemistry of logical thoughts

It was mentioned in Chapter 2, p 18, that the moncat patterns somehow
appeared to be part of an emerging order and that this new order had two
strange flavours to it: logical and existential. We now know that this
existential flavour refers to the essentiality of the moncat patterns to
chemical and mathematical creativity. But where does the logical
flavour fit in?
Logic is often thought of as the study of the laws of 'rational thought'.

Mathematicians contributed much to the study of logic, first from the
symbolic viewpoint and later from set theory, Boolean algebra and
model theory. Hence an enquiry into logic from the viewpoint of
Mathematical Category Theory (MCT) was to be expected. This
eventually happened and the result is known as the logic of elementary
topoi, or toposlogic for short.
The elementary topos E has to satisfy the definition of a category.

Against this background additional patterns then have to be created in
order to capture all those patterns essential to rational thought. The
word 'elementary' refers to the fact that the primary objects and arrows
to be considered, have to be primitive (simple), i.e. without any inner
detail.
Four additional patterns are essential to the elementary topos E. This

means that the elementary topos E is a category such that
60
3+1 E is finitely complete

3+2 E is finitely co-complete
3+3 E has exponentiation
3+4 E has a subobject-classifier.
We will now study these patterns in succession.
4 E is finitely complete
This complex pattern can be created in terms of a number of less
complex diagrams. We will take the shortest route. First we have to
create what is known as a cone fi: c 6 di of all diagrams g: di 6 dj in
the category. It is the commuting diagram:
The counting subscripts i and j stress that diagram g: di 6 dj is finite in

having a countable number of objects d and arrows g. The object c is
said to be initial. A common non-mathematical interpretation of the
cone would be the emergence of a rich higher order from a simple lower
order. It is related to the fact that in classical logic, many truth functions
may be defined (f) which are then related (g) to each other through a
lower bound.
Next we have to create the limit for diagram g: di 6 dj (or its limiting
cone). Again it is a cone fi: c 6 di , but with the additional requirement
that it should commute uniquely with any other cone f'i: c' 6 di through
the arrow f: c' 6 c . The commuting diagram for this construction is:
A common non-mathematical interpretation of the limit would be

different but reconcilable renderings based on the same thing. It is
related to the fact that in classical logic any one of many consistent
logical systems may be used to prove a particular theorem.
61
Let us now follow these ideas in chemistry. Every chemical reaction

may be represented by a production diagram. The general diagram is:
-aA ] -bB ] ... ] +dDC ] +eE ] ...
which is in its intensive (relative) form. Its extensive form is
-)nA ] -)nB ] ... ] +)nD ] +)nE ] ...
where )n~ is the collection (amount of substance) of substance ~
undergoing a chemical change. These quantities )n~ may be derived
from a common collection )n as the cone xX: )n 6 x)n(of)X = )nX
where x is the stoichiometrical coefficient of the substance with formula
X. The quantity )n is called the advancement of the reaction. The rate
of advancement (the time derivative of the advancement) is central to the
study of chemical kinetics. It has a lower bound property in the sense
that in multistep reactions it is determined by that step which reacts the
slowest.
The production diagram and its cone may be depicted together as

follows.
This diagram is finite since all chemical reactions are finite, either in the
availability of the substances or the number of substances which could
react simultaneously. The question now is whether the cone is a limiting
cone. Thus we have to create any diagram such as the next one and
enquire whether it commutes, i.e. has any relevance to chemistry.
The arrow xX of the primary cone does definitely exist. It is the

stoichiometrical coefficient x of the substance and its formula X as
identifier. The arrow )n/)n* also exists. It is nothing but a unit (scale)
transformation in the physico-chemical dimension collection (amount of
62
substance). What then about the arrow x)n/)n*X? It is easy to say

that it has to exist on the grounds that xX and )n/)n* exist. But does
it have any physical interpretation? Indeed, yes.
Consider )n as the collection when measured in mole and )n* as the

collection when measured in eqv (equivalencies). Then x)n/)n*X
refers to the number of reactive electrons per molecular unit (molecule
or ion). If X is an oxidiser or reducer, it is the number of singular
electrons transferred. If X is an acid or base, it is the number of electron
pairs coordinated. Thus, the )n* as initial object induces a remarkable
property: the various substances react with equal equivalent collections.
In other words, all the stoichiometrical coefficients have the value 1.
It is interesting to note that many of the chemical concepts

(advancement, equivalency, etc) which relate to the limiting cone are
elusive themselves. Thus there is a general trend to get rid of these
concepts in chemistry. This is not possible when the reaction employs
complex substances with no definite stoichiometrical formula such as
clays, ceramics, plastics, enzymes and DNA. The elusiveness of these
concepts stems rather from their close relation to the essential patterns
of rational thoughts.
Of what is the advancement )n a collection? In simple (elementary, one

step) reactions it is nothing but the collection of the intermediate
complex. This complex is formed when either the reactants or the
products collide effectively. This complex will then give rise to either
the products or the reactants. Consequently it is truly a remarkable
initial object.
5 E is finitely co-complete
This complex pattern is created as the dual to the pattern 'finite complete'
according to the MCT concept of duality. First we have to create what
is known as a co-cone fi: di 6 c of all diagrams g: di 6 dj . It is the
commuting diagram:
63
The object c is said to be terminal. A common non-mathematical

interpretation of the co-cone would be the reduction of a rich order into
one summary. It is related to the fact that in classical logic, complex
truth functions are evaluated in terms of the one truth value TRUE as an
upper bound.
Next we create the co-limit (limiting co-cone) for diagram g: di 6 dj.

Again it is a cone fi: di 6 c , but with the additional requirement that it
should commute uniquely with any other cone fi: di 6 i through the
arrow f: c' 6 c . The commuting diagram of this construction is:
A common non-mathematical interpretation of the co-limit would be

different but reconcilable summaries. It is related to the fact that in
classical logic any one of many consistent logical systems may be used
to prove theorems.
Let us now follow these ideas in chemistry. We have noticed in the

previous section that for every chemical reaction taking place in a vessel,
we may set up two diagrams, namely the protection diagram
A: B: ..... D: E: .....
and the production diagram
-aA ] -bB ] ... ] +dD ] +eE ] ...
The production diagram says that the collection nX of each substance X
has been changed by an amount )nX = x)n where x is the
stoichiometrical coefficient of X and )n the advancement. Thus the
collection nX of substance X is a function of the advancement )n.
Furthermore, any such collection nX will end up in its terminal value nX,eq
at equilibrium. These many terminal values may be represented by one
terminal object as follows.
64
We will recall that the reaction quotient Q is given by

Q = f (nDd x nEe x ... / nAa x nBb x ....) = f(Qn)
which ends up in the terminal value K given by
K = f (nD,eqd x nE,eqe x ... / nA,eqa x nB,eqb x ....) = f(Kn)
The function f contains other details such as activity coefficients which
do not concern us here. We would prefer to work with the collection
quotient
Qn = nDd x nEe x ... / nAa x nBb x ... = Qn()n)
and its terminal value
Kn = nD,eqd x nE,eqe x ... / nA,eqa x nB,eqb x ... = Kn()neq)
We will now define the forward and reverse action functions as
f6()n) = Kn x nAa x nBb x ...
and
f7()n) = nDd x nEe x ...
At the equilibrium state their values will join as
f6()neq) = f7()neq) = feq
This means that the action functions map the many final collections nX,eq
onto one terminal object feq. The next rather complex diagram (figure
3.1) clearly depicts this co-cone.
To show that the terminal object is indeed a limiting object is relatively

easy. It depends on the relationship between the Gibbs free energy )G
and the equilibrium constant K. Assume the equilibrium state is
changed with a value )n' in the advancement to 'another' equilibrium
state with the equilibrium constant K'. Then )G changes to )G' given
by
)G' = )n'()Go + RTlnK')
65
However, being 'another' equilibrium state means )G' = 0. Since

)Go = -RTlnK
we may expect in general to have
)Go + RTlnK' =/ 0
Thus )n' = 0 which demonstrates the uniqueness of the equilibrium
state.
Consider figure 3.1 where the two action functions f6()n) and f7()n)
are depicted on the same graph in terms of the advancement )n. Both
f6 and f7 are bounded (limited) by )n from their virtual (imaginary)
values (see dotted graphs). As a result of mixing, the initial values of the
action functions are f6(0) and f7(0). The advancement )n grows up to
its equilibrium value )neq as its limit. The equilibrium EQ acts as an
attractor for both f6 and f7. EQ pulls the chemical system from its
particular initial conditions through all allowable quantitative values up
to equilibrium as the limit. The thickened sections of the action
functions illustrate this pulling or attraction. The limiting co-cone is
clearly visible. It appears as if the two action functions are competing
with each other until their differences are settled at the equilibrium state.
This competition between two monotonic increasing functions will be
encountered again in our study of evolutionary creativity.
66
Figure 3.1: Graph of the action functions f~ (f6 and f7) against
the advancement )n of the reaction.
6 E has exponentiation
Exponentiation in MCT simply calls for all possible functions from set
A (domain) to set B (co-domain). These functions are collectively
described by the set
BA = {f | f is a function from dom A to cod B}
The object BA is said to be exponentiated. A common non-mathematical
interpretation of exponentiation would be to allow for all possible
combinations of qualities. It is related to the fact that classical logic may
be described by means of truth functions and that 16 binary truth
functions have to be accounted for.
The simplest non-degenerate exponentiation is 21, i.e the set of function

from dom A having one member and cod B having two members. Let
us use this simplest case to enquire what exponentiation in chemistry
amounts to. We have to consider a chemical reaction which has three
67
reactants such as
s1FeSO4 + s2KMnO4 + s3H2SO4 =
s4Fe2(SO4)3 + s5MnSO4 + s6K2SO4 + s7H2O
where KMnO4 will act as dom A (the independent titrate) and FeSO4 as
well as H2SO4 will act as cod B (the dependent analyte). This is a
typical situation in quantitative analyses.
Balancing the equation amounts to solving a system of linear equations

(six of them, one for each element) for the seven stoichiometrical
coefficients s1 to s7. However, allowing exponentiation in the reaction
amounts to allowing two other stoichiometrical (linear) relationships,
namely
s1 = xs2
and s3 = ys2
These eight linear equations will have a non-trivial solution if
-x + 2y - 3 = 0
and -2x + 3y - 2 = 0
Thus the original reaction equation becomes
5s2FeSO4 + s2KMnO4 + 4s2H2SO4 =
s4Fe2(SO4)3 + s5MnSO4 + s6K2SO4 + s7H2O
Now what do these mysterious numbers 5 and 4 mean, other than that
they allow for exponentiation in the reaction? Note that we have not yet
invoked any chemical theory such as oxidation/reduction, acid/base, etc!
The Mn in KMnO4 as oxidiser requires 5 singular electrons to change

from oxidation number +VII to +II while Fe in FeSO4 can deliver only
one electron while changing from +II to +III. This necessitates the ratio
5:1. Each of the four O in KMnO4 as base makes two electron pairs
available for coordination while each H in H2SO4 requires one pair. This
necessitates the ratio 1:4. Consequently, exponentiation in chemistry is
to have different reaction mechanisms (oxidation-reduction and acid-
base) between different reactants. This exponentiation is thus primarily
responsible vor the immense variety among chemical compounds.
7 E has a subobject-classifier
A monic arrow is a 'one-one' arrow, i.e. no two distinct inputs give the
same output. This means a monic arrow gives a preserved translation of
68
its dom (domain) into its cod (codomain). Thus, if i: s 6 r is a monic

arrow with cod r, then we define i as a subobject of r. Obviously, r may
have members which are not linked through f to s. Thus members of r
may be classified into those {1} which are linked to s and those {0} not
linked to s. This is done by letting the characteristic function ii map the
members of r on the members of S = {0, 1}. Now, if {0} = 1 is a
terminal object for the category by means of the co-limit !: s 6 1 , we
have the following diagram:
Were it not for the broken line, a closed commuting square would result.
Hence the arrow y : {0} 6 {0, 1} is created to fill in this broken line.
This then makes the diagram a commuting square with many interesting
properties such as pullbacks. Thus the square is often referred to as a
pullback square. Arrow y and object S together are called a subobject
classifier. A common non-mathematical interpretation of a subobject
classifier would be the paradigm (gestalt, simple world view) by which
a person evaluates everything. It is related to the fact that mathematics
is not logic, but needs to be evaluated by logic.
The main concern in chemistry is to elucidate the relationship between

structure and reactivity. The first step in determining structure is to
determine the chemical formula. Before the advent of modern, computer
driven spectroscopic instruments, the formula had to be determined by
means of stoichiometrical reactions and their equilibrium states, the
result being known as quantitative analyses.
Unfortunately, the following myth arose. If each participant in a

reaction had a well determined formula, then the reaction was
stoichiometrical. This myth is simply not true. The following simple
unbalanced equation is not stoichiometrical:
~H2S + ~NaOH = ~NaHs + ~Na2S + ~H2O
This is true of all reactions in which the reactants exhibit bifurcations
into two or more possible sets of products. Furthermore, the coefficients
69
~ by which it is balanced, are not simple natural numbers, but real

numbers depending nonlinearly on the initial collections of the reactants
and the equilibrium constants of the two stoichiometrical equations
~H2S + ~NaOH = ~NaHs + ~H2O
~H2S + ~NaOH = ~Na2S + ~H2O
We simply have to accept that there are many chemical reactions which
are not stoichiometrical. In other words, the stoichiometrical reactions
s are merely a subset of all chemical reactions r. Thus we have
established the monic inclusion arrow i: s 6 r chemically
We have also noticed in section 2 on the co-limit that the coefficients ~

are related to the equilibrium state as terminal object through the action
functions f6 and f7. Thus the co-limit !: s 6 1 has been established
chemically.
How would we characterise the stoichiometrical reactions? For most

people it would merely be that their balancing coefficients form a system
of linear equations with a nontrivial solution. However, it is just as
important to also require that these balancing coefficients should not
depend on the initial conditions. Thus the arrow if has been established
chemically.
We still have to establish the subobject classifier y: 1 6 S chemically.

The two members of the S object are the initial object 0 of the reaction,
namely the intermediate complex, and the terminal object 1, namely the
equilibrium state. The arrow y may be described on many chemical
levels. On the level of collection it is the production arrow ] by which
the reactants bifurcate into the products by means of the intermediate
complex. It happens either stoichiometrically or non-stoichiometrically.
Whatever the case, it happens dissipatively through the action of the
entropy operator M. M describes y on the level of quantum mechanics.
The entropy produced has to be manifested firstly as chaos of becoming
(arrow, function, action) before it can be manifested secondly as order
of being (object structure)
By now it should be clear that the subobject classifier of chemistry has

much to do with comprehending the world of chemistry. It is a world of
structures growing into new structures, not of fixed structures which
occasionally have to be related. When viewed as such, there is no
70
difference between a chemical reaction and a living biological specimen.

The chemical reaction is merely a simplified version of immensely
complex biological specimens. However, once we study chemical
reactions in a closed manner, we are destined to become ignorant of this
fact.
What about subjects other than toposlogic

and chemistry?
We have now established seven corresponding patterns between the
toposlogical and chemical systems. We may even infer that chemistry
exhibits toposlogic or that toposlogic exhibits chemistry. However,
many chemists and mathematicians would object to this inference. Their
objection may be based on fragmentarism and demarcationism which are
detrimental to creativity and learning. However, if they object because
of their gut feeling (intuitive notion) that the chemical and mathematical
descriptions of these corresponding patterns differ enough so that both
are needed to understand these patterns better, then it corresponds to the
position held in this book. This is what is actually meant by the phrase
'equivalent up to an isomorphism' which is encountered so often in
Mathematical Category Theory. There is no such a thing as absolute
equality. When two things have to be compared, it should be
remembered that each resides in its own context which gives meaning
to it. By fragmenting and demarcating them from their contexts in order
to set up an equality, they are actually exterminated.
These seven corresponding patterns will eventually help to identify the

seven essentialities of creativity. Obviously, scientists other than
chemists and mathematicians may become interested in these seven
essentialities of creativity and not so much in the seven corresponding
patterns between chemistry and mathematics. That which applies to
chemists and mathematicians will also apply to them. They will have to
create their own interpretations (translations) of these seven
corresponding patterns relative to their own context. Although they will
have to preserve the seven isomorphisms (adjunctions), they will also
have to use words from their own worlds to describe them.
71
There is already abundant evidence of people trying to establish such

essentialities for creativity. Obviously, they did not formally call their
patterns the essentialities of creativity, nor can we do so without their
consent.
What about these seven corresponding patterns and the bridge

experiment? It has been noted before that the author was extremely
aware of the three moncat patterns (being/becoming, categoricity and
monadicity) to promote creativity. Furthermore, much of this awareness
was metacognitive, i.e. tacit, intuitive and informal. However, the
author was not even tacitly aware of the other four patterns (limit, co-
limit, exponentiation and subobject classifier). This does not mean that
the author was ignorant about limits and intermediate complexes, upper
bounds and equilibrium states, cartesian products and reaction
mechanisms as well as logical consistency and nonlinear chemistry.
However, the author was ignorant about their relationship to creativity
and learning. For example, the toposlogical concept 'limit', the chemical
concept 'intermediate complex' and the didactical concept 'fruchtbare
moment' (see Copei, 1963) are all the same pattern. They only differ in
terms of their contextual settings!
Why was there no awareness of the other four patterns? This is a very
difficult question to answer. The author believes it had to do with two
paradigm shifts which still had to happen. The one was that this
universe does not consist of two separate worlds (physical and spiritual),
but that the material and abstract worlds are indissoluble parts of one
universe. This paradigm shift happened during the bridge experiment.
The other paradigm shift is that science does not need to begin with the
fundamental level of description. Scientists insist on having a
foundation (toposlogical limiting cone) for their theoretical activities.
They believe that these fundamentals will make their theories about the
material world a unique conquering truth. On many occasions this
reason triumphed. However, truth exists on all levels of reality, material
and abstract. That which appears to be simple and economical truths on
a lower level of description, become quite complex on a higher level.
Furthermore, some simple fundamentals (facts) emerge on the higher
levels of which their elementals (genes) in the lower levels are almost
72
unpercievable, except with hindsight. To develop these 'genes' of a lower

level into the clear elementals of a higher level, requires so much time
and entropy production that little else can be accomplished. Even
human beings are limited creatures.
The above explanation does not mean we should deny the initial object
(foundation) for our theoretical endeavours. We should indeed insist on
foundational studies. However, we should be extremely careful of
fragmentarism (denying monadicty) and demarcationism (denying
categoricity). Thus we should also insist on a terminal object (limiting
co-cone) for our theoretical endeavours. This terminal object is often
endeavoured for in subjects like psychology and theology. No human
being can be denied the peace (equilibrium) to be found when reaching
his or her destiny.
Do we have two bridges now?

In chapter 2 we encounter the primary bridge between the physical and
abstract world. It is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In this
chapter it appears as if we encounter another bridge, namely adjunction
(corresponding patterns). Do we now have two separate bridges, or are
these two bridges closely related?
When scientists think of the Second Law, they usually do it

quantitatively. The Second Law involves the quantity S called entropy
which is measured in the unit joule/kelvin (J.K-1). A particular value of
S is for example 3.173 x 10-3J.K-1. The number 3.173 x 10-3 is called the
magnitude of the quantity with reference to its specific unit. All the
possible magnitudes of a quantity may be represented by the points on
a line. Measurement is merely finding a particular point on the line.
The only pattern among these magnitudes (points) is that of size (order).
Thus, to define an irreversible transformation (change) is merely to
formulate quantitatively that the entropy SUN of the universe UN
increases for irreversible transformations, i.e
)SUN > 0
How should we think of the Second Law in a qualitative manner? In

73
other words, how should we think of the form of entropy S rather than
its content? This relationship between form and content is very
important in many subjects. In mathematics it is responsible for the very
nature of the subject. In fact, some mathematicians view mathematics
as the free study of form based on content. Once the mathematical form
of some content has been sufficiently refined, that very form itself is
considered to be the content upon which a new form has to be
discovered.
When scientists think about the form/quality of a quantity, they think

about its relationship with other measurable quantities. In other words,
they think of the formula as a function which relates other quantities to
this quantity. They devote much energy to discovering the formula
which will correspond to actual empirical measurements. The
correspondence depends on the form of the formula. However, once the
correct form has been discovered, they devote much less time to the
form of the formula than to content itself, i.e relating it to the form of
other formulae. This latter activity is mostly confined to theoretical
studies.
[Incidently, setting up formulae/functions is a way of becoming. These

becomings are reported in many thousands of journals comprising many
millions of pages per year. To the outsider there is mostly chaos in this
becoming. For such an outsider to find order in structure between all
these formulae is a difficult and taxing task. The outsider will be
extremely lucky to find such an order in structure because it so seldom
happens in the literature by means of a singular publication. Thus there
is a striking asymmetry between the scientists' output in terms of the
quantitative contents and the qualitative form of formulae. We will learn
later in this book how this asymmetry is peculiar to the Second Law and
its ramifications. In other words, once we accept by virtue of the bridge
experiment, the Second Law as the bridge to unite the material and
abstract worlds, we may predict effects common to both worlds. One
such an effect is the asymmetry mentioned above between 'chaos of
becoming' and 'order of being'.]
Therefor, if we wish to think about the form of entropy, we have to think

of entropy as a function of other measurable quantities such as volume
and temperature. For a fixed system at equilibrium, this function is
74
better known as the state function of the system. The state function
differs from system to system. There is little relationship between the
form of these state functions and the seven corresponding patterns. Why
is there so little relationship? Because the state function is independent
of the history of how any state has been reached. The state function
represents all being and not any becoming. This is a very important
property of the state function. It has been a great help in uncovering the
thermodynamics of reversible transformations. But it has also become
a major stumbling block in uncovering the thermodynamics of
irreversible transformations.
In irreversible thermodynamics we should not think of entropy as merely

an entity [being], but also and especially as a process [becoming]. It is
almost like thinking of a substance in a chemical reaction and especially
that it commutes (transforms). We now allow two fundamentally
different ways [exponentiation] along which the entropy S of the system
may change, namely
)S = )Sr + )Si
)Sr is the entropy change which would happen along any reversible path
[co-limit] and )Si is the additional entropy created when the path
becomes irreversible [limit]. We may think of )Sr as the entropy
reversibly supplied to the system by its surroundings and )Si as the
entropy created in the system itself. )Sr may be positive, zero or
negative, but )Si can only be positive. Next we formulate the state
function S [associativity] in such a manner that the two parts of )S may
be identified. This may be done by also making S a function [subobject]
of the internal energy E which itself is a state function. We may then
derive by means of infinitesimal calculus the Gibbs-Duhem equation by
identifying )Sr with changes in other quantities of the system through
the First Law of Thermodynamics [identity]. The equation for )Si then
follows through rearrangements.
Textbooks on irreversible thermodynamics usually formulate explicitly

the various steps in deriving the equation for entropy production. This
has not been done above. We would rather have a description of the
derivation with some words added in square brackets [ ]. These words
are intended to stress how all seven the corresponding patterns are
employed in deriving the equation. The equation (De Groot and Mazur,
1962, p 24) itself is quite hideous for even simple chemical systems,
75
employing tensor algebra. However, the form of this equation is

remarkable. We may describe the form (Prigogine, 1980, p 85) by
d/dt(Si) = EXjJj > 0
All seven the corresponding patterns are to be found in this form. For
example, the forces Xj and flows Jj respectively correspond to being and
becoming while tensor algebra has to allow for exponentiation.
Consequently the seven corresponding patterns should not be considered

as a separate bridge between the material and abstract world. They
describe the form of the first bridge, namely the Second Law of
Thermodynamics which concerns the production of entropy. This
reminds us then, to think of entropy not only quantitatively, but also
qualitatively.
Another way to formulate this relationship between form and content of

the bridge is as follows. The quantitative production of entropy is a
necessary requirement for the spectrum of minds to emerge, but it is not
a sufficient condition. In other words, without a quantitative production
of entropy the spectrum would never emerge. However, a quantitative
production of entropy does not automatically ensure that a spectrum will
emerge. The production of entropy should also conform to certain
qualities. These qualities are nothing but the seven corresponding
patterns.
The sufficiency nature of the seven corresponding patterns has a very

important bearing on the humanities. Although the humanities try to
employ the hypothesis verification method of the basic natural sciences,
relatively little success is achieved. The reason for this is the immense
complexity of the subjects being studied in the humanities. Much more
success has been achieved by methods typical to the humanities such as
phenomenology. Now the logical sufficiency of the seven corresponding
patterns translates into the existential essentiality of these seven patterns.
In other words, the seven patterns are essential to the production of the
spectrum of minds.
Later in this book we will argue that the seven corresponding patterns
are essential for all creative activities. This means that they are the
seven essentialities for creativity. In other words, the quantitative
production of entropy is necessary to be creative, but not sufficient. The
76
sufficiency requirements entail the form or qualitative patterns of

entropy production. These seven patterns are the essentialities of
creativity.
Summary of chapter
The aim of this chapter is to discover once more that the material and
abstract worlds are indissoluble parts of one reality while trying to get
a better perspective on the mysterious moncat patterns (see chapter 2).
These patterns appeared to be essential to the student's creativity as well
as the bridging of the material and the abstract world. Thus it was
decided to see if there were any patterns common to two superior
exemplars of creativity, one from each world, and whether these
common patterns would shed some light on the moncat patterns. The
mathematical system (abstract world) and the chemical system (material
world) were selected as the two exemplars.
Mathematical Category Theory (MCT) shows that three patterns pervade

through all of mathematics: object-arrow, identity and associativity. The
'object-arrow' pattern of the mathematical system corresponds to the
'molecule-collide' pattern of the chemical system on the microscopical
level. The 'identity' pattern corresponds to the 'elastic collision' pattern
of the chemical system. During this pattern reversible energy changes
take place while the chemical identity of each species is conserved. The
'associativity' pattern corresponds to the 'inelastic collision' pattern of the
chemical system. During this pattern irreversible energy changes take
place while the chemical identity of each species becomes transformed.
These transformations can be described macroscopically by chemical
reaction equations.
It should be remembered that the moncat patterns presented themselves

among the learning objectives. The moncat pattern 'being-becoming' is
related to the 'object-arrow' and the 'molecule-collide' patterns. The
moncat pattern 'categoricity' is related to the 'identity' and the 'elastic
collision' patterns. The moncat pattern 'monadicity' is related to the
'associativity' and the 'inelastic collision' patterns. These trilateral
correspondences (adjunctions) warn against simplistic interpretations.
77
Because of the 'logical flavour' of the moncat patterns, it was decided to

seek further adjunctions between toposlogic (the MCT study of logic)
and chemistry. Four correspondences have been found. The finite
completeness of toposlogic is adjuncted to the formation of an
intermediate product during a chemical reaction. The finite co-
completeness of topoi is adjuncted to the formation of the equilibrium
state. The exponentiation of topoi is adjuncted to the variety of
mechanisms available in a reaction. The subobject classifier for topoi
is adjuncted to using stoichiometrical reactions to describe all chemical
changes.
It almost appears as if two separate bridges have now been constructed

between the material and the abstract worlds. In the first bridge the
Second Law of thermodynamics plays a major role, leading to
'chromatography of minds'. In the second bridge the three moncat
patterns play a major role, leading to the seven patterns of adjunction.
However, the first bridge concerns the quantitative nature (content,
dynamics) of the Second Law while the second bridge concerns the
qualitative nature (form, mechanics) of the Second Law. For example,
the seven patterns of adjunction occur in the form of the mathematical
expression for calculating the quantitative production of entropy.
The seven patterns of adjunction may be considered as a frivolous

idiosyncrasy until it is realised that they are vital to the dynamics of both
the mathematical and chemical systems. A mere deficiency in one of
them impairs mathematical reasoning and chemical innovation.
Furthermore, when viewed in the light of psychological studies on
human creativity, it becomes clear that these seven patterns are essential
to human creativity.
78
79
PART II
CROSSING THE BRIDGE

A star exploding, a thunderstorm raging, a fire burning,
a plant growing, an animal hunting, a farmer sowing, an
artist painting, a mathematician thinking and a child
learning are immensely different phenomena. They
portray the complexity of reality.
However, they also have much in common through one

simple observation. In all of them something creative
happens. They are creations - exemplars of creation.
All religions have a few peculiar things in common. One

is the belief in a Creator who created the universe. How
much creativity does the universe itself exhibit?
Schools, colleges and universities offer tuition in almost

every subject. Some subjects are offered everywhere.
Some subjects are offered hardly anywhere. Creativity
as a universal subject is one of them. We still have to
cross this bridge.
80
81
Chapter 4
THERMODYNAMICS
The primordial cause

The topic entropy is usually covered in the subject thermodynamics.
There are hundreds of textbooks and monographs available on
thermodynamics. However, almost all of them have one thing in
common. They have a specialised audience as target: either physicists,
chemists or engineers. Thus scholars in other subjects, especially from
the humanities, find it difficult to follow these texts. This chapter will
give only a synopsis of thermodynamics in such a manner that all these
texts may become more transparent to any scholar.
This synopsis will be accomplished in terms of a unique paradigm. This

paradigm allows us to make sense out of chapters 2 and 3. This
paradigm is:
ENTROPY PRODUCTION IS THE PRIMORDIAL
AND IMMANENT CAUSE OF ALL CREATION,
MATERIAL AND ABSTRACT.
The capitalisation is meant to shout the message: all creation begins this
side of the universe (immanence) by the creation of entropy.
The paradigm above has already been anticipated by Michael Faraday,

one of the giants among the natural scientists. In the last of his six
lectures on new discoveries in chemistry involving many forms of
energy (see Kuhn 1977, p 79) he noted: "We cannot say that any one [of
these powers] is the cause of the others, but only that they are connected
and due to one common cause."
We should now question what is meant by 'all creation'. Reality has only
one category, namely creation. In other words, everything which we can
detect, material or abstract, is creation. Nothing is excluded. This
82
means that our conceptualisation of creations should eventually reflect

the full complexity of reality. In other words, provision is made for the
interests of every scholar from whatever subject of study in terms of
'creation' as the common ground.
In all modesty we should now realise that our study of 'all creation' will
eventually entail a Theory for Every Thing (TET). Such a theory has
been the dream of many a philosopher and scientist through the ages.
Von Bertalanffy, the founder of General Systems Theory, is a modern
follower of this dream. In his theory the object of study is called a
system. In this book we will simply call it a creation. This will make
natural languages such as English much more available for our
conceptualisation purposes. But we will not exclude the terminology of
any theory, even general system theory, to further our goal. Therefor we
may also speak of any creation as a creative system.
The word 'creativity' is closely associated with the word 'creation' in the
message. Many people think of creativity as something which only God
possesses. Some others see creativity as something which geniuses also
possess. Even less people like Couger (1995) view creativity as
something which all normal people possess. A few braves like Bunge
(1980, p 169) postulate that even other animals (with plastic neural
systems) are creative. In this book we will go much further to a
viewpoint anticipated by Clay Carr (1994, p 162) in his book on business
management: "The most important point you can make about the
universe is that it is creative." All creations are to some degree creative,
i.e. all creations possess some creativity. We have to insist that nothing
can be excluded from the abstract, the cultural, the biological or even the
inanimate worlds. (We will learn later on in the book that this is
required by the essentialities of creativity). This insistence will cause a
tension with most of the existing definitions of creativity.
Definitions play an important role in most academical circles. At least

a hundred definitions can be cited for creativity. In each definition some
important facets of creativity are included. For example, Boden (1994)
includes in her definition that which we will recognise in the next
chapter as the essentiality of quality-variety. Nevertheless, for those
who desire it, the message (paradigm) above entails the following
definition:
83
creativity is the result of entropy creation.

In other words, whenever entropy is created, it is manifested as some
degree of creativity. This definition is novel. Its originality will make
it incomprehensible to most people. The term 'entropy creation' is a
completely new designation for the term 'entropy dissipation'. Presently
few people know anything about 'entropy dissipation'. Furthermore,
only a fraction of those familiar with this term will recognise the
cosmological power locked up in the definition above. However, to say
anything more in this definition will be futile since entropy creation is
also the source of all complexity. Which part of complexity will be
important enough to be included in the definition of creativity?
It is sad that many people nowadays are ignorant about the cause-and-
effect principle. This is usually the result of an inadequate system of
education. Apart from them, there are those learned persons who cannot
accept the principle of causality in their epistemology. The message
above is bad news for them. Entropy creation as the cause is not
probable, but definite. Its effects are not uncertain, but as predesignated
as the world which we perceive. If any person has any doubts, they
should read the book by Eddington (1948).
The message also has severe repercussions for all religious persons and
the God which they worship. Is this book introducing a new god called
'entropy creation'? Not at all. In most religions it is attested that God
created and maintains this universe (creation). Thus it would not be
difficult for religious persons to agree that their God is the primordial
cause of all creation. In many of these religions it is also attested that
God's creation mirrors something of God despite how distorted our
perception of the mirroring might be. Thus it would not be difficult for
religious persons to agree that 'God as the original cause of all creation'
should be mirrored. The paradigm provides for such an agreement.
Furthermore, this book will definitely stimulate a new and much needed
dialogue between science and religion.
We will also have to reckon with specifically the creationists among

some Christian circles. Creationists adhere to creationalism. They react
against Darwinian evolutionism. Creationalists oppose the explanation
of everything in the universe, especially life, without referring to the
God of the Bible (see Morris & Parker, 1987, p 19). This book will
84
bring about such a paradigm shift that even for creationists the wind will
soon be blowing out of a completely new direction. If God permits, the
author will draw the relationships between the findings in this book and
the doctrines central to the Christian faith.
Penultimately, when dealing with creations and their creativity, we must

be continuously aware of the central thesis of phenomenology: "We
never perceive only raw matter, just as, similarly, we never perceive
only mental phenomena. We always experience the interaction between
the two", (Spinelli, 1989, p 9). It is therefore fortuitous to know that
thermodynamics (in which the quantity entropy plays a central role) is,
of all scientific disciplines of the inanimate world, the closest to the
ideal of phenomenology. For example, there is a remarkable
correspondence between the concept 'intentionality' of phenomenology
and the quantity 'free energy' of thermodynamics. We will soon study
the quantity 'free energy' and its relationship to entropy in depth.
Finally, we will not use the term 'entropy creation' in this book any more.
The reason is to avoid confusing 'creation' as primordial cause with
'creation' as resource and 'creation' as result. Although the term 'entropy
creation' is exactly equivalent to the term 'entropy dissipation', we will
neither use the latter term because of its negative connotations. We will
from now on only use the term 'entropy production'. Thus, for example,
our definition for creativity becomes:
creativity is the result of entropy production
The history of entropy production

The Second Law of Thermodynamics concerns the quantity entropy, its
production and its effects. We will often speak of entropy production
rather than the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The reason is very
simple. The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its classical sense is
concerned with the role of heat as a form of energy. When heat is no
longer of concern, classical thermodynamics has no role.
Heat plays a special role in entropy production. Heat is often the prime
exemplar by which to explain what happens when entropy is produced.
Heat even plays a role in the operational definition of entropy, i.e the
85
definition of entropy in terms of measurements. However, entropy

production concerns much more than mere heat. It applies even when
heat is of little concern. In such cases we cannot determine entropy
quantitatively in terms of its operational definition because heat is not
involved. We then have to rely on our earlier quantitative experiences
in terms of heat.
We will now make a careful distinction between heat and thermal

energy. Thermal energy is that form of energy which gives rise to the
property temperature. Temperature is that quantity which is measured
by a thermometer. Heat is the flow of thermal energy from a higher to
a lower temperature. Thus we should think of thermal energy as a being
and heat as a becoming.
The quantity entropy was first conceived by Clausius in 1854, quoting

Gillispie (1960, p399): "I propose, accordingly, to call S the entropy of
a body, after the Greek word 'transformation'." Clausius was very much
concerned with the relationship between the conservation (constancy) of
energy during transformations and the reversibility of such
transformations. There was a growing belief that energy could be
converted from one form (eg. mechanical) to another (eg. electrical), but
that the total energy could not be created or destroyed. Joule had already
established in 1847 that thermal energy was 'merely' another form of
energy. He demonstrated that mechanical energy could be fully
converted into exactly the same amount of thermal energy. But the
reverse conversion (heat to work) was much more complicated.
Heat was not 'merely' another form of energy. It had some peculiarities
of its own (see Planck, 1950). Although it was possible to show without
doubt that mechanical energy could be converted completely into
thermal energy, the opposite was not possible! Only some of the thermal
energy of a body could be converted into work and only by employing
another body with a lower temperature. Some thermal energy had to
remain in the body. Furthermore, the amount of this remaining thermal
energy was not governed by the body, but by its surroundings.
Moreover, whenever one non-thermal form of energy was converted into
another non-thermal form of energy, thermal energy usually resulted as
a byproduct. The energy balance (conservation) could only be
accounted for provided the thermal energy as a byproduct was also
86
included.
Thermal energy became an 'unwanted' guest in two respects. In

engineering applications it meant that provisions had to be made for the
removal of heat else a build up of thermal energy and thus an increase
in temperature could lead to failures. In theoretical accounts it was
impossible to deduce from Newtonian mechanics why heat had to make
its appearance or why heat had to flow from a higher to a lower
temperature. Concepts such as the 'force of friction' and 'heat
production' had to be imported into Newtonian mechanics. Thus the
term dissipation arose to convey this unwanted character of thermal
energy.
Clausius' operational definition of entropy is very simple, namely:

)S = *Qr/T
where )S is the increase in entropy S, *Qr refers to the heat flow at a
temperature T and the subscript r refers to reversible changes. It is as
simple as the operational definition for work W, namely:
)W = -Fl.*l
where Fl is the component of the force in the direction of the
displacement. Note that the entropy is not defined in terms of the
thermal energy of a body divided by its temperature.
With this definition it is not difficult to see how Clausius was the first
to formulate the two laws of thermodynamics as:
Die Energie der Welt ist konstant.
Die Entropy der Welt strebt einem Maximum zu.
We may understand it as follows. Consider two systems A and B with
temperatures 300kelvin (23oC) and 400K (123oC) like in figure 4.1.
Allow 120joule of heat to flow spontaneously from system B (400K) to
system A (300K). (Employ an immense string of intermediate systems
to make the heat flow reversible along the path.) Then the total entropy
change is
)Stot = )SA + )SB
= (+120J)/300K + (-120J)/400K
= +0.4J.K-1 - 0.3J.K-1
= +0.1J.K-1
Should the heat flow in the converse direction, we have

87
)Stot = )SA + )SB

= (-120J)/300K + (+120J)/400K
= -0.4J.K-1 + 0.3J.K-1
= -0.1J.K-1
Figure 4.1: Entropy changes (increase and decrease) during

spontaneous flow of heat from higher to lower temperature. The
thickened part of the increase arrow indicates the nett
production of entropy.
This reverse flow will never happen spontaneously. (In terms of figure
4.1, it means that the thickened part of the arrow will be pointing
downwards.) Could that happen spontaneously, then if we were to put
a beaker containing water on a hot plate, it would not become steam, but
ice!
Heat never flows spontaneously 'uphill' (lower to higher temperature).

Does this mean that heat can never flow uphill? What about cooling
machines (refrigerators)? All refrigerators need work to function,
usually through a pumping action. The work W is converted into heat
by compressing the refrigerator gas into a liquid, liberating the excess
heat at the higher temperature TB. (See figure 4.2.) This compressed
liquid is then allowed to expand and evaporate at a lower temperature TA
while absorbing heat. Thus the entropy change at system A is
)SA
= (-120J)/300K
= -0.4J.K-1
But the entropy change at B is
)SB
= (+120J + (40J + Q))/400K
88
= +(0.4 + Q/400)J.K-1
The quantity 120J is the heat originally absorbed at the lower
temperature. The quantity (40J + Q) is the work W converted into heat,
but now split into two terms. The 40J at B is needed to allow the
entropy increase at B ((120J + 40J)/400K) to break even with the
entropy decrease at A (-120J/300K). Thus
)Stot = )SA + )SB
= (-120J)/300K + (+120J + 40J + Q)/400K
= -0.4J.K-1 +0. 4J.K-1 + Q/TB
= +Q/TB
Figure 4.2: Entropy changes (increase and decrease) during

non-spontaneous flow of heat from lower to higher tempera-
ture. The thickened part of the increase arrow indicates the nett
production of entropy. It is more than in the spontaneous case
of fig 4.1.
Even with the term 40J being positive, the term Q is always positive.
(Remember that work is done on the system, i.e 40J + Q > 0.) The
temperature TB is also always positive. Thus the total entropy cannot but
increase! This happens while heat flows uphill! Does this mean that the
Second Law gives inconsistent judgements? No. Note that in this
'uphill' case work enters the picture as an extra source of entropy. This
work is simply dissipated into heat. Also note that in the 'uphill' case we
did not use the term 'spontaneously'. It is because the heat is forced by
work to flow uphill non-spontaneously. Hence we have an important
clue to creativity in general: work can make non-spontaneous things
happen. For example, nature will not develop spontaneously an
aeroplane, a vaccine or a book. We have to create them through work.
89
Since external work can make non-spontaneous creations happen, it is

important to note that the maintenance of such creations is costly in
terms of work and thus energy. But it is even more important to note
that the maintenance of such creations is more costly in terms of entropy
(the thickened part of the arrow in fig 4.2 is usually larger than that in fig
4.1). This means that when our non-renewable sources for energy, work
and thus entropy production become depleted (scarce), we will be
forced to create along spontaneous routes rather than taking non-
spontaneous short-cuts.
Engineering textbooks often refer to the Q-part of the work W as an

economic waste (Sears, 1963, p 83). Thus Q is used to define the so-
called efficiency of the refrigerator. However, Q should never be
considered as a waste. Q is absolutely necessary to overcome the
spontaneous flow of heat downhill (higher to a lower temperature).
Indeed, Q forces the heat to flow uphill (lower to a higher temperature)!
However, as soon as the work W stops, this non-spontaneous (uphill)
process stops! This comment is of immense importance when we move
to the higher order realms of entropy production such as human affairs.
Obviously, when we need work to accomplish better things than forcing
heat to flow uphill, then the work certainly has been degraded.
The common feeling about the mysterious quantity entropy has been so
negative since its discovery that it is surprising that some scientists
(Boltzmann, Gibbs, Planck) devoted their life studying it. Boltzmann
was the first to try and find a mechanical understanding of entropy. His
work eventually developed into a substantial branch of mechanics called
statistical mechanics. The basic idea is that thermal energy is the kinetic
energy of an immense number of microscopic units such as molecules.
From this idea we may derive macroscopical properties such as
temperature and pressure.
Bolzmann would have been the last person to encourage a negative

feeling towards entropy. Yet, through his very work this actually
happened. The classical physics of conservative systems has no place
for entropy. In order to introduce entropy S into a mechanical system,
he had to formulate the equation
S = k ln W
where k is a constant and ln is the natural logarithm of W. It eventually
90
became clear that the constant k is universal with a unique value. The
quantity W expresses the probability of a certain state of the system to
exist. To calculate W statistically, we must think of the collection or
ensemble of all possible states. The most noticeable feature of this
collection is its apparent lack of order, necessitating the introduction of
averages, deviations, etc.
Since the operational definition of entropy is so simple, it afforded little

direct insight into entropy. As more information about entropy was
uncovered, a pressing need ensued to understand entropy. People
realised that they needed an interpretation of entropy. The equation
S = k ln W
provided a 'solution', one that even Bolzmann made use of. Simply
interpret entropy as a measure of chaos/disorder! This interpretation
exists up to today as the standard (normal) one. For example, an
exceptional and renown modern text book of physical chemistry states
(Atkins, 1994, p 120): "Spontaneous changes are always accompanied
by a dispersal of energy into a more disordered form."
However, let us perceive the consequences of this interpretation in terms

of Clausius' formulation of the Second Law:
Die Entropy der Welt strebt einem Maximum zu.
We cannot form any other conclusion than:
'The world is developing into a state of maximum chaos'.
Some people, especially the pessimistic and depressed, might subscribe
to this interpretation. However, most of us who are busy with subjects
in which order and organisation play important roles, cannot accept this
ultimate interpretation. Life is not like that. Chaos may increase at
some places, but order increases at other places. Does it mean that these
increases in order are merely temporary while the increases in chaos are
persistent and eternal? Or does it mean that some other working
principle overrides the Second Law whenever order arises? What a
dilemma we have at hand!
To complicate matters, most physicists took an attitude that this dilemma

is unimportant. They argued that the production of entropy and
consequently irreversibility should be considered as a result of the
scientist's ignorance on initial conditions or a fundamental uncertainty
in operation. Maxwell, Born and even Einstein were foremost in this
91
'explanation' of entropy production.
Is there any solution to this dilemma? Yes, indeed. But then we have
to follow carefully the history of entropy production and its
interpretation as presented above. It is of decisive importance to know
that whenever energy is converted from one form to another, thermal
energy has to make its presence known through heat flow. Thermal
energy is not an unwanted guest. It is an actor in its own right claiming
with authority its own stake in the play before any other claims can be
settled. But how can we understand this 'right'? Only by accepting the
consequences of the bridge experiment: entropy production is the
primordial cause of all creations, material and abstract. It even includes
our mental creations concerning entropy itself. In other words, if we
wish to understand entropy production, we are not free to try and do it
outside the Second Law. Our mental pictures of entropy production are
also a subject of entropy production.
We must realise that it will not be popular to accept the influence of the
Second Law over our mental creations. In other words, it is not pleasing
to know that we are not the master of our thinking processes. In fact, by
accepting entropy production as the driving force of our mind, we heave
yet another deadly blow to the narcism of mankind. Think of the blow
by Copernicus (the planet on which humans dwell is not the centre of the
universe), or the blow by Darwin (the origin of creatures does not
depend on mankind's knowledge of it), or the blow by Einstein (the
measurement system used by humans cannot be given special
preference). In other words, it will not be popular to discontinue with
our anthropomorphic kind of thinking.
In this book we will not often speak of the 'interpretation' of entropy and
its production. We will rather speak of entropy production and its
manifestation because our 'interpretation' is merely one of the myriad of
manifestations of entropy production. This truth brings a totally new
perspective to hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) and its basic
problems (see, for example, Bleicher, 1980). Likewise teleology
(reasoning from purpose or outcome) will take new meanings (Wheeler
and Zurek, 1983, p 21). But first we will have to take a closer look at
energy and entropy and how they influence one another before we can
tackle more complex things such as hermeneutics or teleology.
92
Do energy and entropy oppose each other?

Classical physics is concerned with the laws of conservative systems,
covered by many disciplines such as electromagnetism, general relativity
(including gravitation), quantum mechanics, etc. Poincare was first,
later followed by Wigner and Weyl (1952) and thereafter Feynmann to
point out that these laws actually comprise basic symmetries in our
descriptions of nature. The symmetries make us independent from the
specific and existential to explore the general and universal. For
example, independence of our position in space is afforded by the
constancy of linear momentum. The term usually used for these
symmetries is local gauge invariancies. These local gauge invariancies
may be described as a mathematical category GRP (see chapter 3).
Symmetry would not exist in more than one instance if symmetry

breaking was not possible. Symmetry breaking leads to the formation
of subgroups in a group GRP. Hence symmetry breaking brings about
complexity in GRP which then needs additional patterns/diagrams to
describe it. This makes symmetry breaking as important as symmetry
itself (see Jantsch, 1980). We will not study symmetry (being) and its
breaking (becoming) in further detail, except to notice the following
question: what is the origin of all symmetry breakings? It is with a
possible answer to this question that we will have a closer look at energy
and entropy.
The constancy of energy itself points to a remarkable symmetry, namely,

not to depend on time in the descriptions of measurements. Thus the
arrow or direction of time can be reversed in the laws of conservative
physics without any loss in generality. These laws are symmetrical with
respect to a time reversal. This symmetry is embodied in the First Law
of Thermodynamics. But the Second Law does exactly the opposite! It
introduces an arrow of time for this universe. Time can only change in
that direction by which the change in universal entropy increases. The
Second Law breaks the symmetry, set down by the First Law. First
Eddington and later Prigogine considered this arrow of time a most
93
intriguing property of entropy production.
It appears as if the two laws of thermodynamics are in conflict with each

other. Our usual human inclination in dealing with conflicts is to resolve
the one in terms of the other - a win-loose deal. Unfortunately, this also
happened in the case of the apparent conflict between energy and
entropy as has been noticed in the previous section. Consultants in
creativity often stress that the win-win deal should also be taken into
consideration. This is how this section will be developed.
We will begin our discussion by introducing the notion (primitive

concept) of a system and the universe as a special kind of a system.
Philosophers such as Wittgenstein have noticed that when we wish to
interpret a logic system, we cannot escape from ourselves because we
need to employ a natural language to interpret the symbolism. We have
a similar situation in thermodynamics. The most powerful description
of thermodynamics comes in terms of systems while our notion of a
system depends primarily on our bodily experiences. A
thermodynamical system is like our body. The system is categorically
distinguished from its surroundings by a wall as our skin separates us
from the outside world. All kinds of transport are allowed through the
system's wall such as food and heat are able to enter our body and sweat
and work to exit it.
The thermodynamical universe is made up of as many systems as are

needed. See figure 4.3. Most important under investigation is the
system SY. Anything is possible in this system - anything we wish to
investigate. The production of entropy, irreversibility and all its effects
will, for example, be confined to the system. To the outside of the wall
enclosing the system, we find the system's surroundings SU. The
surroundings consist of a number of systems, usually one for each form
of energy which may change. These systems will be called reservoirs
~R. Each reservoir will handle the exchange of its form of energy with
the system in a reversible manner. In other words, entropy production
is not allowed in the surroundings, although an entropy exchange is
possible. If we need to consider such entropy production in the
surroundings, then we simply have to enlarge our system to also include
these irreversible effects. The system SY and the surrounding SU form
together the universe UN. The universe is a monad (Leibniz) or organon
94
(Aristotle), isolated and ignorant from any other monad/organon.
Figure 4.3: Diagram of universe UN consisting of system SY

and surroundings SU. SU consists of reservoirs (systems)
QR,WR and ~R.
The observer cannot escape from being part of that universe, as

Wolfgang Pauli has stressed so often. The observer has to make sure in
which part of the universe he resides and how he interacts with the rest
of the universe. The observer is usually considered to be part of the
surroundings. However, in this book the observer will be part of the
system itself. Some readers may find the thermodynamical concept
'system' too restrictive. The fine book by Weinberg (1975) will help
such readers to complexify their concept of a system.
The universe has an energy EUN and an entropy SUN. In this universe
anything can happen because anything has to happen in the system SY.
Whenever anything happens which results in changes ) for the system
and its surroundings, the First Law and Second Law of Thermo-
dynamics may be formulated respectively as:
)EUN = 0
)SUN > 0
The superscripts UN refer to values of the universe.
Before we go any further, we have to note the following extremely

important feature. Energy E and entropy S are considered to be physico-
chemical quantities. Yet they cannot be measured directly. In other
words, there are no instruments such as energy meters and entropy
meters. Values for energy and entropy can only be calculated in terms
of directly measurable quantities. Thus they are abstract quantities (see
Carnap, 1993, on the importance of non-observables in theories) This
is exactly why we need operational definitions for energy and entropy!
Even worse, we cannot check on the equations
95
)EUN = 0
)SUN > 0
by direct measurements simply because they involve the universe. We
are but insignificant parts of this universe. Only the Creator can
'measure' the whole universe.
These two equations reflect the totality of our experiences. Moreover,

they reflect our experiences in a negative sense. No person has ever
succeeded in creating energy from nothing although many have tried.
No person has ever succeeded in overturning entropy production
although many have tried. Patent offices bear evidences to failed
attempts in both cases. In other words, the equations expressing the two
laws are accepted as a logical consequence to our creative experiences
that the equations
)EUN … 0
)SUN # 0
are impossible. Any person who will succeed in demonstrating even one
of these latter two equations to be valid, will receive greater fame than
even Newton and Einstein put together.
Let us try to interpret the expressions

)EUN = 0
)SUN > 0
in the most general and open way. The First Law says that if anything
happens noticeably in the universe, there is one thing which never
changes, namely its energy. Thus energy is the archetype for being. The
Second Law says that if anything happens noticeably in the system, there
is one thing which always changes (increases), namely entropy. Thus
entropy is the archetype for becoming.
Here we have our first indication of the asymmetry between energy and
entropy, namely becoming-being. The asymmetry is related to one of
the seven corresponding patterns between material and abstract systems.
This asymmetry should not be considered as a conflict or opposition, but
rather as complementary to each other. Entropy production is needed to
affect changes so that energy conservation can be discovered. Energy
conservation is needed to become aware of the production
(non-conservation) of entropy! Energy and entropy need to join as being
and becoming need to commute.
96
The most important system in the surroundings is the heat reservoir QR.
See figure 4.3. It will be designed to handle all the heat flow between
the system and its surroundings. It is responsible for the exchange of
entropy between the system and its surroundings. In the higher order
realms of entropy production, it may be developed into more than one
system. Each will handle an energy change by means of chaotic and
minor, organised units. All the other reservoirs will be known
collectively as work reservoirs WR, one for each form of energy. Every
form of energy has its own flow of work: electrical work, chemical
work, etc. The prime work reservoir concerns the flow of mechanical
work like the lifting of a weight. This happens when building a wall
with bricks. A macroscopical organisation results. This means that the
categorical distinction between the heat reservoir QR and the work
reservoirs WR is the organisation involved in the energy flow. Work
involves a (macroscopically) organised flow of energy whereas heat
involves a (microscopically) disorganised flow of energy. In other
words, the organisation in work is of a higher order than the organisation
in heat.
When the system SY interacts with its surroundings SU such as the

systems QR and WR, the internal energy E~ and entropy S~ of each
system ~ changes. For these changes the First Law may be formulated
as
)ESY + )EQR + )EWR = )EUN = 0
and the Second Law as
)SSY + )SQR + )SWR = )SUN > 0
By defining the flow of heat Q and the work W as
Q = -)EQR
W = -)EWR
and the reversible operation of the work reservoirs as
)SWR = 0
these two laws may be formulated in their most conventional form as
)ESY = Q + W
and
)SSY + )SQR = )SUN > 0
The signs of the quantities in these latter two expressions need to be

commented upon since they are a source of much confusion. )ESY, Q
and W may have any value (positive negative or zero) as long as the
97
equality
)ESY = Q + W
holds. Likewise )SSY and )SQR may have any value (positive, negative
or zero) as long as the inequality
)SUN > 0
holds. In other words, it is only the changes in the entropy of the
universe which can have only positive values. This means that the
Second Law requires a monadic (holistic) outlook to understand it.
A positive sign for the work W means that the work reservoir
(surrounding) does work on the system, thereby increasing )ESY. In the
higher order realms of entropy production such as human affairs, the
sign of W becomes very important. For example, taxes have always
been a burden on creative people. Taxes simply provide for a positive
W. However, society (surrounding) is in need of systems capable of
negative values for W, i.e. systems which can deliver work to the
surroundings.
Usually both )SSY and )SQR are positive. However, there are many
cases for which )SSY may be negative, i.e. the entropy of the system
decreases. Consider for example water becoming ice in a freezer. Such
cases do not override the Second Law. It merely means that )SQR must
be positive and so large that it overrides the negative value of )SSY. The
fact that )SSY may be negative provides an apparent escape from the
dilemma between universal entropy which has to increase and entropy
interpreted as chaos. Life leads to more order. If someone persists in
interpreting entropy as disorder/chaos, then that person has to work with
negative increases in entropy in order to account for the ordering
principle of life. Since )SUN does not allow negative values, that person
has to deny the universality of the Second Law while struggling to
interpret negative values for )SSY. This leads to all kinds of surrealistic
quantities such as negentropy.
A remarkable historical study may be done to identify all the eminent

thinkers who have fallen victim to this dilemma and their reasons for
doing so. For example, Schro"dinger (1944), discoverer of the
fundamental equation of quantum mechanics, expressed the opinion that
living systems avoid the Second Law by feeding on negative entropy
changes ('negentropy'). Von Bertalanffy (1968), the founder of general
98
system theory, a remarkable modern branch of science, also falls victim

to this apparent escape, even in the revised edition of his book. The
same happens to Miller (1978). Penrose (1989) tries to soften this
escape by stressing the importance of 'low entropy' sources. Even
creationists use this dilemma to further their own course (Morris &
Parker, 1987, pp 221-222). But the truth is that they have failed to
comprehend the complexity of entropy. For example, apart from the
problem of interpretation/manifestation, the term -T)SSY (note the
negative sign) has an important role to play specifically via the quantity
free energy (potential). (Miller, 1978, p 15, sense this role by
associating negative entropy to potential). Unfortunately, not even this
information does give us an objective escape from the dilemma,
although it makes it possible for us to escape the dilemma as subjects of
the Second Law.
On the other hand, the dilemma can simply be denied by declaring: "Yet
we have no general laws concerning the behaviour of open, far-from-
equilibrium systems." (Kauffman, 1993, p 63) Then no mention need to
be made to entropy production and the advances already made in terms
of it. However, the loss in insight will be too ghastly to contemplate.
We will irreversibly lose our grip on history which becomes future and
our freedom in the shadow of complexity. We will devour with hate
rather than to give with love.
The real escape from the dilemma lies in two creations. The first
creation is to mirror the formula )SUN > 0 for the universe into a
formula for the system. We can accomplish this by splitting )SSY into
two terms, namely
)SSY = )SSYr + )SSYi
such as was done for the refrigerator. This splitting was first suggested
by Prigogine. The term )SSYr has to be exactly
)SSYr = -)SQR
(The only importance of the Carnot cycle is to establish )SSYr as a
consistent systemic quantity.) Thus
reduces to
)SSYi = )SUN > 0
This equation says that the source of entropy production in the universe
UN has to be found in the irreversibility i of the system. What we must
99
observe now is that this equation says nothing new. It merely

summarises how we have recreated the universe UN with its system SY
and surroundings SU, forcing all irreversibility into the system. This
recreation did not happen spontaneously, but it did happen specifically
as a result of our mental work W.
The second creation concerns our interpretation of entropy. We have

seen that entropy and energy are dual, asymmetric and complementary.
They describe the two sides of one coin. However, when it concerns the
interpretation of entropy, we insist for some strange reason on one
simplistic meaning, namely chaos (disorder). Is it not possible that this
strange reason is the very Second Law acting on the level of our minds?
It is indeed the case and again invokes a wonderful asymmetry.
The Second Law does not stop with the production of entropy. It also
governs the manifestation of the entropy produced as chaos and order in
an asymmetrical manner! The asymmetry is in the sense of 'order out of
chaos' rather than 'chaos out of order' or 'chaos and/or order'. The
extraordinary book Order out of Chaos by Prigogine and Stengers is a
superb example of how this manifestation happens on the level of
scientific conduct. (It appeared originally in French as La nouvelle
alliance in 1979.) Nowhere in that book do those authors state that they
are aware that their work is a manifestation of entropy production on the
level of human affairs. We will soon go into the details of this
asymmetrical manifestation of entropy production in this chapter. This
will enable us to understand what happened in Order out of Chaos.
Energy and entropy taken together

It is tragic that so many studies have already been done on chaos,
complexity, emergence, etc., without any explicit reference to entropy
production. These studies themselves exhibit chaos to the uninitiated.
This chaos merely happens according to the first manifestation of
entropy production. However, it is even more tragic that the relatively
few studies which accommodate entropy production, seldom refer to the
role to be played by energy. This neglect may be illustrated by referring
to Ashby (1961, p 3) - he informs us that energy plays almost no part in
100
cybernetics because it can simply be taken for granted! Under no

circumstances should we take energy and thus free energy for granted.
For example, chemical systems exhibit organisation at the level of
molecules. Now, trying to understand chemical organisation and
thermodynamics without energy and only with entropy is futile.
But what about human affairs? In human affairs, we seldom think of

energy, except that we have to pay for it and employ it through some
technological apparatus. Yet energy and work are closely related.
Furthermore, work is indeed central to human affairs, so much so that
we even need to have an ethic for work. Consequently we have to study
the relationship between entropy and energy.
Entropy and energy may be joined together through the concept of free
energy. Will this concept have any value for the higher realms of
entropy production such as human affairs? The word 'free' has very
much the same meaning as in 'free will'. In fact, free will is the
manifestation of free energy on the level of the mind. However, the
greatest benefit of free energy in human affairs will be in providing the
basis for a work ethic.
The energy E as well as the entropy S of any system SY (we will

temporally drop the superscript SY) may be expressed as a function of
the extensive quantities of the system. All forms of energy have a very
strange property. Each form may be written as the product of a pair of
quantities, the one intensive and the other extensive. For example,
electrical energy is the product of electrical potential (intensive) and
electrical charge (extensive). The difference between intensive and
extensive quantities is as follows. Whenever a system is divided into
two parts, its extensive quantities have to be divided likewise, but the
intensive quantities remain the same for both parts as for the system.
For example, an electrical dry cell may be divided along its poles into
two parts. Each part has the same potential difference (intensive), but
can deliver only part of the charge or current (extensive). The origin of
this extensive/intensive property lies in the quantum (discreet) nature of
the system. The mathematical formulation of this property is in terms
of the concept of an Euler function.
The energy E and the entropy S of the system, themselves being

101
extensive, may thus be formulated as Euler functions. This allows us to

combine them into one expression such as
F = E -TS
or another one such as
G = E - TS + PV
where T is the temperature of the system. P its pressure and V its
volume. The quantities F and G are collectively known as 'free energies'.
F is specifically called the Helmholz free energy and G the Gibbs free
energy.
The two laws

)ESY = Q + W
and
may be combined by anyone of these expressions into
)F - W T < 0
or
)G - WTP < 0
where W refers to work and the subscripts T and P to constant
temperature and pressure. See, for example, Atkins (1994) how it is
done.
Textbooks in chemistry usually discuss the simplified version

)G # 0
of
)G - WTP < 0
The < sign refers to irreversible process and the = sign to equilibrium (or
reversible processes). Equilibrium exists only in isolated system
s and since we are seldom interested in an isolated system at
equilibrium, we need not discuss the = case. Since work will be a main
feature in our investigations (W … 0), we will have to study
)F - W T < 0
or
)G - WTP < 0
When a system transforms from one state to another, its free energy F
will change by an amount )F. The change will be spontaneous when
)F < 0 and non-spontaneous when )F > 0. In other words, the change
will always happen on its own accord when )F < 0 and will never
102
happen on its own accord when )F > 0. This does not mean that a
spontaneous process will always happen or that a non-spontaneous
process will never happen! In fact, a spontaneous change ()F<0) cannot
happen when )F - WT > 0. Similarly, a non-spontaneous change
()F>0) will happen when )F - WT < 0. In both cases the entropy
production is responsible for the outcome. How?
Let us first consider spontaneous changes for which )F < 0. Then

consider the following three cases.
* WT = 0 (no work done).
In this case no provision is made for work. The change in free energy )F
is then used to accomplish three things, namely to affect the change )E
in the energy E, to afford an entropy flow from the surroundings ()Sr)
and to produce entropy ()Si). Obviously, it becomes very important
how this entropy produced )Si becomes manifested. In the human
realms of entropy production it corresponds to an egocentric (autistic or
autopoietic) life style.
* WT < 0 (work done by the system).
In this case the spontaneous system does work on the surroundings.
Since )F < 0, )F and -WT will have opposite signs. Thus WT cannot
exceed )F in terms of absolute values otherwise )F - WT > 0. In other
words, a spontaneous system can do work only up to a maximum
amount. As this maximum amount is approached, the system becomes
more reversible with less entropy production. Moreover, the change also
happens more slowly. This has immense repercussions for the human
realms of entropy production. It is unwise to allow a willing (motivated)
worker to work up to at his/her maximum - although the worker delivers
more work, he/she also works more slowly until the death of equilibrium
sets in. The worker needs the entropy production of irreversibility to
also accomplish other things in life.
* WT > 0 (work done on the system)
In this case the surroundings do work on the non-spontaneous system.
Since )F < 0, )F and -WT will have like signs. Thus WT merely tries
to 'strengthen' what the system has already accomplished. Since the
system has already affected the change )E in the energy E and afforded
an entropy flow from the surroundings ()Sr), WT is merely dissipated
in entropy production. If this extra produced entropy is not transported
away efficiently, it can have immense repercussions in its manifestations
103
in the system and thus its stability. Again this has immense
repercussions on the human realms of entropy production. It is unwise
to meddle with a willing (motivated) worker by trying to add to his/her
work. The additional entropy production is often experienced as
criticism of the capabilities of the worker.
Let us now consider non-spontaneous changes for which )F > 0. Again

consider the following three cases.
* WT = 0 (no work done).
In this case no provision has been made for work. The change in free
energy )F cannot be used to accomplish even the basic three things,
namely to affect the change )E in the energy E, to afford an entropy
flow from the surroundings ()Sr) and to produce entropy ()Si).
Obviously, since then )F - WT > 0, nothing will happen. The non-
spontaneous change is simply an impossible change. In the human
realms of entropy production it corresponds to an incapacitated person
left on his/her own. There is no prognosis unless society steps in.
* WT < 0 (work done by the system).
In this case the non-spontaneous system has to do work on the
surroundings. Since )F > 0, )F and -WT will have the same signs.
Thus )F - WT > 0 for all possible values of WT. In other words, a non-
spontaneous system can never act as a source of work. Again this has
immense repercussions in the human realms of entropy production.
Unwilling (unmotivated) workers are a loss to any organisation of
society. The problem thus becomes one of how to change the motivation
(spontaneity) of the worker. Usually that worker has not been
unmotivated all his/her life, and such a worker will seldom change
his/her motivation on his own accord. Usually society is the cause of
this incapacity. Consequently society is obliged to help in solving the
problem.
* WT > 0 (work done on the system).
In this case the surroundings do work on the non-spontaneous system.
Since )F > 0, )F and -WT will have opposite signs. Thus WT can only
effect the change when it supersedes the minimum value given by )F.
When the surroundings do less work than this minimum value, the
required change will not happen. It does not mean that nothing will
happen. We should remember that this work is mainly dissipated in
entropy production. Thus this entropy production will be manifested in
104
all sorts of minor changes other than the required change. Furthermore,
once the required change is in progress due to sufficient work, it does
not mean that we can stop the surroundings doing the work. Once that
happens, the system is thrown back into the state where nothing happens.
The repercussions on the human realms of entropy production are far
reaching. It is unwise to bring changes about by meddling with a non-
spontaneous worker, even with a lofty instrument such as work. The
motivation (spontaneity) still remains within the surroundings. Once the
controlling work has stopped, the worker soon stops working.
Consequently, any work from the surroundings should have only one
purpose, namely to change the motivation of the worker. All other
purposes are superficial and futile.
The above discussion is not a comprehensive synopsis on the ethics of

work. This book is also not the place to do it. What we have done in
this section, is to show that free energy is central to any ethics of work.
Free energy (potentiality) and spontaneity on the one side and free will
and motivation on the other side are intimately related. Polanyi (1969)
already stressed this role of potentiality in the dynamics of intuition and
discovery.
At this stage, some questions should now be burning hot. What

constitutes free energy, other than referring to an equation such as F =
E -TS? How can one influence the free energy of any system? The
answer to these questions are closely related to the manifestations of
entropy production. We will study these manifestations in the next
section.
The manifestations of entropy production

It has been noted in the previous sections that entropy has generally been
interpreted as a measure of chaos (disorder). For example, when an ice
cube is placed in hot water, it melts. The highly organised water
molecules in the crystal become as disorganised as the water molecules
in the liquid. Hence the chaos has increased. It can be shown that the
entropy increases during this spontaneous process. Thus the entropy
increase is interpreted as an increase in chaos.
105
However, compare the standard entropies of the gases methane, ethane,

propane and n-butane:
gas C1H4 C2H6 C3H8 C4H10
So /J.K-1.mol-1 186.2 229.5 269.9 310.0
All four compounds are gases at exactly the same standard temperature
and pressure. Their entropies increase as their structural order increases.
To try and interpret the increase in entropy in terms of the increase in
chaos of any property of these compounds is futile and absurd. The
increase in entropy can be interpreted in terms of the increase of only
two properties, either the molar mass or the structural order. But the
molar mass depends on the structural order. Thus the interpretation
should be done in terms of structural order.
Now think about chaos as well as order. If we think of them in terms of

the logical disjunction or, it appears as if we have conflicting
interpretations: chaos versus order. If we think of them in terms of the
conjunction and, it appears as if entropy production can be the
primordial cause of both chaos and order. But this is exactly what we
need of the primordial cause. In the world which we try to understand
some places become more ordered while others become more chaotic.
However then we have a problem: where should we think of chaos and
where should we think of order?
Let us consider phenomena in which there is an increase in order. The

'evolution' of biological species is quite typical of the material world. If
someone even objects against the quoted word 'evolution', think of the
taxonomic key needed to differentiate between the present species in a
genus. The development of complexity may be depicted by a diagram
such as in figure 4.4. The diagram looks like a tree fallen over on its
side.
Figure 4.4: Tree diagram of speciation against time.

106
An original species with the unoriginal name 1 gives rise to three species
1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. The species 1.1 may then undergo a similar speciation
into 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3 and 1.1.4. And so the process goes on. Cramer
(1993, ch 4) discusses a wide range of such 'phylogenetic' trees for
material phenomena.
Tree diagrams such as in figure 4.4 may also be found in the abstract
world. In mathematics they are important in the subject called
combinatorics. They are also often used in system theory - see, for
example Warfield (1994). When we write a book, we also create a
similar tree diagram in our mind.
Figure 4.5: Graph for the production of entropy against time

overlaid on tree diagram of speciation.
Can we learn anything from such a tree diagram to aid us in interpreting

entropy and its production? In figure 4.5 the tree diagram of figure 4.4
has been combined with a graph for the production of entropy against
time. Note that the graph has a staircase form. The staircase can be
constructed by adding a number of S-shaped graphs (Land and Jarman).
Note how each step corresponds to a specific branching node in the tree.
Finally note that the steep side of a step corresponds to a high rate of
entropy production while the flat side corresponds to a low rate.
At each node the whole system is far from equilibrium owing to a high
increase (rate) of entropy production (steep slope). At each node new
structures arise. Thus a high entropy production is manifested as order
of structure. What then about chaos and low entropy production close
107
to equilibrium?
Notice that we have said 'order of structure'. Order itself is a predicate

of a logical individual. It is not an individual itself. In the description
above it is the predicate (property) of being (structure). Chaos is also a
predicate and not an individual. Consequently, by logical duality we
have to refer to chaos as the predicate of becoming (motion, function).
This becoming is clearly not depicted by the tree diagram since the
figure is static. But we can picture in our mind how the species move
around and function while time increases from one node to the next.
The entropy produced has to be manifested as an increase in chaos of

becoming when the production is low and as an increase in order of
being when the production is high. Again we stress that we cannot
indefinitely speak of interpretation, but that we finally have to speak of
manifestation. This is because our abstract conceptualisation of entropy
itself, also has to follow the Second Law! Thus we can now finally
perceive why entropy had to be interpreted historically as chaos. Our
interpretation had to be manifested as chaos. It was the first
manifestation of entropy production with respect to the human
conceptualisation of entropy production. Since 1970 the rate of entropy
production with respect to this conceptualisation has increased
considerably. Note for example the publication of Order out of Chaos
by Prigogine and Stengers. Now, 25 years later, we have clearly passed
the node. The second manifestation has happened. Entropy may now
also be interpreted as order because our interpretation also has to be
manifested as order.
Again we observe a wonderful asymmetry between these two

manifestations of entropy production: chaos of becoming and order of
being. This asymmetry does not stop here. The first manifestation of
entropy is automatic - it cannot be prevented and it does not require any
conditions to be met. The second manifestation is contingent - it will not
always happen and will only happen when certain conditions have been
satisfied. The first manifestation is global - chaos of becoming
commutes (propagates) to all the rest of the universe. The second
manifestation is local - order of structure leads to complexity among
immediate structures.
108
What conditions have to be satisfied? Nothing else but the seven

corresponding patterns delineated in chapter 3. However, we will now
call them the seven essentialities of creativity. They are essential for
entropy to become produced. They are essential for any creation to
happen. In other words, they are essential from the beginning to the end.
They will be discussed extensively in chapter 6 on the Mechanics of
Creativity.
The two manifestations of entropy production: chaos of becoming and

order of being will be discussed extensively in the next chapter on the
Dynamics of Creativity. We will end this section by showing briefly
how they are related. We will do it by using a metaphor which will have
to be selected very carefully. The unique equation for entropy
production, namely
is unbounded (open, unlimited). However, every manifestation of
entropy production, whether chaos of becoming or order of being, is
limited. The chaos of becoming such as in transport phenomena is
limited by restitivity coefficients (permeability, conductivity, etc.). The
order of being such as in structural phenomena is limited by stability
coefficients (shearing, dissociation, etc.). (For example, see Atherton,
1981, on stability itself. See also Cook, 1980, on stability in emergent
systems.) Consequently we may use a metaphor which contains a pipe
as in figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6: Entropy production on the left. Manifestation on

the right in terms of chaos of becoming (motion).
The entropy production is symbolised on the left by the large black and
white box. Its manifestation is symbolised on the right. It is manifested
as chaos of becoming in terms of the motion of structures with a certain
order of structure. The chaos is symbolised by the randomness of the
square-like dots. The order of structure is symbolised by the size of the
squares. The entropy produced has to be commuted to the rest of the
universe by using the existing structures to redistribute the chaos of
109
becoming. On the level of molecules this redistribution is known as

heat.
What happens if the entropy production is increased as it is not limited?

The old structures (and even new structures of the same order which
may become created) are used to redistribute the increase in chaos of
becoming. However, because the transport is limited, it is as if the pipe
is filling up. This is symbolised in figure 4.7. In the realms of human
creativity, this process of saturation has already been noticed by
Helmholz and Poincare (Whiting, 1958). Barron (1964) is one of the
few psychologists who realised that both chaos and order had a role to
play in human creativity.
Figure 4.7: Manifestation of entropy production in existing

order reaching its limit in terms of chaos of becoming (motion).
What happens if the entropy production is increased even more as it is

not limited? The existing order has reached its limit. The increase in
entropy cannot be manifested (used up) as an increase in chaos of
becoming any more. Yet the entropy has to be commuted to the rest of
the universe. The excess entropy is then manifested (used up) by
creating structures of a new order with more complexity. This
remarkable event is known as an emergence, one of the two possible
outcomes of a bifurcation. Entropy now becomes locked into new more
complex structures of a higher order. These new higher ordered
structures may also become involved in the manifestation entropy as
chaos of becoming. In other words, a new pipe is opening up! This is
symbolised in
figure 4.8.
110
Figure 4.8: Manifestation of entropy production leads to a new

higher order with more complex structures. These new
structures contain more entropy and also assist in the
manifestation as chaos of becoming.
Not only is the entropy locked up in the new higher order of being
(structure), but also the free energy! Thus these more complex
structures have a higher free energy by which they can accomplish work
or even dissipate into entropy production to open up an even higher
order of being. Compare, for example, the standard (Gibbs) free
energies of formation of the gases methane, ethane, propane and butane:
gas CH4 C2H6 C3H8 C4H10
)Go /J.K-1.mol-1 -50.8 -32.9 -23.5 -15.7
Obviously, by simply increasing the entropy production in a container
with methane CH4, we will not directly get ethane C2H6, propane C3H8
ro buthane C4H10. The methane molecules will break up in all kinds of
stable (C and H2) and unstable (CHn) fragments. The reason is that not
all seven the corresponding patterns (see chapter 3) are present
(satisfied). For example, the patterns of reactive sites (limiting cone)
and reaction mechanism (exponentiation) cannot be satisfied.
Let us return to figure 4.7 and the question posed after it:
What happens if the entropy production is increased even more since it
is not limited? We know that the existing order has reached its limit.
We know the increase in entropy cannot be manifested (used up) as an
increase in chaos of becoming any more in the existing order of being.
We know that the entropy has to be commuted to the rest of the universe.
We have seen that the excess entropy is then manifested (used up) by
creating structures of a new order with more complexity. But we have
silently assumed some sufficiency requirements in order to obtain a
constructive manifestation of order of being. These sufficiency
requirements are the seven corresponding patterns discussed in chapter
3. From now on we will refer to them as the seven essentialities of
creativity. If one or more of these essentialities is impaired or absent,
we cannot have a constructive manifestation any more. All that remains
is a destructive manifestation of order of being. This is illustrated in
figure 4.9.
111
Figure 4.9: Manifestation of entropy production leads to a new

lower order with less complex structures. This destructive
manifestation happens when not all seven the essentialities of
creativity are satisfied.
Not all that happens in this universe is constructive and not all
constructive manifestations are just. There are also many destructive
activities taking place. Sometimes destruction is rightfully needed to
destroy what has been wrongfully constructed. Our task is thus not only
to be able to create constructively and destructively, but especially to
know when to create constructively or destructively. The more complex
our creations become, the more difficult our judgements become. This
is because the more complex our creations become, the more entropy has
to be produced, the more free energy it requires and the more time it
takes.
Despite what has been said above, we may conclude this chapter as
follows. The manifestations of entropy production make life like an
immense organ on which the majestic fuga of the Creator is played:
being-becoming, order-chaos, unity-variety, growth-decay, etc. This is
illustrated by figure 4.10.
112
Figure 4.10: Manifestation of entropy production leads to the

fuga of life played on an immense organ.
Summary of chapter
The aim of this chapter is to become acquainted with the operational
definition of entropy and to see how it complexifies into topics such as
spontaneity and chaos-order. This has to happen in the light of the
previous two chapters, namely that reality (material and abstract) has
only one category with uncountable many manifestations. The
irreversible production of entropy causes all these manifestations.
The operational definition of entropy is as simple as it can be: entropy

change equals heat flow divided by the temperature at which it happens.
This operational definition of entropy makes it possible to discover the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law says that the entropy of the
universe has to increase (to be created, to be produced) during any
change. This law is then illustrated numerically for the spontaneous
flow of heat from a higher to a lower temperature.
Very little else can be said until the First Law is also brought into
account, namely that the amount of energy of the universe has to remain
constant during any change, although it may change in form. By
converting work (organised flow of energy) into the same amount of heat
113
(chaotic flow of energy), the non-spontaneous flow of heat from a lower

to a higher temperature can be accomplished as in a refrigerator. It is
illustrated numerically that this non-spontaneous flow of heat requires
a larger production of entropy than the spontaneous case.
The quantity, free energy (or potential energy) may be obtained by

combining energy and entropy in a special manner. This quantity makes
it possible to shift into a new level of understanding of the Second Law.
Systems will only change spontaneously provided their free energy
decreases for such a change. Such systems may act as a source of
ordered flow of energy (work). This flow is derived from the free
energy itself. Some of the free energy is not converted into an ordered
flow, but into a chaotic flow of energy (heat). The faster the conversion,
the less the ordered flow and the more the chaotic flow.
If the free energy has to increase for a change, the system will not
change on its own accord. However, such a non-spontaneous system can
be forced to change by an incoming ordered flow of energy (work).
Some of this work is converted into the free energy needed and the rest
into a chaotic flow of energy (heat). The faster the conversion, the less
the gain in free energy and the more the chaotic flow.
It should be noted that the faster the conversion of energy from one form
to another, whether it is spontaneous or forced, the greater the chaotic
flow of energy (heat). This is the first manifestation of entropy
production., namely as chaos of becoming. (The entropy may then be
thought of as procedural, kinetic or becoming entropy). This chaos has
to be transported (communicated) to the rest of the universe. However,
there is always a natural resistance to transportation. Consequently, if
the entropy production becomes even faster, entropy will build up at the
production centre.
Yet this additional entropy has to be manifested because this is the

essence of the Second Law. It is then manifested locally as order of
being and called the second manifestation of entropy production. This
can happen either constructively (emergence) or destructively
(immergence). It will happen constructively only when the seven
essentialities of creativity are all present. (The entropy may then be
thought of as structural, potential or being entropy). However, there is
114
always a natural instability to structure. Consequently a structure cannot

grow indiscriminately. Eventually the first manifestation of entropy
production, namely chaos of becoming, has to take over when the
structure has outgrown its stability.
115
Chapter 5
DYNAMICS OF CREATIONS
Dynamics and mechanics
I was happy to be among men, but not happy about human

nature. Often I thought with sorrow of the evils to which we
are subjected, of the short duration of our life, the vanity of
glory, the inconveniences which spring from pleasure, the
illnesses which crush our very spirit, .....
We have to distinguish between the dynamics and mechanics of

creativity. For example, a holistic approach is often stressed in
creativity with holism explained as 'the sum is more than the parts'. This
explanation hints at two distinguishing features in holism: the whole and
the emergence. In this chapter we will observe that emergence has to do
with the dynamics of creativity. In this observation we will contrast
emergence with digestion. In the next chapter we will learn that the
whole has to do with the mechanics of creativity. The whole may be
expressed by the pattern monadicity (monad = one entity). There
monadicity will be contrasted with the six other essentialities of
creativity.
The terms dynamics and mechanics come from the basic physical
sciences where they have acquired certain meanings. It is these
meanings which we try to preserve. The word 'dynamical' pertains to
forces not in equilibrium and thus the action they cause. The word
'mechanical' pertains to the manner in which forces act, usually
demonstrated by machines. However, for those not trained in the
physical sciences, we will have to supply additional meanings.
116
The dynamics and mechanics of creativity may be compared to content

(dynamics) and form (mechanics). Form without content is impossible.
Content always gives rise to form. Quantification is often important in
content whereas form is often qualitative. Studies of the content are
usually existential while studies of the form lead to the universal.
The dynamics may also be compared to semantics (meaning) and the

mechanics to syntaxis (grammar). Despite all our intents to convey an
important meaning, we cannot succeed unless we obey the grammar. On
the other hand, although we may have a thorough understanding of the
grammar, if we have no meaning to convey, very little is communicated.
In yet another way we may compare the dynamics and mechanics to the
necessary and sufficient requirements for creativity. In the dynamics we
study the requirement(s) necessary for creations to happen, namely the
quantitative production of entropy. An increase in entropy is the food
on which creativity thrives. However, food is not sufficient for creations
to happen. A body is also needed. In the mechanics we study the
essentials of the body (machine) as the sufficiency requirements.
Dynamics is concerned with the quantitative nature of entropy
production, whereas mechanics is concerned with its qualitative nature.
Finally, we may compare the dynamics and mechanics by using rich

metaphors rather than technical terms. (Technical terms are also
metaphors, but with their meaning reduced to usually one simple
property.) Metaphors from the realm of human affairs are particularly
important. Some of the present dominating metaphors are that of the
male person (MP) and the female person (FP). (These MP and FP
metaphors may lead to extremist viewpoints such as chauvinism and
feminism. These metaphors are also frequently used in spiritual
discussions.) The dynamics of creativity is often a feature in the MP
metaphor while the mechanics of creativity is more of a feature in the FP
metaphor.
In this chapter, as in the next chapter, we will occasionally make

references to the biological world for illustrative purposes. We will
defer a detailed study of the biological world in order to tackle the realm
of human affairs where our gravest problems lie. The reader interested
in the biological world may study the works of Jantsch (1980), Brooks
117
and Wiley (1986) and Cramer (1993). They will discover that a whole
new perspective is opening up and that only the surface has been
scratched. Readers interested in the realm of human affairs now also
have some reconnoitring works available, for example Wheatly (1992)
in business management.
How to produce entropy
The struggle in me was renewed at the sight of any great

disorder, either among men, when I beheld injustice
triumphant and innocence afflicted, or in nature, when
tempests or earthquakes made havoc of towns and
provinces, and caused the death of thousands without
distinction between the righteous and the wicked, ......
Since the quantitative production of entropy is the central feature in the

dynamics of creativity, we need to know how entropy Si is produced. Its
rate of change d/dt may be described in general form by the equation
given on p 74:
The quantity Xj is called a generalised thermodynamical force (tension)
and Jj a generalised thermodynamical flux (flow). The force Xj is the
gradient of an intensive parameter and the flux Jj the velocity density
vector of the corresponding extensive parameter. Let us explain this in
more detail. The symbol E indicates the summation of all XjJj terms.
Each XjJj term corresponds to a particular form of energy being

transformed. Each form of energy is made up of two factorising
quantities (parameters), the one extensive and the other one intensive.
The difference between extensive and intensive quantities is as follows.
When the system and hence its total energy is scaled (divided or
multiplied), all the extensive quantities become scaled, but not the
intensive quantities (see chapter 4, p79). The spread (variation) in the
intensive quantity of the j-th form of energy leads to the force Xj. The
force is formalised by comparing the spread in the intensive quantity
118
relative to a primitive spread such as that of space. The transfer (flow)

of the extensive quantity of the j-th form of energy leads to the flux Jj.
It may be formalised by comparing the transfer of the extensive quantity
relative to a primitive flow such as that of time. For example, in
electrical energy the intensive quantity is potential (measured in volt)
while the extensive quantity is charge (measured in coulomb). Thus, the
force is the gradient of the potential (divided by temperature) and the
flux is the current density.
The production of the entropy is schematically represented in figure 5.1.

Each arrow symbolises the entropy produced at the conversion of a form
of energy. An arrow directed into the system represents a gain in
energy. The length of an arrow symbolises the magnitude of the force
(tension). The thickness of an arrow symbolises the magnitude of the
flux (flow). The surface area of an arrow indicates the magnitude of the
entropy produced. The number of arrows corresponds to the degrees of
freedom. The irregularly distributed dots represent the consequence of
the entropy production, namely a manifestation of chaos.
Figure 5.1: Diagram of entropy production in the system SY

during the conversion of three forms of energy. It pictures the
equation d/dt(Si) = EXjJj > 0.
So far the physico-chemical explanation.
Since the material and the abstract worlds have been bridged, how would
we extend our explanation to the abstract world? We may very well
think of intensive and extensive parameters respectively as qualities
(rank, order, attribute, worth) and quantities (number, size, composition,
measure). Variation in qualities leads to tensions (forces, stress) while
variation in quantities leads to flows (fluxes, transfers).
119
We may think of the force (the gradient of an intensive parameter) by

comparing the spread of a quality relative to the spread of a primitive
quality. This comparison is being-like. In other words, differences in
being give rise to forces (tensions). Conversely, an indifference to
qualities leads to a lack in creative forces. An example of an abstract
force will be the emotion pleasure which may lead to a physical
manifestation of it.
We may also think of the flux by comparing the flow of a quantity

relative to the flow of a primitive quantity. This comparison is
becoming-like. In other words, differences in becoming give rise to
fluxes (flows). On the other hand, an indifference to quantities leads to
a lack in creative fluxes (outputs). An example of an abstract flow is the
behaviour laughter which also has its physical manifestation.
Pleasure as a force and laughter as a flux constitute together a form of

spiritual energy which we may call joy. Another form of spiritual energy
is hate which is made up by the pair malice (as the force) and vilification
(as the flux).
How to increase the entropy production
One day, wearied by these thoughts, I fell asleep, and found

myself in a dark place, which was like a subterranean cave,
very large and very deep, and swarming with men, who with
strange haste pursued in this darkness wandering fires
which they called honours, ......
We have seen in the previous chapter that it is very important to control

the rate of entropy production. A low rate is necessary to stay close to
equilibrium while a high rate is necessary to move far from equilibrium.
The rate may be influenced by three things:
* the magnitude of the forces Xj,
* the magnitude of the fluxes Jj
* the number of energy forms open to transformation.
120
[This number of transformable energy forms is also called the degrees

of freedom. This concept has two other related meanings, the one in
statistical physics (phase space) and the other in physical chemistry
(phase diagram).]
Increasing any one of these three things to increase the entropy

production has its own peculiarities. We will describe these peculiarities
and illustrate them with examples from both the material and abstract
world.
INCREASE A FORCE
Forces develop by spatial gradients in intensive parameters. We may
view these forces as differences in being. Thus, if we wish to increase
the magnitudes of these forces, we have to increase the gradients or
differences. It means that we have to allow for more variation between
specimens of the same species. Consider a material example. To
increase an electrical force we have to increase the potential difference
between two points. Consider also an abstract example. To increase a
logical force, we have to consider more kinds of logical valuations such
as statements, commands and questions. The practice of lateral thinking
advocated by De Bono (1970) has as one of its results the increase of
these forces. Rothenberg (1979) recognises these forces in psychology
by means of the notion 'Janusian thinking'. Kuhn (1977) is very close in
formalising them for historical studies. Coggin (1979, chapter 5)
displays great sensitivity to them in education. Pollock (1982) often
refers to them in business management. Senge (1990) identifies one of
them as the creative tension between current reality and vision.
When the magnitudes of the forces are increased, the stability of the
being (structure) will soon have to be considered. Subdued reactive
spots may become reactive, opening new transformation possibilities.
For example, increasing the social tension can cause a politically docile
person to become reactionary. Reactive spots already used to maintain
the present structure may become weaker. This may lead to the
disintegration of the structure. For example, an increase in the
economical tension can cause a normal family person to destroy the
family ties.
121
INCREASE A FLUX
Fluxes arise by temporal rates in extensive parameters. We may view
these fluxes as differences in becoming. Thus, if we wish to increase the
magnitudes of these fluxes, we have to increase the rates or differences.
It means that we have to allow for more variation between procedures of
the same methodology. Consider a material example. To increase an
electrical flux we have to increase the number of electrical charges
crossing a border. Consider also an abstract example. To increase a
logical flux, we have to scan faster through proven theorems.
When fluxes are increased, the resistance to becoming (function) will

soon have to be considered. Already existing resistances usually
increase, often faster than the increasing corresponding forces, thereby
limiting the fluxes. For example, when one language group is compelled
to use another language, increasing resentment may lead to a boycott of
an enforced usage of the language. In the world of business management
Hammer and Stanton (1995, pp 28-30) stress how important fast rates
are to revolutionary changes.
INCREASE THE DEGREES OF FREEDOM

I INTRINSICAL INCREASE
Remarkable behaviours are possible when the degrees of freedom
change. Then complexity surfaces.
The degrees of freedom may increase dubiously by cross-induction.

Cross-induction happens, while one form of energy is transformed into
another form of energy, when a third form of energy also becomes
transformed. Cross-inductions are provided for by the Onsager
reciprocal relationships (see De Groot and Mazur, 1962). In material
systems, for example, when the pressure is increased to increase the
pressure-volume energy, the temperature is also increased by converting
some of the pressure-volume energy into thermal energy. This
phenomenon in gases is known as the law of Charles. However, in some
crystals an electrical potential and current may also appear, known as the
Piezo effect.
Why do we say the degrees of freedom may increase dubiously by cross-

induction? Cross-induction is always present in complex systems, but
122
not always detected by the surroundings because of particular closures

between the system and its surroundings. The detection usually occurs
when the existing forces Xj and fluxes Jj have been stretched to their
limit. This causes abrupt changes in stabilities and restitivities which
usually disrupt the particular closures.
Ignorance of cross-inductions and their reciprocal nature has often

resulted in complex systems being described as stochastic (random)
systems whereas they are in fact deterministic systems. A system is
deterministic (like a mathematical function) when there is a unique
consequence for every change of state. Conversely, a system is
stochastic (like a mathematical relation) when any one of a number of
consequences according to a probability distribution is possible for every
change of state. The more complex a system, the more such cross-
inductions can happen. In other words, we may employ the number of
cross inductions as an indication of the complexity of the system. Cross-
inductions cannot be discovered by multivariable regression analysis.
Path analysis is much more fruitful in discovering them.
Cross-inductions are common in the complex world of human affairs.

Our experience of it is as follows. We have often planned two or more
things to happen, the one as the trigger and the rest as its consequence -
then to our embarrassment other things also occur unexpectedly! It is
even worse when somebody else causes these cross inductions. It is as
if we lose irreversibly control over our own future, as if the individual
has to give way to the social dimension. Amabile (1983) studied these
aversive effects of external constraints on creative people without
realising the underlying pattern of Onsager reciprocal relationships.
We usually try to manage these unwanted cross-inductions in a

destructive manner by trying to reduce the degrees of freedom and hence
the complexity. It is done in terms of the mechanics of creativity. We
try to destroy the unwanted energy forms by denying them one or more
of the seven essentialities of creativity. However, this seldom works
because in the complexity that does exist, some transformable energy
forms and their seven essentialities are simply overlooked. It is through
them that cross-inductions appear. Thus it is better to control these
cross-inductions in a constructive manner. This may be done by
knowing in advance the existing reciprocal relationships and then to act
123
accordingly.
We can prevent too much entropy production taking place through

unwanted cross-inductions by ensuring that for every form of energy we
are in control of, both the force (tension) and flux (flow) will exist. For
example, when we introduce a change in a social tension-flow pair in
order to cause an expected economical tension, we must also ensure
sufficient economical flow, else other tension-flow pairs such as
political or religious pairs may become too large. Consider another
example. To increase a person's creativity, it is often recommended to
reduce stress. This is not good advice because it is contraproductive to
entropy production. The advice should be that stress should be managed
in terms of allowing more force-flux pairs to operate fully. Consider a
third example. To increase a person's creativity, it is also often
recommend that the person should move to a fertile environment (nature
rich in variety, creative companions, etc.). Part of this advice clearly has
to do with the dynamics of creativity. The idea is to become sensitive
to more of the existing degrees of freedom and thus to have more force-
flux (tension-flow) pairs to produce entropy. The other part of this
advice has to do with the mechanics of creativity.
II EMERGENT INCREASE
This simply means that the system must acquire new forms of energy.
The system has to become more complex. The system cannot import
(assimilate) the new forms from its surroundings. These new forms can
only emerge from within when the system is far from equilibrium. This
is the most daring way to increase the entropy production. We will
discuss emergences through bifurcations in the next section.
Emergence means that new orders have to be created as well as

manifolds in existing simplistic orders (see Miller, 1978, pp 25-29 and
Cook, 1980, pp 181-188). The more the forms of energy which can
change, the less the force (tension) and flux (flow) needed in each form.
This is the way we actually have to proceed because the more complex
a system becomes, the more delicate (finely tuned) it becomes and thus
the more easily it is overthrown by excessive cross-inductions.
However, we then have to become fully creative and knowledgeable on
creativity, especially its revolutionary phase which involves bifurcations.
124
Let us illustrate the increasing of the degrees of freedom and its

cumulative effect as follows.. Think of a housekeeper who has to use an
immense number of electrical gadgets (washing machine, tumble drier,
iron, toaster, oven, telephone, etc.) during the course of one day. Each
of these electrical gadgets produces entropy. But in order to use them
effectively, the housekeeper also has to create mental entropy. Using
each gadget is simple and requires little entropy production. But to use
all of them during one day has a cumulative effect. No wonder that this
entropy produced may manifest itself in a grand explosion when a
simple question is asked like "What have you done today?"!
The new degrees of freedom often emerge by cross-inductions in the

existing forms in a very special manner. The cross-inductions link up
until they form a closed loop. Looped inductions are better known as
feedback loops with a cyclic (resonating) nature. For example, when a
gas is heated, thermal energy is transformed into pressure-volume energy
during which the gas expands. But the less dense gas also rises with the
conversion of thermal energy into macroscopical kinetic energy. In an
open upright pipe this macroscopical kinetic energy can be converted
into sound energy which itself links back to the pressure-volume energy.
Thus the heating of a gas can cause an intense resonating sound.
When one (or even more) of the forms of energy is not simplistic, but
complex with a manifold of possibilities, the possibility for feedback
loops increases immensely. Chemical energy is a typical example.
Every compound has its own unique chemical energy. In other words,
two or more chemicals in a system represent a manifold of chemical
energies. As soon as the chemicals in a system can react with each
other, the possibility of chemical feedback loops arises. This means
linked inductions forming a closed loop are possible in merely one
manifold (form of energy). In the chemical industry and technology
such feedback loops have found little application because of the artificial
nature of the industry and technology. But in the natural biosphere such
feedback loops play an immensely important role to produce complex
biochemical compounds or to release chemically stored energy.
Cross-inductions linked into a closed loop are quite common in the

extremely complex world of human affairs. They are usually referred to
as cycles. In the economic domain, these cycles (conjunctures) have
125
become major patterns to plan and live by. But in most other domains
they are seldom realised. In the political world they are ignored by
design. Political 'conjunctures' are bad news for political parties.
Massive entropy production
Often there were heard voices which said: 'Hold, mortals;

whither go ye, wretched that ye are?' Others cried, 'Lift up
your eyes to heaven'; but they did not stop, and only lifted
their eyes to pursue these dangerous trifles. I was one of
those who was extraordinarily struck by these voices. I kept
on looking up, and at last saw the little light which required
so much attention......
No entropy is produced at equilibrium. As the rate of entropy

production is increased, the system moves further away from
equilibrium. The entropy produced has to be manifested firstly as chaos
of becoming among the entities of the existing order(s). This
manifestation happens automatically. For example, an increase in the
disorder of motion is one way to affect chaos of becoming. When all
these ways have been saturated, any additional increase in entropy has
to be manifested secondly as order of being. It may happen
constructively when some of the extra entropy gets locked up into new
structures of a higher emerging order. The rest of the entropy is again
manifested as chaos of becoming among the new structures. This
second, constructive manifestation will not happen automatically like the
first manifestation, but only when all seven essentialities of creativity are
present. When one or more of these essentialities (see chapter 6) are
impaired or absent, the second manifestation will happen destructively.
126
Figure 5.2: Diagram of entropy production in the system SY.

First manifestation is as chaos of becoming (movement).
Second manifestation is as order of being (structure).
In figure 5.2 (a sequel to figure 5.1) the two manifestations are

illustrated. The irregularly distributed dots outside the system SY
symbolise the first manifestation as chaos of becoming. This entropy is
commuted to the rest of the universe. It is followed from behind by the
second manifestation as order of being. This is symbolised by outward
growing arches.
When we compare the newly emerged order with the old parent order,
a most remarkable conclusion follows. The new order is asymmetric and
transitive to the old order rather than symmetric and reflexisive. This is
probably the most striking manifestation of the fundamental symmetry
breaking of the second law. For example, a butterfly emerges from a
pupa and not another pupa; a fruit emerges from a pollinated flower and
not another flower. It means that a single emergence does not lead to an
identical replica or clone. Thus the resilience of the new order is
ensured. Should the old parent order be replicated into a new
generation, then it happens by two or more emergences forming a cycle.
This leads to the inevitable introduction of some degree of variation
because of the asymmetrical and transitive nature of each emergence in
the cycle.
Both the high rate of entropy production and the seven essentialities
have to be present for a new higher order to emerge. Consider for
example a catastrophe somewhere in the surroundings which may
produce entropy at a high enough rate for possible emergence in the
system. In this case the emergence of the structures of a new higher
127
order may be called irreversible co-organisation. The word 'irreversible'

refers to entropy production as the primordial cause. The word 'co-
organisation' refers to both the system and surroundings participating in
the organisation. In the biological world irreversible co-organisation
often leads to what is known by the term symbiosis (mutual, comensual
or parasitical).
However, irreversible co-organisation does not happen so frequently as

the many entropy inundations (catastrophes). This is because not all
seven the essentialities are present in the system when the entropy
inundation occurs. Constructive emergence is not possible any more.
Then present orders will disappear destructively into temporary, unstable
lower orders. This lack of synchronisation between the entropy
production in the surroundings and the seven essentialities in the system
is exactly why these events of high entropy production are called
catastrophes.
In the material world many examples of such catastrophes exist in

palaeontology. The disappearance of the dinosaurs is probably the best
known catastrophe. Such catastrophes also abound in the realm of
human affairs which entail the abstract world. Think about the
disappearance of cultures and civilisations in Asia and South America.
Think about the disappearance of business conglomerates, religious
dispensations and political administrations. In the mind such
catastrophes are known as psychotic disorders. Eysenck (1994), for
example, is of the opinion that there is a close relationship between
creativity and psychotism. We are now observing one of these
relationships, i.e. the inability to obtain constructive mental emergences.
Whereas sources of high entropy production in the surroundings lead to

relatively few irreversible co-organisations in systems, systems which
produce their own entropy at a high rate are much more successful in
constructive emergence. In such cases we may speak of irreversible
self-organisation. The term autopoiesis (self making, see Maturana and
Varela, 1980) also applies here. Self-organisation is much more
successful because of sustaining both the high entropy production and
the seven essentialities. This is especially evident in autocatalytic
cycles. The seven essentialities are necessary to maintain a positive
feedback in the cycle. The succession of the cycles leads to an increase
128
in the entropy production. This does not mean that negative feedback
cycles have no role themselves to play. They are indeed important in
control processes (see, for example, Senge, 1990, p 79).
In chemistry a catalyst is a compound which participates in a reaction,

but which is neither consumed by the reaction nor a final product of it.
An autocatalyst is a catalyst temporally produced during the reaction
itself. It does not occur before or after the reaction. Let us illustrate this
in accordance with the general reaction equation
aA + bB + ... = dD + eE +...
Consider for example the simplified overall reaction
A+B=D+E [0]
Let this reaction be made up by four steps:
A=X [1]
B+X=Y+D [2]
2X + Y = 3X [3]
X=E [4]
Compounds X and Y are catalysts in the sense that they do not occur in
the overall reaction [0]. Step [1] describes the initial production of X.
Steps [1] (production) and [4] (removal) ensure that X acts as an
autocatalyst. Step [2] describes the production of catalyst Y. Steps [2]
and [3] link the two catalysts X and Y into a loop. Thus they may also
be called crosscatalytic steps. Step [3] provides for the amplification
(positive feedback) in the loop in terms of X. The effect of the positive
feedback is to increase the entropy production. This lowers the free
energy of activation of one of the intermediate complexes formed in one
on the steps. These steps may be represented schematically in figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3: Diagram of auto- and crosscatalytic reactions to

provide a positive feedback loop for the amplification of entropy
production.
The rate equation for X, namely

dX\dt = kA[A] + kY[X]2[Y] - kB[B][X] - kX[X]
clearly shows through the term kY[X]2[Y] that the production of X and
129
thus the entropy are nonlinear. We usually expect (from an equation

such as A + B = C + D) a steady conversion of A and B into D and E
while the concentrations of X and Y first increase and then decrease
towards the end of the reaction. However, whenever
[B] > [A]2 +1
the steady conversion becomes thermodynamically unstable. Any
microscopic fluctuation will then trigger the reaction to oscillate in the
values of [X] and [Y]. Thus the reaction bifurcates from a steady
conversion to a cyclic conversion at the thermodynamical instability.
Before the instability the steady conversion is stable and the cyclic
conversion unstable, but beyond the instability point, they switch their
stable/unstable roles. The tendency towards levelling out fluctuations
and forgetting initial conditions is no longer a general property such as
in steady conversions. We may think of a ball, either in a valley or on
top of a hill. The ball in the valley resembles the state of steady
conversion while the ball on top of the hill resembles the state of cyclic
conversion. Any fluctuation in the ball's equilibrium position in the
valley is soon dampened. But on top of the hill, it becomes quite a
different matter.
Reaction [0] with it steps [1] - [4] is known as the Brusselator. Other
reaction models such as the Oregonator have also been studied. On the
level of inanimate matter, oscillating reactions have not yet been
observed to occur naturally. This does not mean that they cannot occur
on the inanimate level. Artificial oscillating reactions have indeed been
prepared such as the Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction.
However, on the level of living matter these oscillating reactions become

very important and even essential. All biochemical reactions are
thermodynamically possible (both steady and cyclic conversion) because
the free energy has to decrease ()G-W<0). But the steady conversion
is often kinetically impossible because the energy of activation is too
high to be overcome as usual by thermal energy (Gact>>RT). What
happens then is that the system deliberately exploits the
thermodynamical instability by bifurcating into a cyclic conversion.
Amplification of the entropy produced, results in decreasing the free
energy of activation in some intermediate complex somewhere along the
path. Consequently the overall reaction also becomes kinetically
130
possible. The most insignificant fluctuation in the system then becomes

magnified to significant consequences. We may think here of the
glycolytic cycle in which the energetics between glucose, ADP and ATP
are exploited.
These autocatalytic oscillating reactions are not limited to the

microscopical scale of biochemistry (see, for example, Eigen and
Schuster, 1979). They also occur on the scale of cells, for example in
the aggregation of slime moulds. They even occur on the scale of
species as has been noted in ecological studies. Note for example the
Lotka-Volterra equations which model prey-predator competition.
Physicists should not feel alienated by a cyclic emergent diagram such

as the one depicted in fig 5.3. Many examples of such diagrams can be
cited from electronics in particular and cybernetics or system theory in
general (see Von Bertalanffy, 1968). In all of them irreversibility plays
an essential role, although it is seldom mentioned or employed. But
what about classical mechanics where irreversibility apparently plays no
role? We base our mechanical descriptions in terms of quantities such
as time, displacement, velocity and acceleration. We also distinguish
between two asymptotes of motion: rectilinear and circular. In
rectilinear motion the magnitudes of displacement, velocity and
acceleration change while their directions remain constant. In circular
motion the magnitudes remain constant while the directions change. If
we now think of the magnitudes as quantities and the directions as
qualities, then we are able to link cyclic emergent diagrams even to
mechanics through the transformation to action-angle variables (see
Prigogine, 1980, pp 30-32).
But what about the realm of human affairs which entails the abstract
world? Do autocatalytic conversions play a role in the emergence of
new structures? Indeed yes. For example, just think of bureaucracies
(see Kanter, 1989). They are usually instigated to accomplish some
simple steady conversion. But soon the bureaucracy sets up an internal
cyclic multiplication scheme to try and overcome a self-inflicted free
energy (potential) barrier which inhibits kinetic activities. This self-
inflicted barrier arises as a result of one or more of the seven
essentialities becoming impaired. See also Morgan (1986) for a
discussion on cycles in the business world.
131
Miller (1987) and the anthology by Henry and Walker (1991) show great
sensitivity to this (what they call) 'innovative' phase of the dynamics of
creativity. Even the technique of 'brainstorming' in creative problem
solving may be referred to here. See Osborne (1963), Rickards (1974)
and VanGundy (1988, ch 4). VanGundy gives an extensive review on
brainstorming. The practice of re-engineering in management science
may also be referred to here. See Hammer and Stanton (1995) and also
Peters (1985).
The third part of this book will look into probably the most remarkable
cyclic conversion in all human affairs, namely, to learn new concepts
emergently. A computer program which aids emergent learning by
means of cycles with a positive feedback, will also be discussed.
Revolutionary creations
It seemed to me to grow in proportion as I looked fixedly at

it. My eyes became as it were imbued with its rays, and
when I used them immediately afterwards to see where I
was and whither I was going, I was able to discern what
was around me, which was enough to save me from the
dangers......
We will now choose a general name for this second manifestation of

entropy production as order of being. The name has to reflect the
possible emergence of a new higher order. It also has to reflect that the
second manifestation has to follow the first manifestation, the latter as
immense chaos of becoming. Furthermore, it has to reflect the
dangerous nature of the second manifestation when it happens
destructively rather than constructively. (It also has to reflect the fact
that the second manifestation contains two quite distinctive phases, but
we will come to this duality in due course.) Names such as 'catastrophe'
132
and 'chaos' have already been used in mathematical literature. In chaos

theory, for example, the immense amplification of a minute disturbance
(butterfly-effect) is studied mathematically. However, these names
depict particular features of the second manifestation rather than the
manifestation itself. What we have to do, is to select a name from our
experiences with second manifestations. The name 'revolution' is very
descriptive and in common use. Thus we will speak of revolutionary
creations (constructive or destructive) happening far from equilibrium.
Now let us list some of the main features of revolutionary creations:

1 Revolutions happen far from equilibrium during a high rate of
entropy production.
2 A bare new order emerges qualitatively as a result of the second
manifestation of entropy production.
3 Revolutions amplify minute fluctuations into immense structural
changes.
4 All the various parts of the system act coherently during the
emergence.
5 A high rate of entropy production is usually accomplished
through cycles with a positive feedback.
We have described in the previous section how these main features are
interrelated. It is through this interrelated complexity that they acquire
consistent meanings. For example, to substitute feature 1 with its logical
negation
1' Revolutions happen close to equilibrium during a very low rate
of entropy production.
simply does not make sense in respect of the other main features. This
is the case for each of these main features. The consistency means that
we can predict a significant part of reality with our model of
revolutionary creations. It is our task to improve daily on this model.
However, we cannot model all of reality by revolutionary creations.

Reality is far more complex than mere revolutionary creations. In fact,
trying to model human affairs by mere revolutionary creations has often
led to disastrous results. We have more than enough historical evidence
in economical, political, social, educational and religious affairs. Much
in life happens in a laissez-faire manner. Not everything is drama with
immense forces and fluxes. Many things happen serenely with changes
133
almost unnoticeable. Think for example of the peaceful development of

democracy. Thus the second manifestation of entropy as order of
becoming appears to be the complex interaction between two asymptotes
of creations, revolutionary and ----?
We have to name this other asymptote of creations. The word

'revolutionary' and its connotations immediately suggest the word
'evolutionary'. Thus we expect the main features of evolutionary
creations to be:
1 Evolutions apparently happen close to equilibrium during a low
rate of entropy production.
2 The existing orders are quantitatively embodied, also as a result
of the second manifestation of entropy production.
3 They dampen minute fluctuations into even tinier structural
changes.
4 The various parts of the system apparently act independently of
each other, except for their dependence on the first
manifestation of entropy production.
5 A low rate of entropy production is usually accomplished
through apparently open-ended diffusions with a negative
feedback.
Why has the word apparently been written in italics? We know that the
second manifestation of entropy (order of being) has to happen far from
equilibrium since the first manifestation (chaos of becoming) begins
close to equilibrium and then drives the system far from equilibrium. By
recognising evolutionary creations, it seems as if the second law is
indeterminate about its manifestations close to equilibrium - chaos or
order (evolutionary). This apparent indeterminacy is the result of wrong
perceptions on our part. We should not think of one coherent system far
from equilibrium, as in the case of revolutionary creations. We should
also think of many minute subsystems distributed in a great sea of low
entropy production (chaos of becoming). Although each subsystem acts
far from equilibrium, its contribution to the total entropy production is
small relative to the sea itself. The importance of such 'islands in a sea'
is seldom recognised. De Callatay (1992, p59) with his concept of
'sparse density' in the neural network model of artificial intelligence is
one of the few exceptions.
134
To put it mathematically. Assume the specific entropies of the islands

and the sea to be se(t) and s(t) with dse/dt >> ds/dt. Assume the volume
of the islands and the sea to be a and b with a << b. Then the total rate
of entropy production for the system is:
dS/dt = d/dt(ase + bs)
so that
d/dt((ase + bs)/(a + b)) << dse/dt
What we observe in evolutionary creations is d/dt((ase + bs)/(a + b)) and
not dse/dt.
Thus we have to hunt for a model by which we can predict evolutionary

creations. Again, as in the case of the Brusselator, our chemical
experience may provide such a model. In other words, as the Brusselator
has become the operational definition for revolutionary creations, this
new chemical model has to become the operational definition for
evolutionary creations. Such a model has been found and a reportback
will be given in the next section. It is called:
The Digestor
...... I was led by my good star to a place which was the sole
and most advantageous spot in the grotto destined for those
whom the Divinity wished to withdraw altogether from these
dark regions. Barely had I begun to look up when I was
surrounded by a great light gathered from all sides, and the
whole grotto and its horrors were fully revealed to my eyes.
But a moment afterwards a dazzling brightness took me by
surprise......
When a solution containing barium ions Ba2+(aq) is mixed with a

solution containing sulpate ions SO42-(aq), a thick, powdery precipitate
is immediately formed.
Ba2+(aq) + SO42-(aq) = BaSO4(s)
)H2m = +19.3 kJ.mol-1
)S2m = -0.1020 kJ.mol-1.K-1
)G2m = + 49,7 kJ.mol-1
135
The entropy production is so high that equilibrium is reached after a few

seconds. The entropy production is given by
)SUN = )SSY + )SSU
= )n()S2m - )H2m/TSY)
= +0.176)n kJ.mol-1.K-1
where )n is the collection (moles) of precipitate formed. Equilibrium
is reached so quickly that the precipitate is in a very finely divided state -
there is no time for crystals to grow. Thus, if we wish to obtain the
precipitate by filtration, most of it will run through the filter paper and
not remain on it.
However, the equilibrium state is meta-stable. The reason is as follows:

if we leave the mixture to stand for some weeks, the precipitate changes
from a powdery form to a crystalline form. This happens very close to
equilibrium. Should we filter it again, all the precipitate will remain.
This is because the crystals have grown considerably in size while
decreasing in numbers. The time this process takes may be reduced to
a few hours by increasing the temperature of the mixture to just below
the boiling point of water. The process is known as Ostwald's digestion
in analytical chemistry. It has been researched quite extensively in terms
of solubility, crystal growth, etc., but not in terms of its basic
thermodynamics.
How did the crystals grow in size? Did the smaller crystals merely
coagulated to form fewer and bigger crystal clusters? No. The smallest
crystals dissolved while the dissolved ions moved to the bigger crystals
to be repacked on their surfaces. In other words, the smallest crystals
acted as prey and the biggest crystals as predators! What is even more
remarkable, is that the mere size (say m) of a crystal is not the only
determining factor. A smaller crystal C1 with less crystal defects (errors)
in it will outgrow and eventually devour a bigger crystal C2 with more
crystal defects in it!
We may consider a smaller crystal with less crystal defects in it as a

system which is larger in its number (say M) of higher order levels. In
other words, if m1 expresses the size of the lowest order and M1 the
number of higher orders, then C1 will beat C2 despite m1<m2 because
M1>M2.
136
The chemical description of the digestion reaction is

n1(BaSO4)m1(M1) + n2(BaSO4)m2(M2) =
n1(BaSO4)8m1(M1) + n2(BaSO4)9m2(M2)
Here m1 (predator) and m2 (prey) denote the number of ion pairs
Ba2+SO42- in the lowest order, i.e. the size of the crystals. Furthermore,
8m1 and 9m2 denote the growth of the predator and the decay of the
prey. They are given by
8m1 = m1(1+ )n/n1)
9m2 = m2(1- )n/n2)
where )n is the number of ion pairs moving from C1 to C2. Lastly, M1
(predator) and M2 (prey) denote the solid, crystalline phase with the
number of crystal perfections (number of higher orders). The more the
crystal defects, the lower M becomes. Many kinds of crystal defects
exist such as dislocations in the lattice, foreign species caught up in the
lattice structure and impurities adsorbed on the crystal surface.
An equation for the free energy change of the digestion may be derived.
It is given by
)GD = -)n.m2.(HM1(m1) - HM2(m2))
where for example HM1(m1) is the enthalpy of the Madelung growth of
crystal C1 with m1 ion pairs and M1 crystal perfections. The superscript
D refers to the Digestor as the system or model for evolutionary self-
organisation. It consists of both C1 (predator) and C2 (prey). We may
regard C2 as part of the surroundings, rewriting the previous equation as
)G = -)n.mSU.(HMSY(mSY) - HMSU(mSU))
This is a remarkable equation and will be taken as the operational
definition of our model for evolutionary creations. It will be discussed
in full detail in the next section.
Obviously, up to now the Digestor is only valid for the competition

between crystals in the inanimate world. Thus we may have to speak of
it as the Crystal Digestor. Rather than looking for digestors in all
hierarchies and establishing the validity of each one, we will simply
consider one in one of the highest levels of human affairs, namely
education. In other words, we will accept the bridge between the
material and the abstract world. We will call it the Educational
Digestor. We will then observe how apt the correspondence is between
the crystal and the educational digestors. Von Bertalanffy (1968) has
already anticipated in general systems theory how important such
137
correspondences (isomorphisms, adjunctions, metaphors) will become.

Chomsky (1976) and Prigogine (1980) are also very sensitive to this
problem.
We will first describe the educational digestor in terms of the Didaskein.

The Didaskein is a concept developed by the Pretoria school of
phenomenological educationalists (Van der Stoep and Louw, 1984).
The existence of the Didaskein makes a training exercise an everlasting
educational experience. Fourteen essential properties (categories) of the
Didaskein have been identified. Each of these essential properties may
be discussed as has been done by Van der Stoep and Louw without any
knowledge or reference to the crystal digestor. But it is also possible to
discuss them by using the crystal digestor as metaphor. This may be
done as follows.
Let the totality of the learner's educational experiences be represented

by the crystal CSY in quantity mSY and quality MSY. The crystal CSY has
to develop by feeding on crystals CSU in the surroundings.
1 Unlocking (disclosure) of reality

The teacher has to provide and organise the crystals CSU (instructional
materials) in the surroundings. The teacher also has to provide the
solvent (didactical theory) which is capable of dissolving these crystals
into solvated ions (objective based learning experiences).
2 Learning (experiencing) reality
The learner's own crystal CSY has to develop whether it is initially small
and by fast revolution or eventually large and by slow evolution. This
growth in the learner's own crystal enables the learner to digest more and
more crystals in the surroundings with increasing quantity mSU and
quality MSU.
3 Forming reality
The learner has to acquire formedness MSY (perception of the higher
orders of reality) as the crystal has formedness in terms of symmetry,
conductivity, solubility, etc. Moreover, it is these very properties of
formedness which increase the long range forces needed for further
digestion (crystallisation).
4 Orientation towards reality
The learner is in need of fixed points (ordered being) in terms of which
more and more of reality can be comprehended. These fixed points in
138
the crystal structure (mSY and MSY) have already been developed in the
learner by original and digested precipitations.
5 Accompaniment (guidance) in reality
The teacher who is situated in the surroundings SU often has to assess
the status (mSY and MSY) of the learner's crystal. Upon these findings the
teacher then has to adjust the surroundings in such a manner that the
learner's own crystal keeps on developing.
6 Objectification of reality
High concentrations of ions simply do not collapse into crystals, nor do
such crystals coagulate into bigger clusters. High concentrations of ions
have to be prepared by mixing them and the crystals have to digest
(dissolve, diffuse, reprecipitate) into bigger ones. The mixing and
digesting processes are most important in this objectification. Through
them the learner discovers a distance between himself and reality and
how to bridge this gap.
7 Imperativity of reality
The learner's crystal has to develop by digesting the surroundings and
not vice versa. It is quite possible that the surroundings may become the
predator and the learner the prey. However, this should never be
allowed to happen. The learner should even learn how to overcome such
predations. Objectives and goals may be used to check against predation
practices.
8 Anticipation of reality
Reality is complex, demanding and intimidating. To anticipate this
complexity the learner's crystal must grow quantitatively (m) and
qualitatively (M). The future will be even more complex, demanding
and intimidating. Thus, by becoming a gemstone, the learner is able to
deal with the future effectively.
9 Formalising (modelisation of) reality
Reality is neither only content (such as a solution of solvated ions), nor
only form (such as crystals in the surroundings having mSU and MSU), but
both. To formalise it, is to be sensitive to both content and form and to
keep them in fine balance.
10 Socialising reality
There are many learners from infants to adults, each having a crystal at
some stage of development. These learners' crystals can interact with
each other as each interacts with the crystals in the environment. The
more complex (mature) a learner's crystal becomes, the more it can
influence less complex (juvenile) learners' crystals, either favourably or
139
detrimentally.
11 'Demarcation' of reality
Experiencing reality should be delimited in space and time. It means
there should be a place and time for every step in the development of the
learner's crystal. Thus the dissolving of the crystals in the surroundings,
the diffusion of the solvated ions to the learner and their recrystallisation
of the learner's crystal should be accounted for in space (being) and time
(becoming).
12 Reduction of reality
Reality can be quite intimidating and unyielding because of its
complexity (large mSU and MSU). To overcome this, the complexity has
to be introduced gradually in such a manner that along each step it can
sustain a growth in the complexity (mSY and MSY) of the learner's own
crystal. This requires a reduction of the complexity at each step.
13 Achievement in reality
The learner himself has to become aware of the development of his/her
crystal, how to assess it, how to control it and how it is influenced by the
surroundings. Self-achievement in the development of the crystal leads
to a responsible lifestyle.
14 Progression in reality
The simplicity of the child's crystal must develop into the complexity of
the adult's crystal. The adult's crystal must also complexify into an even
more granitic complex of crystals. In other words, there should be a
progression in complexity, i.e. an increase in mSY and MSY. This
progression is necessary to handle the ever increasing complexity mSU
and MSU of the surroundings.
The description of the essential properties of the Didaskein in terms of

the Crystal Digestor as metaphor is remarkable. To set up an adjunction
(isomorphism) between them, we have to determine whether the
converse is also possible. In other words, we must be able to describe
the Crystal Digestor in terms of the Didaskein as metaphor. The result
will be known as an anthropomorphic description. This can be done, but
is given as an exercise to the reader. Again the reader will find such a
description quite appropriate.
From the appropriateness of the adjunction we may conclude that much

of the dynamics of the Didaskein can be uncovered by studying the
dynamics of the Crystal Digestor. We may even go so far as to identify
140
the Educational Digestor within the Didaskein. However, since the

Digestor merely concerns evolutionary creations, we cannot equate the
Didaskein with the Educational Digestor. The Didaskein also concerns
revolutionary creations. In fact, we can now clearly observe one of the
serious deficiencies and problems of modern education in many
countries: the inability to introduce and manage revolutionary learning
creations. The emergence of intelligence is quite alien to modern
education.
To simplify matters, we will in future only speak of the Digestor for both
the material and abstract worlds and not of different kinds of Digestors.
Let us then use the Digestor to delve more deeply into the nature of
evolutionary creations, especially in human affairs. Evolutionary
creations have already been anticipated in the biological world through
notions such as co-evolution (Jantsch,1980) and (Spencer, 1988) as well
as genetical drift (Maturana and Varela, 1987) and synergy (Corning,
1983).
Evolutionary creations
......I felt myself raised up. I was no longer in the cave, I no

longer saw a vault above me, and found myself on a high
mountain which revealed to me the face of the earth. I saw
in the distance anything that I wished to look at in a general
way; but when I considered a particular place fixedly,
immediately it grew, and in order to see it as if close at
hand, I needed no other telescope than my attention. This
gave me wondrous pleasure ......
The dynamics of evolutionary creations is predicted by the equation

where )G is the change in free energy affected by evolutionary
creations. A negative )G points to spontaneous evolutionary creations
in a system which may also be harnessed as a work source. A positive
)G points to non-spontaneous evolutionary creations which will only
141
happen under force in a system while the surroundings do sufficient

work on the system. Consult the previous chapter for a detailed
explanation of the relationship between free energy )G and work W
and how it affects spontaneity.
This equation has a number of remarkable properties. Firstly it has a

flux factor in )n and a force factor in mSU.(HMSY(mSY) - HMSU(mSU)). In
other words, changes in the free energy are only possible when both the
flux and force are present. Remember that the flux )n is the collection
of minor organisations (solvated ions, basic components, food) flowing
between the surroundings and the system. In other words, the higher the
consumption of 'raw materials', the greater the free energy available.
Also remember that (HMSY(mSY) - HMSU(mSU)) expresses the difference
between how the system and the surroundings react energetically on
using the raw materials. The greater this difference, the more the free
energy will change.
The presence of the factor mSU is extraordinary and has far reaching
consequences. The factor mSU expresses the quantitative nature of the
surroundings in terms of the size of its lower order. It shows that the
quantitative nature of the surroundings definitely has an influence on the
evolutionary creations which have to happen in the system. The more
massive the surrounding is in its lower orders, the greater the change in
free energy of the system. This truth has been known for millenniums
in human affairs. A poor environment is not favourable to evolutionary
developments. It becomes the breeding ground for opportunists to
instigate revolutionary creations for which the system is often not ready
yet. The role of the cultural environment in human affairs has been
investigated frequently in psychology.
The factor mSU also makes )G asymmetrical with respect to the

quantities mSY and mSU. This means that symmetry breaking is built into
the Digestor. This symmetry breaking is important to creative systems.
It has to do with the essentiality of open-paradigm. Furthermore, the
symmetry breaking has to be accomplished by making changes in the
surroundings and not in the system. How many tragedies have been
brought about by trying to change persons directly rather than by
indirectly changing their surroundings?
142
The factor HMSY(mSY) - HMSU(mSU) consists of two opposing terms

HMSY(mSY) and HMSU(mSU). They act very much like the two action
functions f6 and f7 (see figure 11, chapter 3), except for an important
difference. Although the action functions increase monotonically, their
increases are not diminishing like those of a Lyapunouv function.
However, HM(m) is indeed a Lyapunouv function as the calculation of
the Madelung forces in a crystal shows. Consequently one can have a
quantitative organisation apparently close to equilibrium. These
opposing terms allow us to model dialectical situations in human affairs
such as the poor and the rich, the loser and the winner, the spectator and
the actor, etc.
It is also remarkable that the collections nSY and nSU (see for example the
stoichiometrical coefficients n1 and n2 in the reaction equation for the
operational definition in the previous section) do not occur in the
equation
This means that collection numbers do not play a role in evolutionary
creations, but rather being quantities such as m and M. In other words,
only one predator may trigger the extinction of a multitude of prey. This
peculiarity of evolutionary creations is probably the most important
reason why western civilisation is preoccupied with ontology which
reduces reality into a being. Confusion between n and m is also a reason
why many democracies are so easily corrupted. The majority vote (n)
does not ensure a free society, but the inner quantities (m) and qualities
(M) of its members.
Much insight can be gained in how )G depends on mSY, mSU, MSY and
MSU by viewing this relationship graphically. Since this relationship is
a surface in a 5 dimensional space, we will have to do it with a number
of graphs in three dimensional space. We will plot )G on the vertical
axis against mSY and mSU on the two projected axes. We will select three
cases for MSY and MSU, namely MSY<MSU, MSY=MSU and MSY>MSU. The
regions where )G<0 (spontaneous evolutionary creativity) will be
darkened. The whole )G surface is like a skin under tension while
being pulled upwards or downwards at the front corner closest to the
reader.
143
Figure 5.4: Graph of the free energy change )G for

evolutionary creations versus the lower organisations mSY of the
system and mSU of the surroundings. The system's higher
organisation MSY is inferior to that (MSU) of the surrounding.
Consider figure 5.4 where the system has lower qualities than its
surroundings, i.e. MSY<MSU. The system has to (create, grow, organise)
quantitatively in terms of mSY which refers to a lower ordered quality.
This has to happen by feeding on the surroundings by diminishing mSU.
The system creates spontaneously ()G<0, darker area) over only a small
region. Although the system is spontaneous for all values of mSY, it
quickly becomes non-spontaneous for bigger values of mSU ()G>0,
lighter area). Decreasing MSY and increasing MSU is like pulling the
front corner upwards. The darker region becomes thinner while still
being fixed to the axis mSY.
We have an equilibrated situation where the darker and lighter regions

meet. Here the system SY and its surroundings SU act as peers. In the
lighter region (bigger values of mSU) the system is forced into a non-
spontaneous state. We may also say that the system is intimidated by the
surroundings to such an extent that it cannot spontaneously create
evolutionary creations. (Miller, 1978, calls it an information overload.)
The system will only create if it is forced by the surroundings through
144
work done by the surroundings on the system. However, in the darker

region (small values of mSU) the system can create spontaneously. In
human affairs we may say that in this region the system is motivated.
These spontaneous creations may be harnessed as work to accomplish
both manifestations of the entropy so produced (order of being and
chaos of becoming).

organisation MSY is equal to that (MSU) of the surroundings.
Now consider figure 5.5 where the system has the same qualities as its
surroundings, i.e. MSY=MSU. We immediately observe that the darker
region has increased considerably, almost as if it now matches the lighter
region. (We may affect such an increase by pulling the front corner of
the surface downwards.) This means that the system is more resilient to
the intimidating influence of the surroundings. Although the system's
lower-ordered organisation mSY contributes to this resilience in the )
shaped growth of the darker region, the system's higher-ordered
organisation MSY makes the ) shape broader much more quickly. In
other words, although quantities contribute to motivation, qualities play
the decisive role! This is a profound result, confirming common sense.
Lastly, consider figure 5.6 where the system has higher qualities than its
surroundings, i.e. MSY>MSU. We immediately observe that the darker
region now occupies almost the entire surface. Only for small values
of mSY will the surroundings intimidate the system. In other words, the
superiority of the higher-order qualities (MSY>MSU) makes the system
145
resilient to quantitative lower-order influences by the surroundings.

Thus the system will create spontaneously under most circumstances by
feeding on the surroundings.

organisation MSY is superior to that (MSU) of the surrounding.
By now it should be clear that it is qualities which are decisive in

evolutionary creations. In the realm of human affairs this is difficult to
understand, except by symbiotic experience. Take for example the
upliftment of third world countries. Such countries are always
intimidated by richer countries. Thus they are exploited by richer
countries and even become aware of such exploitations. Then they
usually demand that such exploitations should stop - which obviously
never happens effectively. The only way to stop intimidation and
exploitation is to lay emphasis on the existing higher qualities and
promote even higher qualities as much as possible. Unfortunately, the
tragic answer of these third world countries to such a remedy is that they
are not in need of these higher order qualities (large M), but rather in
providing the basic qualities extensively (large m).
In the realm of human affairs the action of the Digestor is experienced

vividly in the business community. The work of Gellerman (1992) is
intended to maintain motivation in the business environment.
Organisations as instruments of domination is the topic of a whole
chapter in Morgan's (1986, ch 9) book on business management.
Psychologists have also studied motivation (spontaneity of humans)
146
extensively. See for example Atkinson and Birch (1978).

Unfortunately, motivation which resorts under the dynamics of
creativity, is often blended with activity which resorts under the
mechanics of creativity (see the essentiality being-becoming in the next
chapter). It is the outcome (achievement, result) of the activity rather
than the activity (function, process) itself which is intimately connected
to motivation through its lower order quantities mSY and its higher order
qualities MSY. Nevertheless, motivation is the most important property
of human creativity as many psychologists have pointed out, for example
Hill (1963), Torrance (1967) and Amabile (1983). Ochse (1990) is
sensitive to the relationship between motivation and work, i.e. )G - W
< 0. He writes:
"They are likely to find that creative ability is no
spontaneous emergence of inherent qualities; no
special intellectual process; no gift - but a hard-earned
prize. They are likely to discover that before the Gates
of Excellence the High Gods have placed sweat - the
sweat of labour - often mingled with the sweat of pain."
Unfortunately, motivation, like creativity, is generally considered as

something which only humans possess. Charles Darwin (1872), better
known for his work The origin of species by means of natural selection,
was ons of the few who saw motivation (spontaneity) and emotion
(entropic forces) in a much wider context. Furthermore, the ultimate
power of motivation through the action of a quality of the highest order
is seldom realised. Fortunately, we have witnesses such as the
psychologist Frankl (1978) in how to overcome intimidation and
predation. Figure 5.6 expresses Frankl's conviction graphically.
Revolutionary and evolutionary creations

[The powerful spirit said:]......"You will be satisfied by your
Creator; you will be enchanted by the sight of His works.
Your admiration will not be the result of ignorance, as is that
of the common herd. ......the further you go, the greater will
be your delights, because you will be only at the beginning
of a chain which goes on to infinity........"
147
Before we go any further, it has to be stressed that evolutionary creations

apparently only happen close to equilibrium. For example, consider the
digestion of barium sulphate in the previous section. The entropy
increase +0.176)n kJ.mol-1.K-1 for the growth of a crystal shows that
what happens locally on the surface of a crystal in fact happens far from
equilibrium. However, because the growth of some crystals is matched
by the decay of others, this growth-decay happens at relatively few
minute regions dispersed in the solution. Furthermore, because the
diffusion of the solvated ions is slow, the nett result is that of a low
production rate of entropy.
It also has to be stressed that although evolutionary creations apparently

happen close to equilibrium, they lose nothing of their non-linear
character. The expression x(f(y) - f(x)) is nonlinear whenever f(x) is a
true function and not a constant. The term HM(m) in
is definitely not a constant.
It is easy to confuse evolutionary creations with the first manifestation

of entropy production as chaos of becoming (movement, function). In
order to understand the first manifestation of entropy production which
happens automatically, we have to compare it with the second
manifestation as order of being which happens contingently. We must
be careful not to fall into the trap of dialectisism by contrasting words
such as chaos with order, becoming with being, automatic with
contingent, etc. These two manifestations are not opposing to each other.
They act as a push-pull pair, i.e. they are complementary.
It is our preoccupation with being which causes us to use the words

'chaos' or 'disorder' with respect to the first manifestation. If we give
more balance to being-becoming, so that becoming (change) is not alien
any more, we could also describe the first manifestation as 'variation in
becoming' and the second manifestation as 'variation in being'. Hence
we percieve the second law concerning entropy production in a better
light: it is the cause of variations in creations. Thus it becomes easier to
accept the new paradigm: reality has only one category with uncountably
many manifestations of it. We also understand better the
complementarity between the first and second manifestations.
148
It is this very complementarity between the first and second

manifestations which is mainly responsible for confusing the first
manifestation with evolutionary creations. The simple reason is that
revolutionary and evolutionary creations also form a complementary
pair! The main feature of any revolutionary creation is the emergence
of a new higher order. However, this new order is bare in the sense that
it is quantitatively minute. It barely exists. The mechanisms of
procuring revolutionary creations are not effective in also accomplishing
evolutionary creations. (For example, coherent cycles are favourable to
revolutions while scattered, open-ended diffusions are favourable to
evolutions). Hence evolutionary creations are needed to give body to
any bare new order.
How is enough entropy produced to drive the first manifestation of

entropy production so far from equilibrium that the second manifestation
may emerge? By transforming enough forms of energy into different
forms of energy fast enough. These initial forms of energy are not
simply there ready for use whenever they are needed. They are mainly
available through existing organised structures as the potential energy
locked up in these structures. In other words, it is the evolutionary
creations which embody bare beings and thus increase quantitatively
their effectiveness as a source of free energy. This free energy may then
be used to produce sufficient entropy for any new bifurcations.
Figure 5.7: Schematical relationship between the manifestation

and organisation complementary pairs as well as entropy
production.
The relationship between the manifestation complementary pair (chaos

of becoming and order of being) as well as the organisation
complementary pair (revolutionary and evolutionary creations) may be
149
summarised by the schematical diagram in figure 5.7. The arrows

indicate the temporal sequence between the various elements. The
thickening arrow symbolises the evolutionary growth in the bare
revolution. The almost cyclic sequence has been recognised in many
religions and philosophies.
The organisation complementary pair has already been foreseen in

literature. For example, in the psychological account of creativity Smith
and Carlsson (1990) write about 'emergence' (revolutionary) and
'cumulation' (evolutionary). Perkins (1994) use the notions 'evolutionary
creative system' and 'inventor creative system'. In a certain sense De
Bono (1970) also foresaw this complementation with his notions of
'lateral' (revolutionary) and 'vertical' (evolutionary) types of thinking.
The push-pull action of this pair is also remarkable in artificial
intelligence programs such as Copycat (Hofstadter, 1994) in which the
notions 'randomness with temperature' is used for chaos of becoming and
'patterns with frequency' is used for order of being.
We speak of an 'almost" cyclic sequence because we actually have to

think of reality as an immense mesh or network of such interwoven
sequences. Consider the following example. The appearance of the new
growth tip on a plant is revolutionary. However its development into a
twig or branch is mostly evolutionary. This embodiment is followed by
the revolutionary appearance of a flower bud and its pollination. This
leads to the evolutionary growth of the fruit and ripening of the seed.
One cycle is completed when the seed gives birth to a new plant. But
another cycle is initiated when a bird eats the fruit and uses the twigs for
a nest. Yet another cycle commences when a human uses the branches
to make a fire and roasts the bird.
Where do these revolutionary creations of higher orders and their

evolutionary embodiment lead to? What does the most perfect crystal
emerge into? Love (!("B0 in Greek). Loving the Creator and His
creations: people and nature. There is no greater force than this love.
Chapter 13 of the epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians is one of the most
remarkable descriptions of this love.
150
"You will be of our company, and will go from world to

world, from discovery to discovery, from perfection to
perfection. You will pay court with us to the Supreme
Substance, Which is beyond all worlds and Which fills them
without dividing Itself in doing so......"
The above quotation is placed in what is called a text box. All the
quotations in the text boxes of this chapter come from a small essay
(date unknown) written by Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716). Later the
essay became known as the Philosophical Dream. The author wish by
them to pay tribute to Leibniz and his immense creativity.
Four very important ideas originated from Leibniz, all of them central to
this work: function, monad, infinitesimal and calculemus. The last idea
has been perverted to represent infinitesimal arithmetic (calculus), but
Leibniz's original idea was to model the workings of the mind.
Summary of chapter
The aim of this chapter is to delineate the dynamical (quantitative)
nature of entropy production (dissipation). The dynamics of entropy
production concerns two aspects: the creation of entropy and then its
manifestation in creations.
The irreversible production of entropy should not be confused with a

reversible exchange of entropy between various parts of the universe.
Although entropy exchanges are very common, they leave the entropy
of the universe intact. During such exchanges the entropy of a source
decreases while the entropy of a drain increases. Sources and drains
may easily switch roles. But entropy production itself happens in
addition to these entropy exchanges. The entropy production always
leads to a net increase in the entropy of the universe.
The entropy production is affected by a number of force-flux pairs. To

increase the rate of production, a force, a flux or the number of force-
flux pairs has to be increased. A typical force in human affairs is
151
emotion. A force is caused by a difference in a quality (intensive

quantity). The force is increased by increasing the difference. A flux is
caused by a transfer in an extensive quantity. The flux is increased by
increasing the rate of transfer. (Intensive quantities are independent of
scaling in contrast to extensive quantities.) Forces and fluxes come in
pairs. Each pair represents a unique form (degree of freedom) of
interaction. Although the forms are unique among each other, they are
not independent. They correlate on the level of inanimate matter
through the Onsager Reciprocal Relationships.
The entropy produced has to be manifested. The first manifestation as

chaos of becoming happens automatically. It must also be transported
to the rest of the universe. If the rate of production is high enough so
that the transport becomes oversaturated, a bifurcation will take place.
The bifurcation indicates the shift from the first to the second
manifestation. The second manifestation happens contingently.
The second manifestation as order of being consists of two phases

(asymptotes). The first phase is revolutionary because it happens far
from equilibrium in a collective manner. It can happen constructively
and is then known as an emergence. The emergence depends on the
seven essentialities. If one or more of the seven essentialities is absent,
the revolution becomes destructive and then it is known as an
immergence or catastrophe. Although the revolutionary phase leads to
the emergence of a bare new order, it cannot embody and strengthen the
bare new order into maturity.
The second phase of the second manifestation is evolutionary. It

happens in a diffuse manner apparently close to equilibrium. It also
happens contingently, depending on the same seven essentialities. Its
main feature is leading the bare new order to maturity in a digestive
manner, thus providing the free energy for a new chaos-order era. The
digestion (predator-prey interaction) is modelled by the Digestor in
which spontaneity plays the key role. The spontaneity of digestion is
influenced primarily by the complexity of both the system and the
surroundings.
152
153
Chapter 6
MECHANICS OF CREATIONS
Sufficiencies and essentialities

In the previous chapter we have seen that the quantitative production of
entropy is necessary for all creations to happen. In logic we would say
that a quantitative entropy production is a necessary requirement for
creations to happen. In logic a careful distinction is drawn between
necessary and sufficient requirements. We may illustrate this difference
by the following example. It is necessary to eat in order to live, but
eating is not sufficient because we also have other requirements such as
breathing and socialising.
The sufficiency requirements for creations to happen have to do with the

qualitative nature of entropy production. In other words, the sufficiency
requirements concern the form of entropy production and not its
contents. If one were to make a list of essentialities by merely analysing
the form of the equation for entropy production, it would be an open
question what to include and what not to include. However, the seven
corresponding patterns (see chapter 3) between the chemical (material)
and the mathematical (abstract) systems provide a strange, yet
remarkable list of sufficiency requirements.
A sufficiency condition is to logic what an essentiality is to

phenomenology. A phenomenon cannot exist without its essentialities.
In other words, if any essentiality of the phenomenon is impaired or
denied, the phenomenon ceases to exist. We will speak in this book of
the essentialities of creativity rather than 'sufficiency requirements for
creations to happen'.
Obviously, we have to 'prove' that the seven corresponding patterns are

indeed essentialities for chemical and mathematical creations. The only
154
method of proof presently available is a phenomenological one. Deny

any one or more of these seven patterns in mathematical logic and
observe whether mathematically acceptable creations are still possible.
Such creations are presently unthinkable. Similarly, the denial of any
one or more of these seven patterns in chemical transformations is
disastrous for producing chemical compounds.
It is also obvious that although these seven patterns are essential for
chemical and mathematical creations, they are not necessarily essential
in other domains. In other words, the essentiality of these patterns has
to be proved in each domain. In doing so, we will often experience
difficulties in identifying each pattern in such a domain. The reason is
complexity: each pattern, although apparently simple for any specific
domain, is complex for the reality of all domains. This is exactly one of
the lessons to be learnt from chapter 3.
The fact that each of these patterns is complex with respect to reality
will be incorporated by selecting a dichotomous name for each pattern.
We will select two words for each pattern to be as widely representative
as possible. In his book From Being to Becoming Prigogine stresses the
importance of linking the various levels of description. This advice is
also invaluable to this chapter. Before introducing each essentiality with
a double-barrel name, we will already have introduced it by an icon
(ideogram). The rationale behind this icon is to make direct contact with
the non-linguistic (tacit) part of our brain.
It is important to realise that these seven patterns may be divided into

more than seven patterns or grouped into less than seven patterns.
Dividing them will apparently make each of the resulting patterns less
complex. However, since they often have to be considered together, the
result will become too clumsy to handle. Grouping them together will
make the resulting patterns more complex. Although there will be less
groups to handle, the complexity of each group will make it clumsy to
handle. Thus it is not advisable to divide or group these patterns.
This does not mean that we should not recognise affinities between these
essentialities. In fact, it is even difficult to discuss a particular
essentiality without one or two other essentialities intruding into the
discussion. For example, identity-categoricity and associativity-
155
monadicity often have to be dealt with together. If we wish to work

more precisely (categoricity), then we have to work in a wider context
(monadicity).
However, most remarkable is their affinity for 'all of them together'.

This is a direct result of these seven patterns being essentialities. We
will recall that they are essential for any creation to happen. Each of
them is certainly a mental creation which has to happen in our minds.
This means that all seven patterns are essential to create each one of
them mentally. In other words, if our understanding of even one of these
patterns is impaired, our understanding of all seven of them will be
impaired.
The first manifestation of entropy production happens automatically

whereas the second manifestation depends on these essentialities. If
even one them is impaired, the second manifestation happens
destructively rather than constructively. In other words, the bifurcation
form the first to the second manifestation will lead to an immergence
rather than an emergence. Unfortunately, we are part of this universe,
living from day to day with the manifestations of entropy production.
Not one of us is a god so that we continuously have to take action with
respect to the revolutionary appearance of new predators or to deal with
existing prey-predator situations. In order to keep on living, we cannot
only construct, but also have to destroy. In these destructions, we
intuitively deny some of the seven essentialities for these very
destructions to happen. This means that the constructive emergence and
growth of an understanding of the seven essentialities is against our very
nature. Since together they are an extremely complex venture of the
highest order, we may easily experience a new kind of predator in them.
Thus we will easily deny one or more of them simply to try and escape
this new predator.
How comprehensive are the essentialities?

It is one thing to say that the seven essentialities determine the form or
qualities of creativity. It is another thing to comprehend this truth. Our
reactions, for example, to these seven essentialities are very divergent.
156
Let us consider five cases.
CASE 1
What is humour? In most jokes we are carefully guided by a vivid
description into not recognising an essentiality in it. The punch line of
the joke is then to make us aware of this essentiality. We then laugh at
our clumsiness and inability to deal with this essentiality. The laughter
is typical of the first manifestation of entropy production - chaos of
becoming. (See also Gregory, 1924; Koestler, 1964; Couger, 1995)
CASE 2
What usually happens in panel discussions? They are often intended to
create constructively a solution to a problem, but seldom arrive at such
a solution. They usually terminate after lengthy rhetorical discussions.
However, what really happens in this 'rhetoric' is that the participants try
to establish that which is essential for creating the required solution.
Each member of the group stresses some of the essentialities. Since
there are 7! = 5040 possible selections for seven essentialities, the
chances are very slight for two persons to agree in such a discussion, let
alone arrive at a solution!
That which happens in case 2 is not restricted to panel discussions. It

can also, for example, happen in academical circles like education,
psychology and economics when a theory is proposed in which a
particular essentiality or a combination of some of them plays a major
role. Some of these theories can even develop into recognised schools
of thought, often opposing each other. It even happens in system theory
where the ideal was not to let it happen. Flood and Jackson (1991, ch 2)
discuss such schools of thought in system theory. They propose TSI
(Total Systems Intervention) to combat this proliferation by giving
creativity a much more prominent role. This is a step in the right
direction, but it will have to lead to the seven essentialities themselves
in order to become effective.
CASE 3
What is common to all religions? Firstly, the godhead is recognised as
creator. Secondly, they have a code of conduct (commandments). Many
of these codes actually elaborate on the details of the seven
essentialities! Furthermore, sin is usually considered as not complying
157
to a particular code. Thus, the failing of an essentiality can be

interpreted as a way of sinning.
CASE 4
The history of warfare may be studied from many viewpoints. A most
illuminating viewpoint concerns the seven essentialities. A major facet
of war strategy is to disrupt the seven essentialities among the enemy as
much as possible while promoting them among one's own forces.
CASE 5
Why do seemingly normal people become fanatical crackpots with crazy
actions? Often such a person has experienced intensely (first
manifestation) the effect of a particular essentiality and then confused
this experience with a deep understanding of it. Then this person tries
to develop this 'understanding' into a second manifestation. Obviously,
since the other essentialities are impaired, the second manifestation
becomes a ghastly destruction.
Case 5 concerns the premature insistence on a particular essentiality

which results in destructive creations. The opposite is also possible. An
intense involvement of a particular essentiality becomes an immense
force for constructive creations because of the high order involved.
Consider for example the essentiality associativity-monadicity or unity
for short. Thinkers like Leibniz, Einstein and Whitehead were not only
intrigued by it, but also produced extraordinary creative work in terms
of it.
Establishing what is essential for creating a required solution to a

problem may result in identifying the barriers (blocks) to a creative
solution. If we merely consider the barriers in the mechanics of
creativity, there are 5040 possible barriers! If we include the barriers in
the dynamics, this figure will run into the hundreds of thousands. To list
all these barriers will become a complex task. Some authors (Hicks,
1991, ch 4 and Couger, 1995, ch 3) have already produced impressive
lists.
We should never forget that we wish to manage complexity. For

example, in the previous chapter we have seen that the more complex a
system becomes, the more it intimidates other systems in its
158
surroundings. Thus we will have to measure (express) a system's

complexity in order to predict its intimidation. How will we do it? Beer
(1979) has already taken a step in this direction by considering 'variety'
as a measure of complexity in viable systems. We will soon see that
variety is one of the seven essentialities. Thus we may extend Beer's
idea to include all seven the essentialities as a measure of a system's
complexity. This makes sense because the more the system accomodates
these seven essentialities, the more emergences to higher orders will
occur in the system by which the system complexifies.
We will now study each of these essentialities separately. We will base

our discussions on the adjunctions drawn in chapter 3. We will use
learning as the attractor. Towards the end of each essentiality we will
discuss
* its role in understanding the other six essentialities,
* a connection to its role in education,
* its role in the form of the equation for entropy production,
* its recognition in the literature.
It is important to observe that none of these essentialities has explicitly

been described in the literature as an essentiality of universal creativity.
Holism (monadicty + emergence) and bisocialism (connect + emer-
gence) for human creativity are probably the closest we will get to such
descriptions. However, it does not mean that these essentialities were
concealed up to now. On the contrary, many thinkers in many subjects
were intuitively, subjectively and informally very sensitive to one or
more of these essentialities. In other words (using the concept of tacit
knowledge, Polanyi, 1967), many thinkers employed these essentialities
as tacit knowledge, i.e. knowing more about the essentialities than what
they can say about them. For example, some authors like Koestler
(1964), Morgan (1989) and Thorne (1992) use them tacitly to select case
studies to illustrate creativity. They are also used tacitly by Sztompka
(1974, pp 58-61) in sociology.
In this icon the sphere symbolises a

being while its shadows and the arrow
symbolises its becoming. It is difficult to
symbolise becoming directly in a static
159
book (Sartre's dilemma).
Becoming-Being
Prigogine contributed much through many specialised papers to
irreversible self-organisation. However, it is through his two books that
he disseminated his work to a wider audience. The title of the first book
Order out of Chaos suggests that it concerns the dynamics of entropy
production. However, the title of the second book From Being to
Becoming suggests a shift in emphasis from the dynamics to the
mechanics of entropy production. In this book, for example, he
frequently stresses the intimate role between structure and function.
Moreover, he arranges the book in three parts (being, becoming and
bridging them). He is clearly extremely sensitive to this essentiality.
Obviously, he is not acquainted with the formal distinction between the
dynamics and mechanics of entropy production, nor the seven
essentialities.
What then is this essentiality about? First, let us find out what is meant
by being and becoming. Carefully study the following pairs of words
and create associations with those which you are familiar with:
being becoming being becoming
noun verb data procedure
book reading molecule mechanism
sentence connecting money trading
ontology ontogeny structure function
principle method number operation
specimen habit space time
statement inference energy entropy
vision mission force flux
spectator player constant change
In physics being and becoming are recognised by having a smooth

'space-time' background against which all physics happens. In language
the being and becoming is introduced by the 'noun' and the 'verb' as well
as their predicates. In mathematics it is acknowledged by 'sets' and
'functors'. Next to the words being and becoming the words 'constant'
and 'change' probably have the most widely experienced meaning. This
160
meaning links directly to the two laws of thermodynamics themselves:

energy is constant and entropy must change.
It is very important to maintain a balance between being and becoming.

In western civilisation becoming is usually considered as subordinate to
being. Yet we cannot say that this subordination is completely wrong!
What happens is that this subordination creates immense stress between
the many who subscribe to it and the few who wish to see a balance
between being and becoming. This stress then often becomes a creative
force by which entropy is produced and then manifested.
Sometimes the subordination is inverted and may even become a life

style such as in 'player' versus 'spectator'. For example, for the past 30
years people have become being-like through the action of television
(TV). Both the TV and the PC (Personal Computer) use a video screen.
For the past three years Internet (international network of computers
allowing interaction with each other) has had an unprecedented growth.
It has often been wondered why its growth was so spectacular. One of
the reasons is this very inversion of the subordination. TV makes people
spectators (beings), but the PC makes them actors (becomings).
Although neither being nor becoming is subordinate to the other, there

is indeed a temporal ordination between the two. This is determined by
the two manifestations of entropy production: first chaos of becoming
and then order of being. This order leads to the following advice often
being given: to become creative, step out of the normal and average
towards the fringe. Often this step, merely a minor fluctuation, may be
amplified into immensely complex consequences. Thus the essentiality
becoming-being becomes intimately related to the essentiality open-
paradigm.
At this stage we cannot help but think of the two molecules chlorophyll
and haemoglobin. Both have the same complex porphyrin structure.
Chlorophyll is central to the plant kingdom and the conversion of light
energy into chemical energy. It may be converted into haemoglobin by
replacing the magnesium ion in its centre with a ferrous ion (and a few
other minor modifications). Haemoglobin is central to the animal
kingdom and the conversion of chemical energy into heat and muscular
energy. Thus a whole new kingdom emerges from one small chemical
161
displacement step.
An extremely important question to ask is whether being and becoming

are fundamentally two independent entities or whether they are merely
two sides of the same coin. After many years the author still can not
provide a conclusive answer. However, considering them as two sides
of the same coin gives more coherent answers than considering them as
separate entities. We also acknowledge this in all natural languages.
The noun and the verb are parts of the sentence. We do not make
separate sentences for nouns and verbs. Leibniz's idea of a monad and
Maturana & Varela's idea of an autopoietic system also favours being
and becoming to be predicates (properties) of one becoming-being as the
real logical entity. This fact will become very important in chapter 8.
When a system becomes more complex, it happens in both being and

becoming. In the western world we usually identify and describe a
complex system by its many and diverse parts (beings) because of our
ontological inclination. We often become intuitively aware of a complex
system in terms of its many and diverse behaviours. This is so because
becoming is ordered before being and beings connect through
becomings. Since we are ontologically inclined to reality because of the
very nature of evolutionary creations, we perceive this complexity in
becoming not as diversity, but as chaos.
The essentiality becoming-being plays a unique role in our

understanding of the seven essentialities. When we first take notice of
each of these seven essentialities, we usually perceive them as beings.
This happens because we are not accustomed to the becoming-being
essentiality itself. To objectify our perceptions, we need to experience
each of the seven essentialities as a becoming. Thereafter we must strive
to understand them together as one ordered structure with a unique
function: to ensure the form of creation which has to happen
More will be said in part III on becoming-being in education. Here it is

sufficient to note that the prevalent practice of memorisation and
regurgitation is typical of a being fixation. Thus the essentiality of
becoming-being is impaired and hence very little creativity is possible.
The influence of the behavioural school of psychology brought a
welcome change, but unfortunately often as an inverted subordination.
162
The structural objectives and procedural objectives discussed in chapter

2 show how a balance can be maintained between being and becoming.
We have stated that the essentialities refer primarily to the form of the
equation for entropy production. The essentiality becoming-being may
be observed in the force (being) and flux (becoming) of each term
contributing to the production of entropy.
In the literature we usually find that either the being part or the
becoming part of this essentiality is over stressed. Both are seldom
recognised in a balanced way as a complementary pair. In physics, for
example, Bohm (1980) in reaction to physicists’ preoccupation with
structure is perhaps stressing becoming too much through his notion of
'rheomode'. In psychology for example, stressing ‘being’ led to the
structuralist (Wundt, 1904) and cognitive schools of thinking while
stressing ‘becoming’ resulted in the behaviourist (Skinner, 1938) and
functionalist (James, 1907) schools of thinking. The following
psychologists specialising in creativity is particularly sensitive to this
essentiality: Stein(1974), Cohen (1980), Smith and Carlsson (1990) and
Torrance (1994). Often the sensitivity to this essentiality is coupled with
an insistence on the importance of motivation like in Torrance (1967)
and Atkinson & Birch (1978). The educationalist Jean Piaget (1971) is
also keen on it. Miller (1978) is very close to recognising it as an
essentiality of creativity. Cyberneticists like Wiener and Ashby (1961)
are usually sensitive to this essentiality because of the role to be played
by mathematical functions in cybernetics. Jantsch (1980) often refers to
this essentiality as 'process structure'. In chapter 8 we will have more
opportunity to use his term.
In this icon an atom, a diatomic

molecule and a triatomic molecule are
symbolised. The latter can be linear, but
in this case it is definitely bent. A three-
member ring is not possible.
Identity-Categoricity
163
In mathematics the most simple identity is

X=X
Very little becoming can be seen in this identity. The next stage of
complexity is
X + 0 = X; X × 1 = X
where the becoming can be seen clearly in terms of the signs + and × for
addition and multiplication. The categorical nature of the identity
becomes much clearer in the next expression:
X = X × (Y/Y) + (Y-Y)
In other words, identity is not merely a being, but also a becoming and
rich (complex) in both. Thus Leibniz's idea of identity as undiscernable
entities apply here.
Knowledge on identity-categoricity is often confused with merely

breaking a thing into its parts. Such a confusion is known as
cartesianism. It means that analysis is necessary to establish identity-
categoricity, but not sufficient. The sufficiency requirement is to be
able to synthesise the entity from its parts. Whereas analysis is a linear
process, synthesis is usually a nonlinear process with many emergences
along the path. For example, the triatomic molecule above in the icon
is bent, i.e the bond angle is less than 180o. In a linear molecule the
bond angle is equal to 180o. One may be tempted to think of a linear
molecule as the extreme case of a bent molecule. However, this
temptation is typical of linear, non-emergent thinking based on partial
information. Bent molecules (like water H2O) usually aggregate under
room conditions into a liquid phase while linear molecules (like carbon
dioxide) usually occur in the gas phase. It is because of the emergence
of DeBye forces in bent molecules.
Consider as an historical example the 'eight minutes of an arc

discrepancy' which troubled Kepler immensely. He was so sure of his
measurements that it led him to discover that planets move in eliptic
rather than circular orbits. Later Newton was able to employ this
discovery in his law of universal gravitation. Also consider the
'discrepancy between the molar mass of nitrogen prepared from air and
from solid compounds' which troubled Ramsy very much. He eventually
discovered the inert gas argon, by which the periodic table was amended
in such a way that the birth of quantum mechanics became inevitable.
To establish the discrepancies between what appears to be identical and
164
thus discover new identities is the spirit of categoricity.
Analysis and synthesis form an asymmetrical, complementary pair to

establish identity-categoricity internally. Identity-categoricity may also
be established externally. An example of such a pair may be found in
mathematics. They are the monic and epic arrows (monomorhisms and
epimorphisms) of category theory. When a function between two
objects is monic and epic, we may think of an 'identity' between the two
objects which is then called an isomorphism (adjunction). It is exactly
this type of thinking which we used to set up an 'identity' between the
crystal digestor and the educational digestor (see chapter 5). This
'identity' gave us categorical insight into having the Digestor as our
operational definition for evolutionary creations.
In the basic sciences such as physics and chemistry identity-categoricity

begins with physico-chemical measurements. These measurements led
to such successful identities and categorisations that almost all the
higher order sciences, including the humanities, followed suite. The
results were far less spectacular. One of the reasons is that accuracy and
precision are very important in physico-chemical measurements.
Accuracy and precision are often neglected in higher order
measurements. Part of this is to be blamed on the role of statistics.
Statistics is needed to delineate the original meanings of accuracy and
precision. But statistics introduces its own complexification which
obscures the original meanings of accuracy and and precision.. These
original meanings are: precision implies a repeatable identity whereas
accuracy implies no confusion with any other identity.
It is relatively easy to establish accuracy and precision in physico-

chemical measurements because of the simplicity of the entities
involved. However, as soon as the entities become more complex, it is
far more difficult to establish identity-categoricity. The more complex
the entities become, the more unique (less numerous) and fragile they
become. Since all measurements are irreversible, they perturb complex
systems more easily. In physics and chemistry this has lead to the
important concepts of 'non-destructive' and 'in situ' measurements, but
in the higher order sciences these concepts are almost non-existent.
A very good example of identity-categoricity in the higher order realms

165
of human affairs may be found in the exchange rate of currencies of

different countries. The exchange rates of each day establish the identity
between the currencies, but not the categoricity. The categoricity is not
only concerned with the economics of a country, but also with its
political and social agendas. Thus the categoricity is reflected by the
change in the exchange rates over a period of time. This example shows
that identity-categoricity is closely related to the essentialities of
becoming-being and associativity-monadicity.
To try and understand identity-categoricity while wilfully neglecting

associativity-monadicity is a futile attempt. The latter essentiality has
to do with the connectedness of things. We make use of internal
connectedness to establish identity-categoricity by analysis and
synthesis. Similarly we make use of external connectedness to establish
identity-categoricity by monomorphisms and epimorhisms. Without
connectedness all these methods fail.
On the other hand, our understanding of identity-categoricity grows as

our understanding of associativity-monadicity grows. Our knowledge
of associativity-monadicity should have been cultivated at our institutes
of learning. Unfortunately, it is neglected formally and objectively.
Thus our knowledge of associativity-monadicity grows mainly in terms
of our personal experiences. The more this happens, the more we are
able to make categorical identifications. This interplay between
categoricity and monadicity is often called wisdom. It is certainly a
main ingredient of wisdom. It is also a main characteristic of integrity!
We may also think of identity-categoricity in terms of standards. This

is especially the case when the essentialities of associativity-monadicity
and quality-variety come into play. One merely has to think of the
computer world as an example. First we had the mainframe era and its
standardisation problems. Standardisation was then possible mostly in
a particular brand. Now we have the networking PC era and its own
standardisation problems. An insensitivity to identity-categoricity leads
to many of these problems.
Critical thinking is becoming fashionable like problem solving in certain

sectors. Consequently many are now confusing critical thinking with
creative thinking. However, the main drive in critical thinking is to
166
become more mature in the essentiality identity-categoricity. In other

words, critical thinking is part of creative thinking, but not vice versa.
We will remember that the becoming-being essentiality is impaired by

not balancing being and becoming. Something similar is possible in the
essentiality identity-categoricity. We may neglect the categorical aspect
of identity by using demarcations. To demarcate any thing is to identify
such a thing without respect for its complexity. Thus demarcation can
be affected by denying any of the other essentialities. For example, deny
openness (open-paradigm) by invoking nominal boundaries, i.e.
autonomism. Another example is to deny diversity (quality-variety)
through nominal monotypes. Many people employ demarcationism to
get an advantage as predator in evolutionary creations. Demarcationism
is deadly to identity-categoricity.
The essentiality identity-categoricity plays a remarkable role in our

understanding of the seven essentialities. When we first notice each of
these seven essentialities, we are usually willing to accept the unique
identity of each one. But when we begin to ask ourselves where one
stops and the next one begins, we are beginning to experience the
essentiality identity-categoricity itself at its highest level. A vague
understanding of any of the other six essentialities will reflect as a vague
understanding of this essentiality. For example, stressing either being
or becoming to the detriment of the other will lead to uncertainty.
Conflating this essentiality with open-paradigm may also cause
uncertainty. A vague understanding of this essentiality may even
culminate in making uncertainty, probability or chance an essentiality.
Thus, following Prigogine (1980, pp 210 - 212) Capra (1996) writes: In
the living world of dissipative structures history plays an important role,
the future is uncertain, and thus uncertainty is at the heart of creativity.
The future is rather open, and both becoming and becoming is at the
heart of creativity.
More will be said in part III on identity-categoricity in education. Here

it is sufficient to note that the prevalent practice of one-teacher-many-
pupils in formal education is detrimental to this essentiality. For
example, a teacher may easily overlook that each of the pupils in front
of him is a complex and unique individual requiring complex and unique
learning experiences. Furthermore, a learner in such a situation may
167
never realise that he/she has unique perceptions of the learning material
which are not necessarily wrong.
We have stated that the essentialities refer primarily to the form of

equation for entropy production. The essentiality identity-categoricity
may be observed in the irreversible production of entropy (categoricity)
and not the reversible entropy exchange (identity) between the systems
and its surroundings. The reversible entropy change of a system may be
positive or negative, but the irreversible entropy change can only be
positive. In other words, we may identify creations in terms of entropy,
but we can categorise them only in terms of the irreversible production
of entropy.
In the literature reporting on discoveries in physics and chemistry, many

examples may be given such as those on p 163 where this essentiality
played a crucial role in the discovery. Yet in none of these reports this
essentiality was ever formally identified. Among the physicists and
chemists particularly sensitive to this essentiality we can mention
Willard Gibbs, Niels Bohr, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, Gilbert Lewis,
Enrico Fermi, Ilya Prigogine. It is quite surprising that many of them
have spent more than the usual thinking on entropy. In the literature on
psychology-creativity the work of Barron (1968), Moustakas (1977),
Torrance (1962) and Maslow (1972) is particularly sensitive to this
essentiality. Lorentz (1969) is even sensitive to the ailments in human
understanding when this essentiality is impaired. In the domain of
artificial intelligence Penrose (1989) is also finely tuned to this
essentiality. Nadler and Hibino (1990) present their program of
Breakthrough Thinking for business administration in terms of seven
principles of which the first one - Uniqueness principle - stresses this
essentiality. (Each of their other six principles is a combination of some
of the essentialities; for example the Purpose Principle = becoming-
being + quantity-limit.)
In this icon monadicity is symbolised by

a long string of connected 'atoms'. Such
a 'molecule' is only possible if atoms of
a different type (another essentiality) are
included.
168
Associativity-Monadicity
The primitive idea in the essentiality associativity-monadicity is that of
wholeness, i.e. unending connections. Beings connect with beings
through becomings while becomings connect with becomings through
beings. The result is a network (chain) of beings connected with
becomings and vice versa. Reality, consisting of the material and
abstract worlds, is the most profound monad (connected network) we
can think of. We should take care not to confuse the property
monadicity and entity monad as it is used in this book with the
philosophy monadology.
The once prevalent idea in physics of the aether which pervades space
was a way to express this essentiality. The idea of the aether has been
discredited by relativity theory. But in its place came the idea of
irrevocable universal laws such as the laws for gravitation and
electromagnetism. There is no place in the material world where these
laws do not apply. In other words, the material world is connected
through them into one world. Furthermore, understanding the
discoveries described in chapter 2 and their implication requires an
acceptance of this essentiality. Entropy production connects the material
and the abstract world into one monad by way of emergences.
The essentiality associativity-monadicity is often considered together

with emergence. It is a question of confusing form with content.
Consider holism which is explained as 'the whole is more than the sum
of its parts'. The word 'more' refers to emergence. Emergence resorts to
the dynamics of creativity and specifically to the second manifestation
of entropy production in a revolutionary manner. However, the
essentiality associativity-monadicity resorts to the mechanics of entropy
production. The phrase 'sum of parts' in the description of holism refers
to this essentiality.
Sensitivity to the essentiality associativity-monadicity was the great

driving force in philosophies up to the end of the previous century. A
philosophy had to present a world view, i.e. a coherent and consistent
model of reality in a nutshell. Unfortunately, most of the philosophers
neglected the essentiality identity-categoricity. Physicists and chemists
169
brought much more certainty in identity-categoricity through the

accuracy and precision of their non-complex measurements.
Unfortunately, they neglected the essentiality associativity-monadicity.
This caused a tragic abyss between the basic sciences and philosophy.
This abyss has to be bridged - also in this book.
Scientists of the material world are now becoming increasingly sensitive

to the essentiality associativity-monadicity. This essentiality has led to
the concept of a synthon in organic chemistry. To synthesise complex
natural substances may require a hundred or more separate but
connecting reactions. Together they are known as a synthon. Throwing
all the reagents together in one big reaction will lead to disruption. This
essentiality is also the main driving force in ecology. In ecology the
connection between earth, climate and life is the object of study. This
essentiality is also the main driving force in the unit (modular) processes
of complex industries and technologies. The industry is categorised into
its connecting process units. Each unit then becomes a mission-critical
identity.
We are also becoming more sensitive to this essentiality in the realm of

human affairs. The phrase 'global village' refers to this sensitivity. The
economical sphere of a country is not determined by that country alone,
but by its connection to all other countries through a myriad of
commodities. The same applies to the political, social and religious
spheres of a country. No individual or any society is an island. All
islands are connected by the sea. The rich cannot sleep peacefully if
their poor neighbours are hungry and unsheltered.
In many religious circles any sensitivity to this essentiality is often

demarcated to the New Age movement. It is true that there is a New Age
movement and that it is very sensitive to this essentiality. However, the
New Age movement is insensitive to some of the other essentialities,
notably identity-categoricity. Thus sensitivity to all seven essentialities
should not be demarcated into any movement, not even the New Age
movement. Neither should sensitivity to all seven essentialities be
considered as a religious disqualification. As we have noticed before,
all religions are very much concerned with their creator and his
creations. Even their codes of conduct concern these essentialities.
Religions generally promote the creativity of their followers. However,
170
it is often the opportunistic care-takers of such religions who have to

inhibit the creativity of their followers in order to become their
predators.
It was noted at identity-categoricity how intimately this essentiality is

linked to associativity-monadicity. We will not elaborate on this any
further. However, the essentiality associativity-monadicity is linked
closely to yet another essentiality in an extraordinary manner, namely
connect-beget. Since some connections may be severed, they have to be
repaired. It is impossible to severe all connections. Further more,
growth in connections requires connections never made before.
As demarcationism is the opposite of identity-categoricity,

fragmentarism is the opposite of associativity-monadicity.
Demarcationism and fragmentarism together are extremely powerful in
suppressing the creativity of others. For example, political apartheid in
South Africa was begun with noble motives. The idea was to give all
nations the best opportunity to develop. This is a historical fact. (Later
apartheid was renamed 'separate development' to try and regain its noble
beginning.) However, as soon as Apartheid came to life, it was infected
by demarcationism and fragmentarism to become a monster.
Demarcationism and fragmentarism were similarly the downfall of many

other economical, social and political enterprises in the history of
mankind. Unfortunately, these two 'philosophies' have not yet been
described in detail. Yet they have been prevalent since the dawn of
mankind because many people have made a living as predators by using
them. Thus it is an open question whether these 'philosophies' will ever
be fully described and emphatically denounced.
Sensitivity to associativity-monadicity prevents us from confusing

knowledge with information or technology. Knowledge is one and
cannot be broken into parts. It lives in every living human being in
varying degrees of complexity. As soon as it is demarcated and
fragmented it becomes information and technology. The lack of
associativity-monadicity in information and technology causes severe
problems. Some vendors of information and technology are beginning
to realise this and are therefor trying to offer their products in a more
monadical manner.
171
The essentiality identity-categoricity plays a peculiar role in our

understanding of the seven essentialities. Firstly, is we wish to
understand any one of them, we need to understand all seven of them.
It is impossible to specialise in a few of them and neglect the rest. It is
even worse to try and understand all seven of them as the mechanics of
creativity and to be ignorant about the dynamics of creativity, or the
other way around. We must be willing to trace the monad of reality as
far as is possible in terms of our intellectual capacities.
More will be said in part III about associativity-monadicity in education.

Here it is sufficient to note that we cannot teach a person effectively
without taking all that person's connections with reality into account.
Merely think of cultural, economical and sociological connections.
Further, the material to be taught must be connected to the experience
of that person. To offer training to a person in fragmented topics and in
a fragmented fashion while promising success is immoral. Such training
should rather promise failure for this is what actually happens in most
cases.

equation for entropy production. The essentiality associativity-
monadicity may be observed in the fact that the irreversible production
of entropy refers to an increase in the entropy of the universe and not
merely a part of it. To know how this happens, we must restrict
irreversibility as far as possible to the system under study by keeping the
surroundings reversible as far as possible. Once the equation for entropy
production has been delineated, we also have to incorporate
irreversibilty into the surroundings. i.e. other sources of entropy
production.
Jan Smuts (1926), creator of the term holism, accepts in a bold manner
‘wholeness’ as a property of reality - material and abstract. He then
shows that holism is essential to evolution. The mathematician-
philosopher Whitehead (1961) is extremely sensitive to this essentiality.
As we should expect, Albert Einstein is also very much committed to it.
Likewise Prigogine adheres tenuously to it. David Bohm (1989, co-
author Peat) is extraordinarily sensitive to this essentiality and its
opposite, namely fragmentarism (pp 16-25, 51). He identifies
'wholeness' as an essentiality of human creativity. In the literature on
172
psychology-creativity we have many authors keen on holism (monadicity

+ emergence), but few sensitive to monadicity itself such as Bohm.
Cohen (1980) and Gordon (1961) are noticeable exceptions. Monod
(1971) and Jantsch (1980) consider it as central to irreversible self-
organisation in the biosphere. Von Bertalanffy (1968), founder of
general system theory, also has a fine understanding of this essentiality,
often citing Carnap. Senge (1990) develops this essentiality into the
fifth discipline of systems thinking. In the chapter titled "Emergence
and the Unity of Science", Margolis (1987) is also remarkably
susceptible to it. Piaget (1971) of educational fame is very keen on this
essentiality. Thus it should surprise no one that Charles Darwin (1872),
more that a century ago, considered togetherness as essential to
biological evolution.
In this icon a secure connection is
symbolised by two atoms not merely
close to each other, but actually fusing
into each other. The result is more
complex - a molecule.
Connect-Beget
For any new creation to happen, two or more previous creations have to
make effective contact. To approach and make contact is not enough -
the contact must be effective. In chemistry we speak of effective
collisions between molecular bodies. By that, we mean that although
many collisions are possible and actually happen, the connecting bodies
move away after such a collision as if nothing has happened. These
ineffective collisions are better known as elastic collisions in which the
laws of reversible physics apply. Only one effective (inelastic) collision
is necessary for the new creation to happen. In other words, many
reversible collisions of various intensity finally culminate in one
irreversible collision as the limiting or begetting case.
Only God can create anything out of nothing. No creation of God can
create anything in the void. As Bateson (1979) said: nothing will come
of nothing. Thus all new creations have to be formed out of existing
creations. It is possible for only one creation to transform into a new
creation. However, it usually happens destructively like the radioactive
173
decay of an atom or a bomb blasting. Constructive metamorphosis of

any isolated creation is indeed a great rarity.
Constructive creations usually employ two or more existing creations.

These participating creations have to fuse into each other in quite an
extraordinary manner. Firstly, they have to exploit each others reactive
centres. Only a minor part of a creation is reactive. This ensures the
creation's overall stability. Secondly, the participating creations also
have to accommodate each other's major unreactive parts. These parts
(baggage) have to co-exist without intruding onto each other. Words
which are often used in this dual connect-beget action are compatibility,
alignment, matching, screening, etc.
The complexity of this connecting and matching process makes it very

difficult for more than three creations of the same order of complexity
to connect effectively. What usually happens is that two major complex
creations connect by making use of many minor complex creations as
intermediates. It is much easier to connect and match a major complex
species with a minor complex species because of the smaller baggage
involved. For example, think of the role to be played by the reactive
electrons (minor complex) in molecular reactants (major complex).
Biological examples to consider are the sexual reproduction of
organisms (major complex) employing gametes (minor complex), or the
registering of stimuli (minor complex) by the sensory organs (major
complex) of higher life orders.. In the realm of human affairs we may
think of bilateral agreements between two countries (major complex)
making use of their diplomatic envoys (minor complex), or of money
(minor complex) to trade commodities (major complex).
When a major complex creation and a minor complex creation connect,

it is beneficial to think of the major complex creation as the substrate.
This means that the connection converts the original subtrate into a more
complex substrate. For example, when we build a house, mother earth
is already the substrate. By connecting the foundation with the earth, a
more complex substrate emerges. The foundation itself is not the
substrate. (This is even true of the foundations of academical subjects
like mathematics.) The walls of the house are then erected (connected)
on this substrate to form an even more complex substrate.
174
It is extremely fascinating to observe how much of living nature is

concerned with either making or preventing begetting connections.
Merely think of camouflage and mimicking in the world of insects. This
essentiality also plays an immense role in the realm of human affairs.
Merely think of the advertising industry. Whenever this essentiality is
impaired, it often leads to abnormal behaviour to try and regain it, for
example drug misuse, sexual abuse and dangerous games.
The connecting-begetting leading to a new creation does not happen

instantaneously. It takes time for such a creation to happen. This time
is intimately related to the entropy which has to be produced
irreversibly. The more complex the creation, the more the entropy to be
created and the longer the creation time involved. This is even evident
on the fundamental level of dissipative quantum mechanics in terms of
the Liouville L, entropy M and time T operators and their mutual
relationships. By means of these operators it becomes clear that the very
issue of non-linearity is introduced by this essentiality.
Unfortunately, uncreative humans are insensitive to this relationship

between creation time, creation complexity and non-linearity. Thus
uncreative or inexperienced managers often place unbearable pressure
on creative people to produce the goods as fast as possible in a linear
manner. They also frequently refer to the creation during its creation
time as the 'erroneous' stage of the creation rather than the immature
stage of the creation.
The creation time may be dilated (retarded) for any length of time, but
may not be decreased beyond an intrinsical value. (In this we are very
much reminded of the time dilation of light when it moves through an
optical medium.) This dilation may happen in many ways. The two
most important ones are a low rate of entropy production and using
immature components.
If the rate of entropy production is too low, the bifurcation or saturation

point cannot be reached soon enough, if ever. Then many elastic,
reversible connections occur rather than one effective, irreversible
connection. The time involved in the reversible connections is strictly
not part of the intrinsical creation time. Yet this time is very important
because it is often many orders longer than the intrinsical creation time.
175
If one of the component creations is immature or nonexistent, it first has

to be made available in a mature form. In other words, the creation has
to 'wait until one of its parts catches up'. We find gross insensitivity to
this facet in the realm of human affairs, resulting in painful experiences.
The essentiality connect-beget plays a special role in our understanding

of the seven essentialities. We have to make a begetting connection with
each one of these seven essentialities. We have to experience an
irreversible complexification with each one of them. To merely take
notice of an essentiality and not to employ it actively corresponds to an
elastic reversible collision. Such ineffective connections will not only
happen quite often, but will also afford little understanding of these
essentialities. What we are in need of, is merely one irreversible
connection for each of these seven essentialities.
More will be said in part III on connect-beget in education. Here we

may note that this essentiality has been identified in learning by the
German educationalist Copei as the 'fruchtbare moment' (fruitful
moment). We cannot expect to teach a person effectively without taking
notice of the 'fruitful moment'. The fruitful moment applies when the
learning event becomes a unique irreversible experience. Then only one
encounter per topic is necessary. Without the fruitful moment the person
has to revisit the topic frequently, discovering each time how much of
the previous encounters has been forgotten. This means the person
merely experiences reversible, ineffective connections with the topic.
equation for entropy production. The essentiality connect-beget may be
observed in the connection of the force and the flux present during the
conversion of a form of energy. Both the force and the flux must have
non-zero values for an effective connection.
In all literature there is probably no other source which pays more tribute
to this essentiality than the remarkable book by Alfred Koestler (1964).
In it he develops his theory of 'bisociative' thinking. He identifies
'bisociativity' as an essentiality of human creativity, but also conflates it
with emergence as is done in holism He is also keen on many of the
other essentialities as well as some major aspects of the dynamics of
creativity. With respect to learning, Gagne (1965) is dedicated to this
176
essentiality as well as the ultimate role of motivation (dynamics:

spontaneity). Likewise Copei (1963) is deeply impressed by this
essentiality.
In this icon an atom's picture enlarges.

The circles are presented with dots and
straight lines. The first three figures are
not perceived as circles and thus define
a boundary.
Quantity-Bounded
The essentiality quantity-bounded covers the matter of scale and limit in
creations. This essentiality is basic to all physico-chemical
measurements. The measurement of mass illustrates the boundedness of
quantitative scaling. We use a mass balance (scale) to measure mass in
terms of weight, using mass units such as gram, pound and ton. With
these Weighing Balances (WBs) we are able to measure masses from
micrograms up to several thousand tonnes, a scale increase of 1012.
However, this scale is bounded from below and above. We cannot use
WBs to measure the mass of a virus, molecule or atom. The mass of the
last two has to be measured by a different instrument operating on a
different principle, called a Mass Spectrometer (MS). It then becomes
the task to join the scales of the WB and the MS. Similarly, we cannot
use WBs to measure the mass of mountains, the moon or a planet. The
mass of the last two are calculated in terms of their orbiting properties
(time and length).
It is one thing to be aware of the scale of a quantity and another thing to

be able to reach all values of such a scale. A measuring device can trace
177
the values of an interval on the scale by moving from the device's

beginning state to an attractor state. The attractor state in measurements
is usually the equilibrium state since we usually try to keep the
irreversibilty of the measurement as small as possible. However, the
equilibrium state where no entropy is produced is not the only attractor
state. As the entropy production is increased, new attractors will
emerge, allowing new intervals of values to be traced.
Measuring a quantity on a scale as the property of some creation is

simple, linear and almost reversible. However, to scale a creation in all
its quantitative properties so that it retains its behaviour in a scaled
manner, is complex, nonlinear and irreversible. For example, a mosquito
can be enlarged to the size of an elephant. But at that size it will not be
able to do what a mosquito does, nor what an elephant does. It will not
even be able to live at that scale. In order to cope with these
complexities in the world of engineering, dimensional analysis has been
developed. For example, the bench model of a macro jet airliner looks
different to the real thing.
We also have to recognise scale and limit in our abstract creations. The
mathematician's series and the limit of a series is one way of doing it.
The logician's definition of a class and the type member of such a class
is another way of doing it. In the case of material measurements we
usually think more of the instrument than its operating instructions,
whereas becoming-being (structure-function) becomes very important in
abstract measurements. For example, the mathematician expects the
rules by which a series is developed. to be known. The actual limits of
an abstract scale are often of a different kind, highlighting the necessity
of emergence to go beyond these limits.
Our abstract creations can also change in size, becoming larger or

smaller. In order to retain the unique relationship between structure and
function in these scale changes, the creation has to change in a complex,
nonlinear and irreversible manner. For example, the contents of an
article from a journal will have a different effect if its reworked into a
huge book without any structural changes except size. If we wish to
have the same everlasting effect on a reader, the article and the book
have to be shaped differently.
178
As in the case of material changes, it is important to be able to reach all

the values of abstract properties and not only to be aware of them.
Again this is accomplished by attractors. Our ability to comment on
these attractors is advanced. It is done in terms of imperative language.
(A sentence can be a statement <declarative>, a command <imperative>
or a question <interrogative>). We use imperative entities such as
objectives, goals and missions. Objectives are justified by goals and
goals by a mission. In this sense the mission is the attractor which may
allow the greatest spectrum of values.
Yet the mission is often enough. A mission may be conceived in a

closed paradigm, very much like measuring macroscopic mass with a
WB. A paradigm shift may then make us aware of new extensions to the
original scale, very much like measuring microscopic mass with a MS.
We have most remarkable examples of such paradigmatic scale
extensions in the development of Classical Mechanics (CM) into
Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Relativistic Mechanics. Bohr discovered
the correspondence principle for the extension from CM to QM and
Einstein discovered the relativity principle for the extension for CM to
RM. These two principles, when viewed together, have a very clear
message. They say that an earlier, lesser complex creation may not be
destroyed by a later, more complex creation making use of the former,
but also has to accommodate it. In the case of mechanics the creations
involved are empirical truths. Obviously, there are many more types of
abstract creations than only empirical truths.
The essentiality quantity-bounded plays a reassuring role in our

understanding of the seven essentialities. After we have to make a
begetting connection with each one of these seven essentialities, we
should not expect full understanding immediately. The comprehension
of each essentiality has to grow in each of us. Since each of us has a
different perspective, each of us occupies a different interval on the full
scale of understanding. (Compare the different understandings to the
different measuring instruments for mass discussed earlier.) These
intervals may overlap in some cases and be disjunct in others.
Nevertheless, we have to try and develop a coherent scale underneath on
which each interval of understanding fits.
More will be said in part III about quantity-bounded in education. Here

179
we may note that when a learner has to create in terms of a particular

objective, it is not enough to use a few common (average, representative)
values. Values representing limiting and even exceptional cases should
also be included. It is often these far from average examples which
trouble the learner, but also afford better understanding of the objective.

equation for entropy production. The essentiality quantity-bounded may
be observed on a scale of values which both the force and the flux may
have in the conversion of a form of energy. The one boundary is
equilibrium when both terms are zero and thus no entropy is produced.
The other boundary is the bifurcation point at which new force-flux
terms are introduced, often through cross inductions.
This essentiality is somewhat neglected in literature specifically on

entropy, creativity and learning. However, where creativity is required
or where entropy plays a major role, for example in scientific discoveries
and technological breakthroughs, the role of this essentiality is often
highlighted. Names like Euler (mathematics), Le Chatelier (chemistry),
Peirce (logic), Einstein (physics), Volterra (population) and Zigorski
(engineering) come to the mind. A few psycholgists specialising in
creativity are also moderately sensitive to this essentiality, for example
Guilford and Torrance. We may also mention Eco (1990).
In this icon objects other than only

spheres are depicted. Each object is
made by a different construction method.
Thus the objects represent different
classes of being and becoming.
Quality-Variety
The essentiality quality-variety often appears to contradict the other six
essentialities or to make some of them obsolete. For example, it is often
experienced in the realm of human affairs as if opposing and
contradicting the essentiality of associativity-monadicity. This is not the
case. In physics the existence of the four fundamental forces
180
exemplifies this essentiality. In chemistry the periodic table of the

elements is another fine example of this essentiality. In biology this
essentiality is basic to taxonomy and ecology. Due to the empirical
nature of these subjects, it is not difficult to accept this essentiality in
these subjects, although this essentiality does cause problems in the
interpretation of empirical results.
In the realm of human affairs and the abstract world it is difficult to

understand or merely to accept the complementarity between the two
essentialities. Promoting variety is often perceived as jeopardizing
unity. This leads to philosophies such as egalitarianism and unitarism
to minimise or oppose the influence of the essentiality quality-variety.
Thus the principle of 'unity-in-variety' (i.e to accept and promote both
essentialities) is seldomly acknowledged. This is also the reason why
the 'trinity of the godhead' is so difficult to accept in the Christian faith.
Another example is comparing quality-variety with quantity-bounded.

What is the difference between a quality and a quantity? It is often
thought that quantities may be measured while qualities cannot be
measured.. This not true. Since both are measurable, they are referred
to in the basic natural sciences as quantities, either extensive or intensive
(quality). The difference is in how they react to scaling the creation
(change in size). When scaling a creation, its extensive quantities are
also scaled while its intensive quantities remain the same. In the
material world an electrical charge will be a (extensive) quantity while
electrical potential is a quality (intensive quantity). Also consider an
abstract example. The number of theorems proved on a certain topic in
logic is a quantity, but the desire to prove theorems is a quality.
Another difference between quantities and qualities is how they

contribute to entropy production. Differences in a quantity lead to
fluxes while differences in qualities lead to forces. It is natural to think
of forces causing fluxes, but not vice versa. In other words, qualities
have influence over quantities rather than vice versa. For example, the
desire to prove theorems influences the number of theorems to be proved
rather than vice versa.
A third difference is that the procedure of changing a quantity is seldom

changed by a change in the quantity itself. On the other hand, the
181
procedure of changing a quality often changes drastically when the

quality changes. Therefore a quantity is often perceived as a property
of being while a quality is usually perceived as a property of becoming.
Hence it is quite acceptable to say that the essentiality quality-variety is
the ability to allow all possible functions between two structures.
It is not the changes in a quality which we perceive as variety, but the

changes between qualities. It is also possible to perceive variety as the
changes among quantities, but this is far more difficult because
quantities cannot be linked directly to forces. Furthermore, when during
complexification a new order arises, the qualities of the new order are
far more easily recognised than its quantities because the latter have
barely increased in size. Since it is natural to be aware of the predator-
prey effect of evolutionary self-organisation, we are much more sensitive
to new qualities than quantities. Furthermore, these new qualities may
be intimidated much more easily to cause negative, destructive reactions
rather than constructive reactions.
De Bono deals with many facets of creative thinking. However, he

stresses one facet in particular, namely lateral thinking. Lateral thinking
is concerned primarily with quality-variety as an essentiality of
creativity. It is also concerned in a minor way with the essentiality
open-paradigm. The opposite to lateral thinking is often called tunnel
vision which is a mental insensitivity to quality-variety as an
essentiality.
The essentiality quality-variety is also very important to logical thinking.

For example, to discover that a sentence has a truth value as one of its
qualities, we have to consider sentences in different languages
expressing the same thing, for example 'the sky is blue' (English) and 'die
lug is blou' (Afrikaans).
Fractals are a modern discovery. They are directly related to this

essentiality. Fractals are geometrical patterns which seems to change
endlessly in small steps, but keep on repeating themselves on a larger
scale. The shape of fern leaves or snow flakes are typical examples of
simple fractals. A composition of fractals may lead to a pretty and
almost real picture of some distant landscape. Fractals may be generated
by computers by the recursive exponentiation of a complex number.
182
The essentiality quality-variety is most important to the resilience and

vitality of creations, whether material or abstract. Resilience is the
ability to self determine responses in a changing environment. Vitality
is the ability to create in ever changing conditions. It is only the last few
decades in biology that the importance of having a large variance in a
gene pool has been realised. In the business world it has also been
realised increasingly that diversification often makes the difference
between success and failure during difficult economical climates.
We are so used to contrasting quality-variety with the other essentialities

that when we look for complementarity with the other essentialities,
insights are often surprising. This essentiality promotes an
understanding of the other six essentialities, especially becoming-being,
connect-beget and open-paradigm. Often the latter three essentialities
all appear to be impaired when in fact the essentiality quality-variety is
primarily impaired.
More will be said in part III on quality-variety in education. Here we

may note that specialisation too early rather than diversification in the
curriculum is detrimental to the creativity of many learners. When
formal learning institutions are used to homogenise the political or
religious views of its students, they only succeed in making many of
these students robots. This might suite autocrats, but these students are
then unable to create their own future with resilience and vitality. They
experience this inability painfully when the days of reckoning arrive.
equation for entropy production. The essentiality quality-variety can be
observed in the many terms which can contribute to the entropy
production, one for each changing form of energy. The first law of
thermodynamics has a very important say on this point: since energy
cannot be created or destroyed, it is impossible for merely one form of
energy to change. This means that at least two forms of energy have to
change, the increases in the one form to be matched by decreases in the
other form. Consequently entropy is produced by different sources.
As we should have expected, Charles Darwin (1872) has great concern

for this essentiality as well as associativity-monadicity. David Bohm
(1989), already mentioned for his immense sensitivity to the essentiality
183
associativity-monadicity, is also clearly committed to this essentiality

(p83). In a marvellous anthology (Davis & Scott, 1971), various
contributors exhibit sensitivity to this essentiality. It also figures in the
work of Osborne (1963) through 'brainstorming', De Bono (1970)
through 'lateral thinking', Adams (1979) through 'blockbusting' and Baer
(1993) through 'divergent thinking'. Morgan (1986) stresses this
essentiality in creative business management. Ashby (1961) of
cybernetics theory (control of complex systems) as well as Beer of
systems theory (viable systems) are also very sensitive to this
essentiality.
In this icon roles of black and white

have been inverted like the negative of a
photo image. This depicts a dramatic
change which is often experienced
negatively rather than complementarily.
Open-Paradigm
This essentiality may be considered as the joker in a deal of seven cards.
It is the one which jumps the surprises on us, the one which we are
usually not prepared for. However, just as the joker in a pack of cards
provides a much wanted solution, this essentiality provides for
rejuvenation. This is what the etymology of the word paradigm tries to
say: para = 'beside, beyond'; deiknymi = 'show'. Show us the unseen
which lies beyond on the other side.
Thomas Kuhn used the phrase 'paradigm shift' to describe the nature of
scientific discoveries which had a major influence on the development
of science, for example the quantum effect and the relativity principle.
However, we will now use the word in a universal sense. It will refer to
any major emergence among material creations such as life from the
inanimate world, the animal kingdom, the mammals or the human race.
It will also refer to any major emergence among abstract creations such
as the concept of language, religion, natural law or logic.
184
The examples given in the previous paragraph do not mean that this
essentiality cannot be scaled. Paradigmatic shifts are all around and
within us. The pollination of a flower and the germination of a seed are
paradigmatic events. When a child begins to understand how to count
collections or to calculate with fractions, the child has experienced
paradigmatic shifts. When any one of us uses a new language for the
first time or has to change from profession, our paradigms shift. In other
words, when a new level of complexity has emerged in any creation, a
paradigm shift has taken place.
We should not confuse our interest in paradigm shifts which represent

major changes in the course of history (geological, biological or
anthropological) with paradigm shifts in general. Since our own creative
interests are at stake as in the predator-prey relationship, we may
feverishly hunt for those shifts which enable us to become predators and
easily overlook those shifts which will not cause us to become prey. It
is our very situationship and relationship with a universe of creating
creations which influence the essentiality open-paradigm.
The new paradigm to which a shift leads can also be called a 'strange
attractor'. As soon as this new paradigm emerges, it seems as if
everything then converges towards this paradigm. In other words, it
seems as if everything is attracted by this paradigm - thus the name
'strange attractor'. However, the idea of an attractor is not really that
strange. The best known attractor is the equilibrium state. The
equilibrium state is the attractor when there is no sustained production
of entropy. A 'strange attractor' emerges as soon as sufficient entropy is
produced and the seven essentialities are not impaired.
We close certain parts of the universe to become immune to their

adversive effects on our own creations while we open up other parts to
benefit from them. When some of the other six essentialities are
impaired, we often close what should be opened and vice versa. For
example, if associativity-monadicity is impaired, we are not able to
realise that something which seems to be immediately adverse will be
beneficial in the long run. Furthermore, if we do not understand the
dynamics of creativity and thus how to employ it effectively, we
frequently shut entropy production down by closures and isolation. We
may know nothing of the second law of thermodynamics and specifically
185
that the entropy production in an isolated system dwindles away to zero

when equilibrium sets in, but we have much experience which we
intuitively make use of in this very truth.
The more closures we bring about, the less we are able to accomplish
paradigm shifts and the more dangerous it becomes to do so. It all has
to do with entropy production. Paradigm shifts happen far from
equilibrium by virtue of a high rate of entropy production. The more
closures there are, the fewer the forms of energy free to be changed and
thus the more each of the remaining forms has to contribute. This means
that the force and the flux in each remaining form have to be increased,
often driving the creation into unwanted regions of instability.
On the other hand, for any creation to be completely open is almost as

dangerous as to be completely isolated. In the latter case, death will
certainly come from within and in the former case death will very likely
come from without. In other words, a balance (paradigmatic
equilibrium) has to be found between completely open and completely
closed (isolation). This latter equilibrium itself spells death as any other
equilibrium! This is exactly where the essentiality open-paradigm is
pivotal. To escape the paradigmatic equilibrium the creation has to
open up gradually. To handle this increasing openness, only one viable
course is open, the road to increasing complexity.
Is entropy production really the primordial cause of all creations,

material and abstract? Kant has pointed to two words to think about:
immanent and transcendent. The author firmly believes that entropy
production is the primordial cause in the immanent sense, but not in the
transcendent sense. Entropy production happens by employing already
existing creations. We have no single piece of evidence that it can also
happen in the void, despite our difficulty in conceptualising the void -
the nothing (note: void … black hole). Yet most of us embrace a religion
in which we creatively participate. Whether our religions are true or not,
they exist. By their very existence, we profess the existence of God the
Creator, the Primordial Cause. By denying Him, we close ourselves.
Another way to think about this essentiality, is to consider the concepts

‘the truth’ and ‘(a) truths’. A mathematical system of seven unknowns
(variables) connected by six independant equations, affords many values
186
for each unkown. We may think of such a system as ‘a truths’ (open)

system. Supplying a seventh independant equation affords its unique
value for each unknown. We may think of such a system as ‘the truth’
(closed) system. A serious problem in life is confusing ‘a truths’ system
with ‘the truth’ system. For example, we may infer a truth based on
experiences which are particular. In a situation with different particulars
we would have infered a different truth. These different truths point to
‘a truths’ system. By now confusing them as ‘the truth’ system, we
create ‘beliefs’ (closures) which prevent us from becoming fully
creative, i.e. we impair the essentiality open-paradigm.
We may easily confuse the previous six essentialities as ‘the truth’

system. The effect of the seventh essentiality open-paradigm is to make
them ‘a truths’ system! That is the most important reason why each of
them has been designated by a dichotomous name. Does this mean that
we need an eighth essentiality to make the seven known ones ‘the truth’
system? No! The seventh essentiality requires openness. We must be
very certain of it. In our desire to know ‘the truth’, we confuse this
openness with uncertainty. For example, Capra (1996), in an otherwise
wonderful book, echoes this confusion when he writes “In the living
world of dissipative structures, history plays an important role, the
future is uncertain, and thus uncertainty is at the heart of creativity.”
Should he have used the words ‘open’ for uncertain and ‘openness’ for
uncertainty, this sentence would have made a most remarkable addition
to the selection of quotes in chapter 9.
The 'rule of epoche' in the phenomenological method has the effect of

making the phenomenologist sensitive to this essentiality (Spinelli, 1989,
p17). The distinction between 'noema' and 'noesis' has the same affect
while also increasing the sensitivity towards becoming-being.
The essentiality open-paradigm plays a unique role in our understanding

of the seven essentialities. We do not understand them one by one. If
there is one essentiality which we do not understand at all, then we do
not understand any one of the other six, even if we believe so. On the
other hand, if there is only one of them that we believe we really
understand, then in principle we are able to understand all the others.
The reason is simple. They all belong to one high order of complexity.
When this order emerges in our understanding, it emerges with all seven,
187
even though our understanding of some of them may remain completely

bare for a long time. To increase one's understanding in the lesser
understood ones, work from the one or two best understood.
More will be said in part III on open-paradigm in education. Here we

may note our first experiences in education will often be, that learning
is memorisation and regurgitation. This is a perception of learning and
not its true nature. Bifurcation and emergence are much more important
to learning than memorisation and regurgitation. If we do not
understand the latter sentence, then we are in dire need of a paradigm
shift. For this shift to happen, we must open up. The road to this shift
will be opened in part 3 by observing a very simple tenet which we may
call the tenet of learning. Part 2 is now about to end. It concerned the
tenet of creating: entropy production is the primordial cause of all
creations.

equation for entropy production. The essentiality open-paradigm may
be observed in the appearance of new terms in the equation by virtue of
bifurcation and emergence.
In the literature Glansdorff and Prigogine stress 'openness' and 'far-from-

equilibrium' as essential to irreversible self-organisation in the chemical
world. The psychologist Barron (1968, pp290-302) clearly subscribes
to this essentiality of creativity. Maslow (1967) is another psychologist
very keen on this essentiality. The system theorist Von Bertalanffy
(1968), already noticed for his sensitivity towards associativity-
monadicity, frequently stresses this essentiality as the biologists Brookes
and Wiley (1986) also do. Morgan (1986) is also sensitive to it in
creative business management. The systems thinker Peter Senge (1990)
devotes a whole chapter (13) to openness.
The essentialities and the neural system

It is illuminating to summarise the seven essentialities by tracing their
role in the neural system of humans. The neural system provides the
physical basis from which the abstract world of mind can emerge. The
188
neural system consists of the central nervous subsystem (brain and spinal
cord) and the peripheral nervous subsystem (sensory, autonomic and
enteric). A comprehensive survey of the neural system may be found in
Brain, Mind and Behaviour (Bloom et al, 1985). For the relationship
between the brain and intelligence (natural and artificial), works such as
Penrose (1989) and De Callatay (1992) may be consulted. For a
relationship between the brain and irreversible self-organisation, Jantsch
(1980) may also be of help.
Becoming-being. The neural system is a complex organisation with

various levels of order in it. In each level units exist with specific
structure and function. For example, on the subcellular level we may
find the mitochondria with a structure which allows them to generate the
power needed by the cell. The neural cell itself has a tree like structure
which allow it to conduct an electrical current from one end to the other
end in different parts of the body. On the supercellular level the
hippocampus is responsible for the short term working memory. It is
most remarkable (see Bloom et al, 1985, p195) that the brain processes
being information ('declarative knowledge') differently from becoming
information ('procedural knowledge'). It has been demonstrated that the
thalamus plays a major role in the processing of being information while
it appears to have little influence on becoming information. It appears
as if the cerebellum has a major influence on the latter.
Identity-categoricity. Each unit in every level of order in the neural

system has a unique morphology and physiology which cannot be
replaced by another unit. For example, the brain in the central
subsystem consists of the forebrain (two cortical hemispheres, amygdala,
hippocampus, basal ganglia and septum), the midbrain (thalamus and
hypothalamus) and the hindbrain (pons, medulla, cerebellum and
brainstem). By studying the embryonic development of the brain, it
becomes clear, for example, that the septum belongs to the forebrain and
not the midbrain. By removing from a mammal, like a rat, any one of
the units listed in brackets in the previous sentence, it can be shown that
its neural activity becomes irreversibly impaired in a specific way. In
some cases it may lead to death when the unit controls some involuntary
movement.
Associativity-monadicity. The neural system spans the whole body of

189
the animal. Thus all parts of the body can send and receive messages
along the neural system. Moreover, the neural system through its
peripheral neurons in the sensory organs (skin-touch, eyes-sight, ears-
hear, nose-smell and mouth-taste) links the organism to the outside
world. This allows the animal to react in a complex manner upon a
complexity of changes in the outside world. Thus the animal can sense,
move, regulate, adapt and reproduce. In humans these actions become
the most complex compared to all animals.
Connect-beget. On the cellular level we have the synaptic connection

between the dendrite of one neuron often with many thousands of other
neurons. There is a slight gap between two connecting neurons which
has to be bridged by special molecules called neurotransmitters. These
transmitter molecules make the connection a begetting one. On a higher
level of organisation we have, for example the intricate connection
between the spinal cord and the pons, or between the two hemispherical
cortexes by the corpus callosum and the thalamus. Some of these higher
order connections may even be considered as alliances, for example the
motoric alliance for motion and the limbic alliance for emotions.
Breaking these higher order connections leads to irreversible damage.
Quantity-limit. In the embryonic development of the neural system, the

telencephalon eventually develops into the forebrain and its five main
units. Each of these units, as is the case with all other units of the neural
system, is made up of a large number of specialised neurons. It is
especially the development of the cortex which is most interesting. It is
not only the last to develop in the evolution of the species, but also the
last in the embryonic development of a specimen. The more advanced
the species, the more numerous the neurons and the subsequent folds in
the cortex. The number of neurons in the cortex becomes greatest
among the primates and in humans the upper limit is reached.
Quality-variety. The overall complex function of the neural system do

not only depend on its many and diverse kinds of neurons, but also on
other types of cells. The neuroglia cells are responsible for the
"housekeeping" chores of the neural system such as removing excess
transmitter molecules and ions. The vascular cells form special blood
vessels which allow the transportation of only simple and small
molecules through their walls, especially oxygen. Thus they form a
190
remarkable blood/brain barrier which protects the neural system from

too many chemical influences. The meninges cells form a fluid-filled
stocking of membranes which protects the brain from severe mechanical
shocks. The different functions of the two hemispherical cortices
(synthesis, analysis) may also be mentioned here, although these
differences are often over emphasised in creativity. Last but not least
important, is that the electrical impulse in a neuron is caused by the flow
of different types of ions and not electrons. This allows for the parallel
discrimination of messages by processes such as polarography and
electrophoresis in terms of different permeabilities for different ions.
Open-paradigm. Although much of structure function of the neural

system is determined genetically, it will be modified locally by its own
activities resulting from external influences. Thus the neural system
itself is a remarkable example of an irreversible self-organising structure
of which its function can be explained by means of irreversible
thermodynamics. Nevertheless, the overall function of the neural system
is to respond to external stimuli in an ever changing world, to filter out
the unimportant ones and then to react to the remaining ones for the
benefit of the whole organism of which it is an essential part. In the case
of humans much of this overall function is experienced as 'mind'.
Therefore,
" 'mind' is a complex and touchy subject. As you begin
to acquire some knowledge about the physical
properties of the brain and its operating units, you may,
indeed, revise your opinion of it. Perhaps, for now, the
best thought to keep in mind is that, whatever it is, the
mind works best when open."
Bloom et al in Brain, Mind and Behaviour.
Summary of chapter
The aim of this chapter is to delineate the mechanical (qualitative) nature
of entropy production (dissipation). The mechanics of entropy
production concerns the seven essentialities of creativity. They are the
result of a generalisation of the seven patterns of adjunction obtained in
chapter 3. They are also intrisical to the form of the equation for the
191
production of entropy.
The seven essentialities are fundamental to human creativity in all its

diversity. They play, for example a major role in positive behaviour
such as humour, theories and religion as well as negative behaviour such
as warfare and perditions. Although each essentiality is unique, they
depend on each other. Each essentiality is not only complex, but
together they measure complexity. They are usually part of the tacit
knowledge of people and thus figure on an intuitive level in human
creations.
The essentiality becoming-being refers to the constants and changes of

reality. It is particularly clear in the noun-verb pattern of languages and
the structure-process pattern of technology. It is essential to all levels
of complexity and complexifies itself. Although a balance should be
maintained between being and becoming, becoming precedes being.
The essentiality identity-categoricity refers to the uniqueness of every

part of reality. The uniqueness reflects through the becoming-being with
the rest of reality. The complexity of this essentiality may be hacked
through disciplines such as probability theory and fussy logic, but can
never be replaced by them. The opposite of this essentiality is
demarcationism.
The essentiality associativity-monadicity refers to wholeness of reality.

This wholeness is reflected by universal laws. It is the driving force in
authentic philosophies. The crux of this essentiality is to accept the
material and abstract worlds as one reality, chaos and order as
manifestation complementaries, etc. Its opposite is fragmentarism
The essentiality connect-beget refers to effective contacts between

various parts of reality. It is reflected by the reactive sites and the
nonreactive remainder of every creation. Its wisdom is to employ past
creations in new creations and never to try and create in the void. It
introduces nonlinearity in creative systems.
The essentiality quantity-bounded refers to the quantitative nature of

reality. It is reflected by counting and measuring procedures as well as
transformations in scale. It underlies restitivities in becoming and
192
stabilities in being. It introduces the attractors in creative systems.
The essentiality quality-variety refers to the diverse nature of reality. It

is reflected in the form of reality rather than its content. The diversity
of reality occurs both in being and becoming. It expresses both the
resilience to unwanted changes and the rejuvenation upon desired
changes. It introduces fractal patterns in creative systems.
The essentiality open-paradigm refers to the open and transitive nature

of reality. It is reflected in the sustaining of a higher level of order by
a lower level as well as the emergence of an even higher level of order.
The emergence of a higher order appear to be incomprehensible in terms
of the lower orders. Closures are pernicious to paradigm shifts because
they inhibit the production of entropy.
The interaction between all seven the essentialities may be describe by

the concept commutation (infrastructure). The human neural system is
a magnificent example of a commutative system. The computer internet
with its hardware and operating software is an example of a
commutative system in the making. Commutation is essential to
communication. It promotes a society to emerge into a community.
193
195
PART III
LEARNING BEYOND
THE BRIDGE
We all desire something. The past cannot be changed
any more. The present affords too little time. Hence
only the future can give birth to our desires.
Today differs from yesterday and hence tomorrow will

be different too. We have little say in tomorrow’s
changes. Thus we fear tomorrow because we may get
hell rather than paradise.
How will we get a full share of the future? We seldom

figure in promises given to us. But we figure often in
our own thoughts. We must begin in these thoughts
because most of our accomplishments began there.
Each of us will have to create our own future. The

creative power is derived by enabling all other people to
do the same. It is of the highest order of human life.
We may call the quality 'enabling' by the name

education, but then we will have to reform present
education. Creativity has to become its keystone.
196
197
Chapter 7
TO LEARN IS TO CREATE
Education, teaching and learning

Should we perceive education as primarily involving humans, then we
would try to describe, explain and predict education in terms of human
nature. We would eventually arrive at what is called an anthropological
theory of education. Many educational theories are anthropological.
Each of these theories stresses some important facets of humanity.
Should we stress the facet that education encompasses teaching as cause

and learning as result, then we will arrive at a didactical theory of
education, a special kind of anthropological theory. Didactical theories
are far fewer in number simply because the science of teaching was very
much neglected up to this century. We may also have other kinds of
anthropological theories of education such as religious or psychological
kinds.
We may also have phenomenological theories of education in which

education is perceived as belonging to a wider class of phenomena
which do not necessarily involve humans. Again we may have different
kinds of phenomenological theories, depending on what facets we
perceive as important. Unfortunately, the phenomenological theories of
education often lacked anthropological qualities so that they soon fell
into disuse. However, their everlasting contribution was to make us
more sensitive to the very heart of education and teaching, namely
learning. They gave rise to relatively more theories of learning than the
anthropological theories.
We can have a lengthy discussion on the classification of educational,

teaching and learning theories. However, it is more important to note
that few of all these theories are still with us while we at most endure the
198
remaining ones. (See for example Curtis, 1960, pp 50-67 and

Hergerhahn, 1976). Why? A valid theory has to give a chronological
image of its practice. (A practice is any active part of reality, material
or abstract). In other words, a valid theory has to explain the history,
describe the present and predict the future of a practice. On the other
hand, an invalid theory is a distorted chronological image of a practice.
It may lead to gross speculation. It will wither away because it will not
get our vital support. It is simply not valuable enough for us as humans.
See also Sztompka (1974, ch 2) on The notion of a theory.
Since with any theory we actually try to describe the creative course of
time with respect to a specific theme, let us briefly consider time itself.
We measure time in the material world by comparing the chronological
development of any creation with that of a clock. A clock itself is any
creation of which some part in it acts in a cyclic and apparently
reversible manner. However, it is driven by an irreversible process in
another part of it. Its periodic events are observed by yet another
irreversible processes. We may have celestial, mechanical, electronic
and atomic clocks. We do not measure physico-chemical quantities such
as length, mass, temperature and charge in the abstract world. Does this
mean that we do not measure physico-chemical time also in the abstract
world? Yes. But this does not mean that we do not measure time at all
in the abstract world. We do measure abstract time in very much the
same manner as physico-chemical time. We do this by comparing
changing mental creations with mental creations in which no irreversible
changes happen. For example, it happens in mathematics when we refer
to the axioms X + 0 = X and X × 1 = X. It happens in philology when
we refer to the root of a word. It happens in philosophy when we refer
to a fixed paradigm. In other words, it happens whenever we compare
orders with a fixed order.
The above mentioned definition of a valid theory, namely, to describe,

explain and predict any practice to any degree of complexity, has
extraordinary ramifications in the context of this book. In part II we saw
that time and entropy production are intimately connected. For example,
any manifestation of entropy production has a chronological
development in which its past, present and future differ. We also have
seen that entropy production is the primordial cause of all creations.
This means that as soon as we are involved in any creation happening,
199
we should also be concerned about creating a valid theory for it. In other
words, we have to create the chronological complement of the
manifestation of entropy production. Or to use Maturana’s phraseology:
we have to coordinate the coordination of creations (relationships).
However, we will create valid theories only if they are valuable to us.
It is because our motivation (spontaneity) depends on the high order
qualities we acknowledge in valid theories. Theories are central to
human nature. Of all forms of life, only humans can theorise. It begins
with the playful fantasies of toddlers and ends with the wishes at death
bed. It happens everywhere, at schools and universities, in homes and
workplaces, pubs and camp fires, hospitals and churches. It happens at
any time like when we mourn, plan, pray or solve problems. Whenever
we premeditate before participating in any practice, we theorise. We
theorise when we pray or heed our premonitions. On the other hand,
when we cease to theorise by rushing immediately into practice, we
often reveal the vile and abominable characteristics of human nature.
Our creativity then becomes the most dangerous weapon of destruction.
Consequently, each of us should first create spiritually within ourselves
before creating anywhere else. Is this then how we become an image of
our Creator?
When we consider the complexity of all these theoretical and practical

creations of humans taken together, we are inclined to ask how we will
ever be able to accomplish our full share of it. Many will answer that we
will have to learn how to do it, thereby implying that learning is
something which precedes these theoretical and practical creations.
Sadly, this answer is a clear sign that the paradigm shifts reported in this
book have not been experienced. We do not need to learn how to make
these theoretical and practical creations because learning is exactly
creating theoretically and practically towards a greater complexity!
The phrase above in italics appears to have a very complex meaning

should we remember the complexity reported in this book. But this book
also has the message that complexity is not merely a being, but also a
becoming, pulsating into an even greater complexity. When two
biological gametes unite to become a sigote, the sigote is far less
complex than the mature specimen it will eventually become. Likewise
we do not need to know the full content of this book to be able to
200
organise irreversibly on the path of learning. We need to know only one

simple fact which will then become like the sigote:
TO LEARN IS TO CREATE (THAT WHICH IS DESIRED TO BE
KNOWN).
(The author has subconsciously made use of this fact since 1963. He
became intuitively aware of this fact during 1967. He observed the fact
formally in 1970.)
This fact is the beginning point for any valid theory of learning, teaching
and education. Many will perceive the sentence in capital letters as a
proposition which is either true or false but not both. Some will
scrutinize this proposition logically, trying to establish it as a theorem or
a fallacy in terms of a logical system. Others will try to test this
proposition empirically, trying to observe whether it leads to consistent
(repeatable) results. Some may even develop a theory based on this
sentence. However, this sentence remains a simple fact of observation
and contemplation. This sentence is intuitively true to anyone sensitive
to creativity. Even toddlers, as soon as they are able to connect the
words 'learn' and 'create' with their own experiences, accept this sentence
as self-evident. In future we will thus refer to this sentence as the basic
tenet of education, teaching and learning.
We should begin to realise that any learning without its creating cannot
be called learning any more. The words 'irreversible', 'nonlinear' and
'complex' have been used in a precise manner in this book. When we
now think about learning, they describe exactly what we expect of
learning. When a healthy person forgets what has been 'learnt', it means
the 'learning' was reversible. Learning is irreversible because all
creations, including learning creations, happen irreversibly. When an
intelligent person does not acquire insight into what has been 'learnt', it
means the 'learning' was linear. Learning creations are nonlinear as all
other creations because new dimensions are involved. When a capable
person remembers only the simplistic things which have been 'learnt', the
'learning' certainly did not involve complexities. We should begin to call
any 'learning' without creating, pseudo-learning.
Many forms of pseudo-learning can be found in the history of humanity,

for example mystical and animate learning. Probably the gravest form
201
is rote learning (memorisation and regurgitation). It is worsening in

modern times as we become subjected to more and more technology.
Like cancer it destroys the spontaneity of learners forever. Learners
eventually become in life what they have been practising in learning:
machines, devoid of the higher qualities which make us humans.
Once we have this basic tenet of learning, we may formulate the tenet of
teaching with relative ease:
TO TEACH IS TO GUIDE ANY PERSON TO LEARN CREATIVELY
AND SPONTANEOUSLY.
The qualification 'creatively' refers to the first phrase in the basic tenet
of learning, namely 'to learn is to create'. Unfortunately, these five
words are not enough to guarantee success. Spontaneity is a property of
all creations. The word used for spontaneity in learning is motivation.
That which applies to spontaneity also applies to motivation. An
unmotivated person can be forced to learn by some external agency
(parents or teacher) doing work on the system (learner). However, as
soon as the working force stops, the learning also stops. It is only the
inner qualities of the highest order which can sustain self-learning. They
raise the mental free energy of the learner. In other words, they are
responsible for a positive motivation. Thus the qualification
'spontaneously' refers to the second phrase in the basic tenet of learning,
namely 'that which is desired to be known'.
Education in modern times has become extremely sensitive to external

learning resources. Great costs are involved in providing them. They
are a boon to business. However, they cannot perform mental work on
the learner because they are inhuman. On the other hand, the best
learning resource is within the learner. It is called motivation. If a
learner is not motivated, all the external learning resources, irrespective
of how expensive they are, become useless. Learning creations will
simply not happen. An intelligent human agent is needed as an external
working force to accomplish by force some learning. Furthermore, these
agents are very expensive compared to spontaneous learners.
A person forced to learn may indeed learn something. Under such

conditions rote learning is the best which we can hope for (see Amabile,
1983, p 101). Furthermore, that which is learnt will never enable such
202
a person to create the future he/she desires. The only hope for such a
person is to be provided with a job machined to what has been learnt
forcibly. The reason has already been given in part II. Spontaneity
(motivation) is fired by the highest order of a (learning) creation. This
requires a complexification through emergences far from equilibrium.
The high rate of entropy production needed for emergences can be
maintained safely when produced from within. But when entropy is
produced and imported from the outside, it usually leads to destructions.
Qualities of the highest order fire motivation. Quantities of the lower

orders have less influence on motivation. However, qualities are seldom
monotypical (see essentiality quality-variety). When we try to destroy
all qualities except one, the whole order will be destroyed including the
desired quality. Hence the motivation ceases. That is why, for example,
the modern cult PC (Political Correctness. i.e. de-emphasising qualities
to gain on quantities) destroys motivation to such a large extent.
Educational reform
Content is quantitative whereas form is qualitative. Thus, when we
speak of educational reform, it concerns qualities rather than quantities.
Furthermore, if the reform refers to the whole of education, then it
primarily concerns the highest qualities of education. Any change in
these qualities by the emerging of even higher ordered qualities is then
known as a paradigm shift. This does not happen swiftly, nor does it
happen easily. The reason is that the more complex a creation is, the
greater its creation time becomes and the more entropy production
(larger forces and fluxes) is needed. A fine example of a paradigm shift
is the change from a mechanical typewriter to a computerised word
processor.
Any person who promotes general educational reform and refuses a

paradigm shift is either ignorant or unscrupulous. We simply have to
expect and accept a paradigm shift, although we may not be able to
foresee its details. We have to expect it when the entropy production is
manifested in the highest order, not as the embodiment of order of
structure (the evolutionary phase of the second manifestation of
203
entropy), but as an increase in the chaos of becoming (the first

manifestation). In other words, we have to expect a paradigm shift in the
realm of human affairs when most people begin to do crazy things in the
name of a particular affair with high qualities. (Note: 'to do' = become,
'crazy' = chaos). For example, the Protestant Reformation took place
only after enough people did crazy things in the name of religion.
Similarly, a general educational reform can happen only when enough
people do crazy things in the name of education. (Some people prefer
to use the word transformation rather than reformation when a paradigm
shift is at stake.)
Consider the tempo at which scientific information is produced,

published and cited as possibly one of the crazy things which people do
in the name of education. For example, the way in which it happens is
very typical of the first manifestation of entropy production - an
immense wheeling and dealing with little care to what ordered structures
(second manifestation) it will lead to. Some call it the publish or perish
syndrome. Others call it a knowledge explosion. But we must
remember that knowledge resides only within every individual human.
It is the result of many emergences caused by inner qualities and fed by
information coming from the outside, aided by technology. Knowledge
only perishes when its beholder perishes in learning. That knowledge
is always major in organisation to the information and technology
produced by the person beholding that knowledge. We need this
information and technology coming from each other. But we need them
as food and not as explosions. Should they do become our predators as
it now happens crazily, then the bifurcation is close.
In the previous two paragraphs we have discussed how to base our

expectations on the dynamics of creativity. We do this by considering
educational reform as only another creation to happen (Arrowsmith,
1970, p 56). However, the mechanics of creativity which entails the
seven essentialities is just as important. If one or more of these
essentialities are absent, a constructive complexification is not possible
and thus the paradigm shift will not occur. We should rather expect
destructive creations when the rate of entropy production becomes high
enough. These destructions may develop into civil, regional or world
wars.
204
If one or more of the seven essentialities are impaired, the reform (as a
creation) will be impaired. For example, consider the essentiality
associativity-monadicity. It is very difficult for only one country to
reform its education paradigmatically. The simple reason is that
education refers to humanity and not only a nation. It may be possible
for a country to do it, but then this country has to isolate itself from the
rest of humanity to get rid of adverse influences. Unfortunately, in this
isolation also lies the death of the reformation. Isolation leads to less
entropy production and eventually equilibrium. Isolation thus
diminishes the probability of a having a paradigm shift since the shift
has to happen far from equilibrium.
South Africa tried to reform its education in the era of apartheid with the
policy of 'christian national' education. Many even claimed that the
isolation which apartheid brought about, could only be beneficial to this
educational policy. The educational reform became a failure.
Educational reform has to happen world wide in at least a number of

countries. Thus it becomes difficult to monitor when the paradigm shift
will happen. Different countries are at different stages in the
complexification of their educational systems. But when people in the
leading countries begin to do crazy things in the name of education (the
dynamics working) and most other countries follow suite (associativity-
monadicity present), then one of the essentialities is already satisfied.
Consider another essentiality, namely quality-variety. We must be

careful not to think of education as that which can only happen in
schools, colleges and universities. We have to distinguish between
formal (public) and informal (private) educational institutions. (The
oldest educational institution known is informal, namely the family, i.e
home schooling.) The existence of informal institutions makes the
prediction of a general educational reform even more difficult. Both the
formal and informal sectors have to become saturated with the
manifestation of entropy as chaos of becoming. The formal sector is
almost saturated, rapidly losing ground to the informal (private) sector.
However, even the private sector will have to become saturated with
more people doing crazy things in the name of their association. This is
already beginning to happen.
205
Another essentiality to be satisfied is connect-beget. This book has its

own role to play in this educational reform. The word bridge which
occurs in the name of its three parts, refers to this particular essentiality.
The book is intended to connect begettingly many things which became
severed through the ages. But it is also aimed at connecting us to the
two 'gametes' of the new order in education: entropy production is the
primordial cause of all creations and to learn is to create.
In this book a new theory for education has been established in principle.
The acid test is whether it can predict educational practice. One possible
prediction is that of an educational paradigm shift, i.e. a major
educational reform in many countries. The author believes that such a
reformation is not further away than twentyfive to thirty years. The
seven essentialities will be paramount in this shift. Any country which
does not prepare itself for this reformation, will be left behind in
addition to those already left behind. They are approximately 50 in
number with at least 15 from Africa.
How should we prepare? We may summarise these preparations by

introducing the concept commutation. This concept combines all seven
the essentialities. It may be defined as follows. Commutation is the
interactive sharing of any number of minor organisations with any
number of major organisations in order for a hyperorganisation to
emerge and grow. The commutation instances may be expressed by the
commutation number CN. The CN will then trace the Second Law. The
CN will increase with increasing complexification. Please note not to
confuse commutation with communication. Communication requires
commutation, but commutation does not necessarily result in merely
communication.
The author has programmed a CAE (Computer Assisted Education)

lesson to show that much of molecular chemistry can be decribed in
terms of commutation. It is not difficult to imagine how much of the
physiology of the human body can also be described in terms of
cummutation. Let us then broaden our view once more to include even
the education of a nation. Educational reform, up to the emergence of
a new educational era requires global commutation. Internet, the global
commutation of computer literates, is now nearly ready to make such an
educational reform possible. Its influence will surpass that of the
206
commutation made possible by the Gutenberg press - a commutation

upon which we relied heavily in the present era.
A remarkable case study

In the previous section we have discussed the reformation of an
educational system at large. We have noted that any paradigm shift in
large scale education will have to be global by involving a number of
leading countries. However, what about educational reform up to the
paradigmatic level in particular individuals? Is it possible and is it
necessary? Peter Senge (1990) stresses that in any learning organisation
the collective transformation begins with personal mastery, i.e the
transformation of each individual member.
Let us see why personal mastery is indeed necessary. Firstly, local shifts
are necessary for the global reform to happen. For example, think of a
metastable, supercooled or supersaturated liquid. Such a liquid should
have crystallised, but it did not. The 'stable' in 'metastable' means that
the liquid is at equilibrium - nothing further happens. The 'meta' means
that something prevents it from reaching its final equilibrium because
one of the essentialities has been impaired seriously. In the case of glass
it is the essentiality becoming-being. In the case of melted crystals of a
pure substance it is connect-beget. Should one add a crushed crystal into
the latter solution, it will suddenly begin to crystallise. Each powder
particle is a tiny crystal which acts as a nucleus for a crystal to grow on.
In other words, educational reform in individuals is necessary to break
any global metastable equilibrium state.
Secondly, the individual may cease to operate functionally at one of the

levels in the present system of formal education. Yet we have argued
that learning should be a way of living and not a phase of life because
the individual has to create daily his own future. These two sentences
clearly contradict each other. The first sentence describes to a large
extent what happens in practice. But the second sentence describes what
should be our ideal. A learner should not leave the formal system
because of failure, but by a firm decision that it is time to switch over to
207
informal education. To learn is to create. A formal educational system

should advance the learning creations in it. It is a fallacy to think that
advanced learning creations can happen only in a formal system.
Is educational reform possible in individuals who ceased to learn

functionally? Serious teachers have many experiences of how they have
managed to give learners a new life in the world of learning. Only they
will know how much of it happened in terms of the tenet 'to learn is to
create'. In the following case study this tenet was used formally and
objectively with remarkable consequences.
---------
I was assisting a chemistry course making use of computers (PLATO

system) a few years ago. First year students who failed their class based
course of one semester had to repeat that course the next semester on
computers. One day I noticed a young lady crying silently. I asked her
what was wrong. She said: 'I lost my power of learning'. Her answer
struck me as most extraordinary. She could not pass any of her four
subjects the previous semester. She was heading for disaster again.
I quickly assessed her creativity status by some simple questions. She

was very creative in arts, crafts and outdoor life. Nothing wrong there.
Then I assessed the learning methods and strategies which she used in
her school days. Again she was very creative: she wrote her own notes,
solved problems and even prepared her own learning objectives.
Nothing wrong there. Then I asked her about her performance at high
school. She said nonchalantly that it was five A's and one B. She came
from the province Natal where less than 1 out of 1000 pupils had
achieved such a performance. Something was seriously wrong! I asked
her if any one of her lecturers had noticed that she had failed with such
a school record. Her whisper was almost inaudible: 'None'.
I then said to her that she was evidently a very intelligent person. She
had to help me to find out what was wrong. She had to answer my next
questions as faithfully as possible, irrespective of what or whom it
concerned.
My first question was: 'How do you experience the loss of your power
208
of learning'. She said that as soon as she got down to her desk, her body
got numb while she found it difficult to concentrate. At first she became
sleepy. When she got up, even before reaching the door, she felt how
energy flowed back into her body and mind. Her conscience then
commanded her to turn back. But as soon as she had settled down, she
either experienced the same shutdown, or got excited, her body moving
uncontrollably and her mind reeling over many things. When she finally
managed to control herself physically and mentally, her body began to
sweat while the learning happened far too slowly. I believed her. Her
skin and hair were in a sad state. I reassured her by saying that she gave
me a wonderful description of nonspontaneous learning. She gave me
an intent stare.
My second question was: 'What has caused the loss of your power of
learning'. She then replied with a wonderful description of the lack of
associativity-monadicity in her learning environment, not knowing that
it was an essentiality of creativity and thus learning. She said that at
school she eventually became very agitated with the teachers, each one
doing his/her job, not caring about what the others did or the
inconsistent, incoherent and fragmented picture the pupils got. This was
the very reason why her sixth A slipped into a B. She began to long for
the university, believing that here she would get the whole, undistorted
picture. When she arrived at the university, it took her less than a month
to realise that it was even much worse at the university. It was also then
that she experienced the loss of her power of learning.
I assured her that there was nothing wrong with her at all. (I
immediately knew that she was ready for a paradigmatic emergence, but
had been trapped in a metastable equilibrium state.) I said to her that she
knew almost everything to regain her power of learning so that I would
tell her very little. I said that she intuitively made use of the simple fact
'to learn is to create', but that she would have to employ it thoughtfully
and as much as possible. She began to smile. I then said to her that
there are two types of universities, the visible type with hundreds of
them all over the world, none more than a thousand years old, and the
invisible type of which only one exists for at least 3000 years. She and
only she could decide to which university she wanted to belong. She
frowned. I then said she would find the invisible university in the library
in some of its books. She would have to hunt for it. I gave her the name
209
of two books to begin with, Order out of Chaos (Prigogine and Stengers)
and The Closing of the American Mind (Bloom). I finally told her to go
and busy herself with whatever she loved passionately. Her eyes began
to burn. It all took less than 10 minutes.
After two weeks she stopped coming to the computer centre. I felt very
sad - yet another complete failure of our system. I wanted to kick myself
for over estimating her intelligence and creativity.
About a year later, as I was walking to the library, she came running to
me over the lawn. I did not recognise her because of the natural beauty
of her skin and hair. She asked me with a happy smile if I still
remembered her. Only then did I recognise her. She said that she had
passed all her subjects, not with distinction, but at least with
commendation. She said that working in the library on whatever
compelled her was so important that she could not spend more time on
her compulsory subjects. I was so happy for her. I told her that
everything has a creation time. She agreed with a happy laugh. She then
said that her greatest problem was her fellow students. When they
wanted her to go to a movie, a party or a sport event, she had to decline
with the excuse that she had other plans. She once or twice tried to give
the real reason, but they thought she was becoming crazy. Afterwards
they thought that she was having a secret affair or was caught up in
something illicite.
Then she smiled exactly like Mona Lisa. For a moment I thought I knew
what had happened between Mona Lisa and Leonardo Da Vince.
Creativity made her smile like that.
----------
It is quite clear what had happened to that student. She was a very
spontaneous learner over a wide range of subjects during her school
range years. This is depicted by the dark area in the graph of fig 5.6.
She also experienced by the range and the depth of her creations how
essential associativity-monadicity was to her creativity. She expected
the university to recognise associativity-monadicity as an essentiality.
However, she experienced a denial of this essentiality in the fragmentary

210
and demarcatory activities of the university. She probably began to

question the validity of this essentiality. In only a few weeks her own
higher ordered organisation MSY disintegrated from MSY>MSU to
MSY<MSU where MSU is the higher ordered organisation of the university.
Obviously, her own lower order organisation mSY is less than that of the
university mSU. Thus she became intimidated by the complexity of the
university. Her spontaneity changed to that which is depicted in fig. 5.4.
After counselling she was able to switch back to spontaneous learning

as is depicted by fig. 5.6. This happened because her faith in
'associativity-monadicity' was re-established. In other words, she
regained the power of the qualities in her higher level organisation by
accepting these qualities once again. It is important to notice that all this
happened metacognitively, ie. intuitively, subjectively and informally.
She was not told about the essentialities of creativity and the name
associativity-monadicity was not even mentioned for the essentiality
being questioned. She had also already experienced all the necessary
emergences. The only role of the author was to reaffirm that which is
necessary to become spontaneous (motivated) again. She will now be
a valuable asset to any learning organisation because she has discovered
what personal mastery really means.
Managing the dynamics of learning

Although learning is an activity typical of humans which involves a
high degree of complexity, we have to bear in mind that it is only
another form of universal creativity (or deep creativity). We also have
to remember that we may distinguish between the dynamics (content)
and mechanics (form) of creativity, but that we should never fragment
and demarcate them. They have to be employed hand in hand as is the
case, for example, with the content and form of poetry.
By saying that learning is another form of universal creativity, we have

already said something which is very complex. The form of any content
is a higher ordered, emergent quality of that content. In other words,
learning is a higher order, emergent quality of deep creativity. Creativity
is thus necessary for learning, but creativity also leads to more than mere
211
learning. We may think metaphorically of creativity as mother earth

from which a forest emerges. One species of trees is called learning.
Other species are, for example, artistry, rationality and language. We
should never confuse any of these species with mother earth. It is just
as easy to confuse learning with creativity as it is to confuse, for
example, artistry with creativity.
The dynamics of learning creations concerns the quantitative production

of entropy. (The reader is referred to Chapter 5 for more and general
detail.) A high production rate is needed for revolutionary learning
creations, i.e. emergent learning. The word 'emergence' means
something new has been created within the system. Emergent learning
affords new concepts and insight into old notions. These concepts and
insights cannot be imported from the learner's surroundings. In other
words, rote learning (memorisation and regurgitation) cannot be
substituted for emergent learning.
Entropy is produced by forces and fluxes. The forces are derived from
qualities. Since qualities may change, they may be predicated, evaluated
and measured. However, qualities are also intensive because they can
never be scaled. Examples of qualities are punctuality, objectivity,
anticipativity, imperativity, formality, rationality, respectability and
sociality. (The postfix -ity has been used rather forcedly to signify qual-
ity, although in cases like 'formality' and 'sociality' with negative
connotations it is better to use postfixes like -tion for formalisation and
-ing for socialising).
A difference in the intensity (value) of a learner's quality and that of the

surroundings (teacher, parents, group leaders) creates the corresponding
force. It is the responsibility of the teacher to ensure such differences
while it is the responsibility of the administration to make it possible.
For example, to create a force on punctuality is to set up a date before
which a task has to be handed in. Another example, to create a force on
imperativity is to comply with goals and objectives.
Every force has a corresponding flux. The fluxes are derived from
quantities. The main difference between quantities and qualities is that
quantities can be scaled (extensified). Examples of quantities are
schedules for punctuality, observations for objectivity, argumentations
212
for rationality, etc. In other words, a quantity concerns things of which

we can have various amounts without changing the intensity of its
corresponding quality. Quantities are often those things upon which
bureaucracies thrive while lacking in qualities.
Each force should give rise to its own corresponding flux. This means
that whenever we create a force, we should also ensure that the barrier
to its corresponding flux has been removed. If the barrier still exists, a
force may induce other forces and fluxes not planned for. Consider, for
example, punctuality. The learner is asked to hand in a task (flux) at a
certain date (force). Should there be a barrier to the resources needed to
complete the task, disastrous cross-inductions could happen like
fabrications and rebellions.
Do not allow the entropy production rate to increase too fast. Since the
first manifestation of entropy production as chaos of becoming has to be
transported away, the transport avenues may become saturated locally,
but not globally. This will cause local bifurcations and hence minor
emergences rather than the major emergence intended. Consider for
example the quality rationality and assume that as major emergence the
learner should understand what a principle is. By now flatly refusing to
discuss one principle on the ground of another principle, the entropy
production can easily be raised too fast. In other words, contradictions
are such powerful entropy producers that they may easily be employed
too soon. Hence confrontations rather than persuasions often arise.
Do not expect the immature learner to manage the entropy production

cognitively (formally and objectively). Rather make use of the learner's
previous experiences of entropy production as a meta-cognitive
(intuitive, informal, subjective and tacit) guide. This can be
accomplished by making use of authentic learning templates (didactic
ground forms). The major templates are play (game), dialogue
(conversation), exemplar (experiment) and problem-solving (task). Let
us consider how entropy production is managed in play. Three
important qualities of most types of play are probability, causality and
rationality. Play models a section of reality by using these qualities.
Play itself then becomes a safer part of reality. In his book Chance,
Cause and Reason Burks (1977) discusses the importance of these
qualities in modelling. We may add here that these qualities create
213
powerful forces to produce entropy. Consequently rules are made to

control this entropy production. One rule usually concerns repetitions
to ensure a gradual build up of entropy produced. Highly ordered
insights may thus emerge through the use of play.
Do not try to maintain emergent learning indefinitely. Since the

emergents are bare, they should first be embodied by evolutionary
leaning creations, i.e. digestive learning. In other words, emergent
learning should be complemented with digestive learning in a regular
fashion. This means that the newly acquired qualities should be
strengthened quantitatively. This quantitative growth in structural order
is necessary to provide the free energy for accomplishing a new phase
of emergent learning. Without this free energy the next high rate of
entropy production cannot be instigated.
The regular switching between emergent (revolutionary) and digestive

(evolutionary) learning makes the ordering of the learning material or
curriculum content important. Various ordering strategies have to be
employed to ensure a balance between emergent and digestive learning.
We may distinguish between linear, divergent, spiralling, symbiotic and
chronological ordering strategies (principles). Linear ordering is the
easiest to use, but often retards major emergences up to paradigm shifts.
Chronological ordering is also easy to use, but often results in
unmanageable complexities. Divergent (combinatoric) ordering is more
difficult to use, but allows a better management of intermediate
emergences. Spiralling ordering allows an even better management of
major emergences. Although symbiotic (synergic) ordering is the most
difficult to use, it allows for the best management of all types of
emergences, interspaced with digestions.
The spontaneity of evolutionary creations and thus also digestive

learning is most important. If such learning creations happen
spontaneously, they not only happen on their own accord, but they can
also be harnessed to perform useful (organised) work on the
surroundings for various purposes. One important purpose is to change
the structural order in the surroundings to aid future emergences within.
This is not possible for non-spontaneous evolutionary creations. They
have to be forced to happen through an external agent (teacher) by doing
strenuous work on the system (learner). This makes education
214
expensive. Although non-spontaneous digestive learning can be forced

to happen, it is far more difficult to accomplish non-spontaneous
emergent learning by the same means (external agents doing strenuous
work on the system). This makes education not only more expensive,
but also more indeterminate by cross-inductions through the Onsager
relationships.
The spontaneity of digestive learning is influenced by the complexity of

the learner as well as the complexity of his environment. The
complexity is made up by the hierarchy of orders as well as the qualities
and quantities in each order. The more complex the environment
becomes with respect to the complexity of the learner, the more it
intimidates the learner and thus the lower the free energy of the learner
becomes. This means the learner becomes less spontaneous (motivated)
to finally enter the domain of non-spontaneous learning. This must be
prevented at all costs.
Spontaneous learning can be promoted by either increasing the

complexity of the learner or decreasing the complexity of his
environment. However, these two options are asymmetrical. Because
of the factor mSU in the equation of the Digestor, any quantitative
decrease in the complexity of the environment will make a lesser impact
on the spontaneity of the learner than an increase in the complexity of
the learner. Although a richer environment will more easily intimidate
learners with lesser higher order qualities, it will also be more beneficial
to learners richer in higher order qualities.
The promotion of spontaneous learning by increasing the complexity of

the learner means that the learner's knowledge has to contain a well
developed hierarchy of orders as well as intensive qualities and
extensive quantities in each order. In other words, the learner should
have a rich experience in both emergent and digestive learning. Meagre
learning experiences of the past can barely promote motivated learning.
This includes rote learning (memorisation and regurgitation) because
rote learning is not only a poor substitute for digestive learning, but can
never afford the emergence of higher order qualities.
The promotion of spontaneous learning by decreasing the complexity of

the learner's environment means that the teacher has to reduce the
215
complexity of the learning environment. This cannot be done by the

learner wherever the environment's complexity causes non-spontaneous
learning. The reduction of the complexity of the environment (learning
content) may be accomplished in terms of its qualities and quantities.
The qualities and quantities not directly related to the learning creation
have to be removed or concealed. They obscure and demotivate. Those
quantities directly related to the learning creation have to be decreased.
Those qualities directly related to the learning creation have to be high
lighted. In other words, the learning content has to be reduced to its bare
essentials (elementals). When they reappear in the learning creations of
the learner, they may be called fundamentals. This means that emergent
and digestive learning cause the elementals of the environment (learning
content) to become the fundamentals of the learner's inner knowledge.
The great danger in reducing the environment (learning content) lies in

impairing or destroying the seven essentialities of creativity (learning).
For example, fragmentations may destroy monadicity, demarcations may
destroy categoricity and homogenisation may destroy diversity. By
using the exemplar in-situ as an authentic learning template, the
impairing of the essentialities can be prevented to a large extent.
Leaving the environment as it is, may expose the learner to impaired
essentialities in the environment. Since these essentialities belong to the
highest order of creativity, the immature learner will experience it as
difficult and intimidating to repair them. Thus the task of the teacher is
not only to reduce the environment (learning content), but also to correct
it where necessary.
Care should be taken to use the authentic learning templates

appropriately. The exemplar is usually suitable when the mechanics of
creativity (seven essentialities) have to be employed tacitly so that
something dynamical can be studied. Problem-solving is often suitable
when the dynamics (emergence and digestion) have to be employed
tacitly so that something mechanical can be studied. Many approaches
to problem-solving have been offered. Each of these approaches
highlights some aspects of the dynamics and mechanics of creativity.
This means that problem-solving is best approached when it is done
creatively in all respects. Cougar (1995) is an excellent addition to a
fine tradition since the advent of the landmark work by Osborne (1963)
216
Managing the mechanics of learning

The mechanics of learning creations concerns the qualitative aspects of
entropy production. (The reader is referred to Chapter 6 for more and
general detail.) The first manifestation of entropy production as chaos
of becoming is automatic. However, the second manifestation in a
constructive sense as order of being, whether it be revolutionary or
evolutionary, is contingent. It will happen only if the seven essentialities
of creativity exist. If one or more of them are absent and the rate of
entropy production becomes too high, destructive rather than
constructive learning creations will ensue. If one or more of the
essentialities are impaired, constructive learning creations may still
ensue, but they will definitely be impaired.
In order to manage the mechanics of learning, it is beneficial to

categorise learning creations into mature and immature learning
creations. The immature learning creations are those with some 'error'
in them. However, it is better not to speak of 'erroneous' learning
creations because errors are often not corrected. However, should the
immature learning creations not be improved, they would have a
detrimental influence on subsequent learning creations. Their most
serious effect would be to decrease the free energy of learning to such
a low level that eventually all learning becomes non-spontaneous.
Competency (outcome) based education intends to avoid this effect.
We should distinguish between mature and immature learning creations

very much like between a sapling and a mature tree. A sapling can
neither be demarcated as an error, nor can it be demarcated as a mature
tree. A sapling can be stunted or deformed, but with the right care it
may still develop in a normal mature tree. Similarly, immature learning
creations can be guided by the teacher into mature learning creations.
The immature learning creations themselves can be categorised into

systematical and irregular creations. (In the measurement of physico-
chemical quantities, scientists make a similar distinction between
systematical and irregular errors of observation.) The systematical,
immature learning creations are those for which the teacher can
anticipate a valid reason, irrespective of the complexity of the reason.
217
The irregular creations are those for which the teacher cannot anticipate
a valid reason. In some of them the learner may be able to offer some
kind of reason. It is important to scrutinise these reasons despite how
weird they may seem to be. They often give a clue to which aspect of
the learner's creativity is seriously impaired.
When the learner persists in making irregular, immature learning

creations, it usually points to a serious deficiency in the dynamics
(entropy production and its manifestations) or mechanics (seven
essentialities of creativity). In other words, there is after all a reason for
these irregular learning creations, thus making them systematical,
immature learning creations. However, it requires all the expertise in
creativity of the teacher to guide the learner towards more mature
creations.
It has to be stressed that the learner should persist in making irregular,

immature learning creations before claiming a serious deficiency in
creativity. Making a few irregular mistakes here and there is simply not
enough. Moreover, the learner should exhibit these deficiencies also in
his other creations and not merely learning creations. Furthermore, it
has to be stressed that we all have to experience a growth in creativity
from early childhood. Thus we should not confuse immaturity in the
dynamics and mechanics of creativity with a deficiency in them. We
should rather observe the learner's creativity as a whole and determine
whether the immaturity in a certain aspect is not in harmony with all the
other immaturities.
Let us briefly discuss the dynamical deficiencies before we go into the

detail of mechanical deficiencies. A common dynamical deficiency, for
example, is to expect emergence close to equilibrium, i.e. to desire easy
learning. This is typical of learners who exploited a rich environment,
but with little depth in their own experiences. We may think of them as
the tenuous or arrogant learners. Another closely related example is to
be afraid of a too intense first manifestation of entropy production
(chaos of becoming). This is typical of learners who lived in a poor
environment and had to battle for the richness of their experiences. We
may think of them as the sensitive or touchy learners. They usually have
an intuitive notion that the dynamics of creativity is necessary, but not
sufficient. Some of them may even have discovered an essentiality or
218
two and thus fear that their ignorance to the rest will lead to destructive
rather than constructive creations.
Deficiencies in the mechanics of creativity and thus learning is as

important as the dynamical deficiencies. For example, the learner's
insight deepens as his perception of his surroundings broadens. This
broadening cannot happen if the essentiality associativity-monadicity is
impaired. In other words, if the learner thinks in a fragmentary manner,
insight will be elusive. Einstein has frequently stressed this issue in
science (see Holton, 1986, ch 2). Consider as another example the
essentiality quality-variety. If this essentiality is impaired, the learner
will experience difficulties in creating new things.
A deficiency in a particular essentiality may often have a snow-ball

effect on the other essentialities. In the previous example (deficiency in
quality-variety), the learner may deform the essentiality identity-
categoricity into egalitarianism. A deficiency in an essentiality may also
effect the dynamics of creativity. The case study in the third section of
this chapter is a fine example of how it happens.
Oversensitivity to a particular essentiality, even tacitly, can be as

disastrous as a deficiency in that essentiality. It usually leads to an
overproduction of entropy like an allergic reaction. In the subsequent
first manifestation of chaos of becoming, the other essentialities become
impaired or suppressed. Thus the second manifestation of entropy
production as order of being is not merely impaired, but is seldom
constructive. In other words, oversensitivity to a particular essentiality
often leads to immergences rather than emergences. For example,
oversensitivity to the essentiality identity-categoricity may cause the
learner to become extremely sceptical, jumping frantically from topic to
topic while destroying what appears to be alien.
Although immature creativity underlies all systematical, immature

learning creations, the immature creativity should seldom be addressed
directly. The reason is that even the learner's creativity should develop
by emergent and digestive learning into maturity. Furthermore, since the
learner's creativity is of a very high order, we must ensure that the lower
sustaining orders also exist by emergent and digestive learning. We can
accomplish this by addressing the form and content of the learning
219
material (curriculum), remembering that the learning material concerns

creations, irrespective of the subject. Thus we need a way to codify the
learning material as creations. This may be done in terms of an
imperative language, i.e. objectives, aims, goals and missions. (In the
next chapter we will study this codification in more detail.) The learner
then has to respond to these imperatives by learning creations.
The learning creations, in response to the imperatives, are still

categorised as either mature or immature (systematical or irregular)
creations. However, the advantage is then that the systematical,
immature creations may be categorised even further in terms of the
essences of each particular imperative. (We will use the plural 'essences'
rather than essentialities to distinguish them from the higher order
essentialities of creativity.) Failure to comply with a certain essence in
the imperative will cause a certain kind of systematical immaturity. In
other words, by working through all the essences of an imperative we
have covered all the possible classes of systematical immature learning
creations. This means that the systematisation of the immature learning
creations is done in terms of our system of imperatives. Since these
imperatives can concern any subject of reality, the systematisation of
immature learning creations is about as complex as reality itself is.
It is this complexity of the systematical, immature learning creations

which is responsible for poor guidance when making them. A simple
objective in chemistry may often have ten or more classes of
systematical, immature creations. In aims we may easily get 100 or
more classes per aim while a goal may have 1000 or more classes. How
is it then possible to guide each and every learner in all systematical
immature creations in a one-to-many teacher-learner ratio? In the
traditional teaching organisation it is impossible. But in computer
assisted education it is not only possible, but has already been
implemented. The teacher uses the computers to multiply his guidance
in most of the systematical, immature creations. The irregular creations
are those which are too difficult or complex to be encoded in the lesson
program. They require the personal guidance of the teacher.
The author has created an authoring system for lessons using Visual
Basic as programming system. It is called CACTAL (Computer
Assisted Creative Teaching And Learning) and its source code is freely
220
available on request. The guidance in revolutionary (emergent) learning

creations is accomplished in terms of special procedures called leads.
The seven essentialities play a basic role in the designing of these leads.
To catch all the learning creations (mature and immature, systematical
and irregular) in compliance with a specific objective in a consistent
manner, the leads have to be arranged in a decreasing order of
complexity. This is a most extraordinary observation. Consistency is
not merely a matter of logic, but also a matter of complexity!
The nature of the 'feedback' message given upon an immature creation

is very important, whether it is given personally or by means of a
computer. The essence of the immaturity has to be described very
clearly. But under no circumstances should the corrected creation be
given to that immaturity. Should the corrected creation be given,
partially or fully, the learner would be able to copy that correction
without having self-created it. In emergent learning such a copying is
completely wrong. Firstly, it contradicts the autocatalytic (autopoietic)
nature of emergent learning. Secondly, the increase in entropy
production is stopped since no subsequent attempts are required.
Thirdly, if an objective has, say, ten essences, then we can expect a
disadvantaged learner to make up to ten different kinds of systematical,
immature learning creations before having mastered the objective.
When each essence in any imperative is carefully analysed, it appears to

be one of the seven essentialities of creativity or any combination of
them. There are 7! = 5040 possible linear combinations and many, many
more nonlinear combinations. Therefor it is much more efficient to
guide the immature learning creations in terms of the essences of the
imperative rather than the underlying nonlinear combinations of
essentialities in each essence. Only when the learner persists in creating
a particular type of systematical immaturity, does it become necessary
to delve into the underlying essentialities.
What is wrong with our education?

This question has been frequently asked in almost all civilised countries
for many years now. Millions of work hours have been spent in trying
221
to discover what is wrong and sometimes to provide a solution.

Different countries have drawn up different reports. Even the plethora
of reports of an international organisation like UNESCO do not give a
coherent picture.
This book is not and cannot be a report on this question. Yet we have
to pay attention to this question because of the contents of this book.
The global problem of education is the lack of creativity in it. We may
go even further and pinpoint it in terms of two issues: the lack in
emergent learning and the lack in motivated learning. We have seen in
this book how emergence and spontaneity are intimately connected.
Emergent learning fires the motivation for future learning, emergent
(revolutionary) and digestive (evolutionary). The essence of emergent
learning is the irreversible self-organisation of the mind into new orders.
To learn is to create. Any person who cannot create his/her own future
becomes a problem to society. Such persons have little respect for any
other creations. Whenever they are forced by society to create
something, it becomes very costly and the result is at most mediocre.
Left on their own, they have to be cared for in almost everything. If they
are not cared for, they become criminals. They take possession of
anything they have not self created, even that which they could have
created themselves. The subsequent caring for them as criminals is even
more expensive.
We are battered on a daily basis by rhetoric which bestows the

responsibility for job creation on politicians, economists, industrialists,
etc. Organisations which claim to be watchdogs of this responsibility
sprout up like mushrooms. All this prove that emergent and motivated
learning is a mystery, unknown to most humans. This ignorance puts
human civilisation at risk.
Readers may get the impression that 'emergent learning' is a recent

invention. Emergent learning is as old as at least the western
civilisation. The first reference to it lies in the roots of the Grecian
civilisation:
"Well, my art of midwifery is in most respects like
theirs: but differs, in that I attend men and not woman,
and I look after their souls when they are in labour and
222
not their bodies. The triumph of my art is in thoroughly

examining whether the thought which the mind of the
young man brings forth is a false idol or a noble and
true birth."
Socrates to Theatetus. The dialogues of Plato IV.
It is the arrogant ignorance of humans devoid of love which causes the
fall of civilisations because they inhibit the emergences do desperately
needed.
The highest quality to be gained by creative learning is love for the

Creator and His creation. This love fires motivation positively into
eternity. No other quality or quantity can intimidate this love
effectively. It is the only quality which can draw learners onto a path
leading to the bright future they sincerely desire. Were it not for the
love of the Creator to instill that love in us, there would not have been
hope for any of us. We have been created in His image. This means that
we have to follow suite. Thus, when a learner has lost his/her 'power of
learning' as that young lady had formulated so accurately, our guidance
has to begin from, with and towards love, the highest of all qualities.
Summary of chapter
The aim of this chapter is to establish human learning as a creative
phenomenon. Since no creation seems to have escaped the enquiring
mind as a predator, human learning appears to be the most complex
creative system known. Yet it is possible to guide the complexity of
human learning with a very simple and powerful tenet: to learn is to
create (that which is desired to be known). The phrase in brackets refers
to probably the most important aspect of human learning, namely its
spontaneity (motivation).
A general reform of education on a national scale is possible when it

follows the dynamics and mechanics of creativity. This means the
nation has to become a learning organisation who guides itself by the
tenet: to learn is to create. On the dynamical side, the nation has to
create emergences and then allow every emergence to mature
digestively. On the mechanical side, the nation has to ensure that none
223
of the seven essentialities is deficient.
Every global reform depends on uncountably many local reforms within

it. With respect to education it requires the knowledge of how to guide
individual learners to become spontaneous creators. The knowledge of
how to prevent a learner getting less spontaneous in the educational
system is equally important. In practice it means to quit anything which
is indifferent or contrary to the creativity of the learner.
The dynamics of learning requires a knowledge of both revolutionary

(emergent) and evolutionary (digestive) creativity. Emergent learning
has to happen far from equilibrium. This means that entropy has to be
produced so that it can be manifested as chaos of becoming. The
production must be fast enough so that a bifurcation can happen and thus
the second manifestation as order of becoming can commence. A
constructive emergence requires the sufficient presence of the seven
essentialities. Every emergent learning experience must also mature by
means of digestive learning. Only then can the mature emergents
provide the free energy for new learning emergences to happen
spontaneously.
The mechanics of learning requires a knowledge (theory and practice)

of the seven essentialities of creativity. Learners need to be guided
about deficiencies in these essentialities when they create immaturely.
Ignoring these deficiencies will prevent most learners from mastering the
subject content.
The most serious ailment of present education is the lack of spontaneous

learning. In order to get learning results, the educational environment
has to force through external work and control the nonspontaneous
learners into learning. This makes education expensive, unreliable and
mediocre. The remedy is to promote emergent learning, especially in the
qualities of the highest orders.
224
225
Chapter 8
THE LAWS OF TEACHING
Content and form

The relationship between content and its form is ubiquitous in this book.
On the one hand, it is often a topic in the subject matter covered. On the
other hand, it may be used to describe the consistent development of the
book. The book develops from chapters 2 to 4 by generalising content
into form. It reverses from chapter 5 to 7 by giving content to the form.
In chapter 2 the content is the students' performances while the form is

the production of entropy. In chapter 3 the content is mathematics and
chemistry while the form is the seven patterns of adjunction. In chapter
4 the content is energy and entropy while the form is the manifestation
of entropy through free energy. In other words, from chapter 2 to
chapter 4 we have successively generalised content into form. Such a
generalisation is common to mathematics. However, whenever we have
encountered a mathematical expression, we reinterpreted it as soon as
possible into terms of English as our natural language. The apparent
reason is to make the results available to everyone understanding
English.
However, the actual reason is to prepare ourselves for the emergence of

an even higher cognitive order than language or mathematics, namely
creativity. We can think (like Alvin Toffler) of the development of
humanity in terms of their artifacts as three waves (agricultural,
industrial and informational). But we can also think of this development
in terms of how humanity commutes with the rest of reality as creation.
Thus from chapter 5 to chapter 7 we have instantiated form into content,
bearing in mind all possible creations.
226
In chapter 5 the form is the dynamics of creativity (quantitative nature

of entropy production). The content covers the two manifestations
(chaos of becoming and order of being) and the two asymptotes
(revolutionary and evolutionary) of the second manifestation. In chapter
6 the form is the mechanics of creativity (qualitative nature of entropy
production). The content covers the requirements sufficient for a second
manifestation to be constructive, namely the seven essentialities of
creativity. In chapter 7 the form is the fundamental tenet of education,
namely to learn is to create. This form, together with the developments
from chapters 2 to 6, is used to gain new insights into education,
teaching and learning. Emergent and motivated learning become most
important concepts.
From chapter 5 to 7 we barely made use of any mathematics. By this we

do not wish to favour non-mathematical descriptions. As far back as
seven centuries ago Roger Bacon stressed that any worthwhile study of
physics should employ mathematics. His foresight first vindicated by
the work of Newton only three centuries ago. His foresight still applies
because in it we recognise mathematics as belonging to a higher order
than natural languages. Thus we may also apply it to education. This
does not mean we accept mathematics as the highest cognitive order yet
to emerge. Indeed no, almost a century ago Lutzen Brouwer (Goldblatt,
1979, p 175) had the foresight to perceive an even higher order, one
which he had much difficulty to describe, using words such as
'construction' and 'intuition'. In recent times Edward de Bono (1970)
stressed this higher order with his concept of lateral thinking. Only now
do we begin to realise what this even higher order entails: universal
creativity.
Mathematics is the logical study of the form of any content by

representing the form symbolically. Thus, although a high degree of
mathematical creativity is needed to discover the proof of a theorem, the
symbolic representation of it can be checked by almost a moron with
simple arithmetical skills, as Rosser (1953) has noted. Didactics or the
science of teaching is the phenomenological study of the form of
learning when mastering any content (subject), as Van Der Stoep and
Louw (1984, p 29) have noted. These two descriptions clearly show a
close relationship between mathematics and didactics. The most
important difference is that mathematics is concerned primarily with
227
mature creations while didactics is concerned primarily with immature

creations.
This difference is important enough to have our mathematical endeavour

postponed to this chapter. However, we must now examine whether our
studies from chapters 2 to 6 which culminate in chapter 7, are open to a
mathematical study. In other words, we must do for education what
Newton has done for physics.
The difference is so important that it will also influence our

mathematical study of education. Firstly, we will have to concentrate on
the teacher and teaching (mature creations) rather than the learner and
learning (immature creations). Obviously, the teacher is concerned with
mature creations (the learning material or subject content) and immature
creations (the learner and his/her learning creations).
Secondly, when we communicate about creations in a mature manner,

we do it declaratively. This means we use statements which are either
true or false. This is what mathematics is about, despite its immense
volume of content. However, bear in mind that any sentence in a natural
language is either a statement (declarative), or a command (imperative)
or a question (interrogative). When we deal either with immature
creations or in an immature manner with creations, we do it imperatively
rather than declaratively. This means that we use formal commands
such as objectives, aims, goals and missions as well as informal
commands such as needs, desires and endeavours.
When working through this book, the reader will notice that imperative
sentences have been used as seldom as possible. The rationale is as
follows. It is custom to report declaratively. Present readers are familiar
with this custom. This book reports on two immense paradigm shifts:
entropy production is the primordial cause of all creations and to learn
is to create that which is desired to be known. If the book were to report
on these two paradigm shifts in an imperative manner, this would
constitute a third paradigm shift by which the book would become too
intimidating.
However, those of us familiar with designing a curriculum in terms of

objectives, may have become astonished at the possibility of covering all
228
the essences of a subject in terms of objectives, thus gaining experience

in communicating imperatively. This is exactly what will happen in this
chapter. Our formal communication will be imperative. In other words,
we will communicate in terms of formulae concerning commands.
As the quantum or smallest unit of commands, we will employ the

'objective'. We will not use the specific name 'objective' for them, but
rather the general names 'commands' or imperatives'. The reason for this
is that we are interested in the form of objectives and not their content.
Thus our symbols for the form of any command will be capital letters
such as P, Q, etc. The contents of P, Q, ..., will then be any command
(eg. objective, aim, goal, mission) of any subject (eg. mathematics,
chemistry, biology, economics, education, theology, etc.). What we will
do now, is to relate the form of these commands (objectives, aims, etc.)
to the contents of chapters 2 to 7. In other words, we will develop the
form of the commands into a grammar (syntaxis) capable of expressing
the meaning (semantics) of chapters 2 to 7.
Singular and composite commands

The meaning of any command is determined by what happens when that
command is obeyed. The obedience to any command is three-fold: it can
lead to a structure (being), a process (becoming), or a processing
structure (being-becoming) such as commands. Let P be any command
and Y its obeying. Let the symbols "__" (underline) indicate structure
(being) and "__" (overline) indicate process (becoming). We can
symbolise the obedience to P with the following three formulae:
The last formula may be simplified to
The above command formulae may represent, for example, the following
objectives.
structure: Define the sum of any two natural numbers in words.
229
process: Given any two natural numbers, find their sum.

command: Formulate an objective concerning the sum of any two
natural numbers.
See also chapter 2, appendix 1, for examples in chemistry.
We may also say that command P has three possible values. Compare
this with declarative logic where a proposition P has only two values,
namely y (true) and z (false). Furthermore, propositional logic has
only 22 = 4 monary truth functions of which ¬ (negation) is the most
important. However, in a three valued command logic we have 33 = 27
monary command functions of which ¬ (negation) is again the most
important. Command negation can be defined as follows:
Propositional logic has (22)2 = 16 binary truth functions whereas in a

three valued command logic we have (33)3 = 19683 binary command
functions. It is a complex task to handle all these binary command
functions. Although this complex task may reflect the complexity which
creations lead to, it is profitable to lift the third value out of the
definitions of commands and deal with it separately in the definition of
Well Formed Command Formulae (WFCF). Thus the definition of ¬
(negation) is reduced to:
or, using f to also denote the outcome of a function f
Three of some important binary command functions can be defined as

follows. It is done in the reduced form where × denotes a cartesian
product taken in the order:
The three functions are:

strong structural conjunction, informally known as 'and'
strong procedural conjunction, informally known as 'or'

230
weak structural implication, informally known as 'imply'
Compare the latter weak form to

strong structural implication, informally known as 'last'
The strong structural conjunction v of imperative logic may be affected

by any suitable process whereas the conjunction v of declarative logic
is considered to be syncategorematic. This will be an important clue
when creating a calculus for imperative logic. The expression P v Q
can be interpreted informally as 'command P and command Q' or 'link
command P and command Q closely'. We will soon see that this 'link
closely' is not merely a conjunction like that in declarative logic, but
even encompasses emergences, i.e begetting connections.
The strong procedural conjunction w of imperative logic may be affected

by any suitable structure whereas the disjunction w of declarative logic
is considered to also be syncategorematic. Again, this will be an
important clue when creating a calculus for imperative logic. The
expression P w Q can be interpreted informally as 'command P or
command Q' or 'link command P and command Q loosely'. The
command function v will be used frequently in monadic studies whereas
the command function w will be more common to fragmentary studies.
The last expression, namely P Y Q, can be interpreted informally as

'command P entails command Q structurally'. Its counterpart Y in
declarative logic is called 'material implication'.
We are now in a position to study some composite commands. We will

limit ourselves to simple ones to facilitate an easy interpretation.
Consider the incomplete command P v ¬ P which means informally

'command the obeying of any command and not obeying exactly the
same command'. The contradictory nature of this command creates a
tension (force) which leads to entropy production and hence its first
manifestation as chaos of becoming. However, it cannot lead further to
the second manifestation of entropy because it defies the essentiality
connect-beget. Therefor, since the obedience of this command is a
231
process, it may be completed as
On the other hand, denying this command by ¬ (P v ¬ P) may lead to

the second manifestation of entropy as order of being. Thus the latter
command may be completed consistently as the structural command:
In education the former command would mean informally 'aim to teach

in terms of mastering objectives and not mastering them' while the latter
would mean 'aim to avoid teaching in terms of mastering objectives and
not mastering them'. Obviously, the former aim is a major source of
mediocrity in education, thus putting nations at risk (19..). This aim is
sadly the result of not understanding the basic premise of competency
(outcome) based education. This premise is invoked by the latter
command above.
In declarative (propositional) logic ¬ (P v ¬ P) is more than often taken

to be a self-evident, fundamental truth, i.e. an axiom. This axiom is also
often written as P Y P. Its counterpart in imperative logic are the dual
commands
and
which have equal importance. The latter process command means

informally 'do not command any command which implies the obedience
to merely that command'. Again its contradictory nature leads to entropy
production and its first manifestation as indicated. Its informal meaning
in education is 'do not aim to teach in terms of even a simple objective'.
On the other hand, the informal meaning of the former structure
command in education is obviously 'aim to teach in terms of objectives
which can be mastered one by one'. In other words, teach in terms of
manageable chunks to avoid intimidation and hence demotivation.
This command clearly points to digestive learning (see chapter 7 and

also chapter 5 on evolutionary creations). This command even gives us
a way in which to calculate the minor organisations mSY and mSU. The
former is the number of singular objectives already mastered by a learner
and the latter is the total number of objectives to be mastered in a
curriculum.
232
Let us now include a second command Q into the discussion of the

previous paragraph as (P ~ Q) Y P. In the extended three value system
~ can be accomplished in 19863 different manners while in the reduced
two value system it can be accomplished in 16 different manners. Let
us consider only two possibilities, namely (P v Q) Y P and (P w Q) Y P.
The latter command is contingent because its obedience can lead to a
structure or a process depending on P and Q leading to structures or
processes. Its informal meaning in education is 'aim to teach a new
objective in a fragmentary manner'. On the other hand, the meaning of
the former command is 'aim to teach in a monadic manner'. This is
definitely a consistent aim, nay goal, of great structural importance as we
have seen in chapter 2. Thus it may be represented formally by the
structure command
Let us also compare (P v Q) Y P with P Y (P v Q). Although the

difference is merely in order, its consequences are far reaching. In the
former command the new objective is mastered by emergent learning
whereas in the latter command it is 'mastered' by memorisation and
regurgitation. Thus the latter command is again contingent because
whenever P is a process command or Q is a process command, it
switches over from a structure in its obedience to a process. In other
words, whenever the learner has to demonstrate his mastering by a
creative becoming (behaving, producing, transforming, etc.), the
learner's knowledge structure fails to emerge. Thus the informal
meaning of P Y (P v Q) in education is 'aim to teach by rote learning,
even when presenting the new unknown in terms of the known'.
Observe that a new informal meaning has emerged with respect to
We have seen earlier that it means 'aim to teach in a monadic manner'.

Now we see that it also means 'aim to teach a new objective emergently
in terms of an objective already mastered'. Thus the v in this formal
structure command exemplifies the very essence of the essentiality
connect-beget. In other words, 'aim to teach the unknown by connecting
it begettingly in manageable chunks to the known experience of the
learner'. This is truly one of the great ontological treasures of didactics.
233
This last structure command may even be extended to:
The informal meaning of this consistent structure command in education

is 'aim to teach the mastering of objectives in a sequence because the
impossibility of mastering a latter one points to a previous one not being
mastered'. Another structural extension is:
It means 'aim to employ a natural order of mastering objectives when

mastering various levels of complexity in it'.
By carefully analysing the definition of Y, namely
we may obtain four consistent process commands, namely
The first command corresponds to the inference rule Modus Ponens
of declarative (propositional) logic and its associated theorem
The second command has no corresponding rule in declarative logic

since the symbol | ('assert') allows for inferences only in terms of y
('true'). The third command corresponds to the inference rule Modus
Tollens
The fourth command points to the inference rule
which apparently has never been used in propositional logic before.
It must be warned that in declarative logic the symbols y and | do not

belong to the formal, logical system, but are part of the logician's
informal interpretation. However, the symbols "__" (underline)
indicating structure (being) and "__" (overline) indicating process
(becoming) are definitely part of the imperative system as are the
observer (creator) and his interpretations. The simple reason is that
234
nothing can be excluded from entropy production and its manifestations.
The four process commands above have been obtained by analysing

destructively the definition
Thus they exemplify consistent analytical process commands (CAPC).

Many other examples may be obtained by analysing other definitions or
even more complex constructions based on these definitions such as:
'aim to simplify a conjunction'
or 'aim to syllogise by using a disjunction'
In the imperative system the constructive synthesis of definitions and

even more complex structural commands based on them are at least as
important as the destructive analysis of them because of the second
manifestation of entropy production as order of being. In declarative
logic this constructive synthesis is often neglected by making it a matter
of mathematical talent. Thus we will have to examine carefully what we
will call consistent synthetical process commands (CSPC).
In the construction of the definition
we made use of four CSPCs, namely
We frequently make use of the first member to command deductions.

By combining the first and third member, we have an even simpler
formulation, namely
Note how in each member simple commands are synthesised into more
complex commands. Other examples of such a complexification are:
'aim to syllogise conjunctively'
235
'aim to syllogise disjunctively'
'aim to syllogise hypothetically'
These consistent process commands allow us to symbolise Bloom's

taxonomy of behavioural objectives. Thus we may finally formalise the
'strange logical flavour of the moncat patterns' (which are mentioned in
chapter 2) as follows:
level 1
'aim to teach (new) knowledge in terms of existing knowledge'
level 2
'aim to teach the comprehension of (new) knowledge by ordering it in
terms of existing knowledge'
level 3
'aim to teach the application of (new) knowledge by referring to the
existing ordering of knowledge'
level 4
'aim to teach the analysis (deduction) of knowledge'
level 5
'aim to teach the synthesis (induction) of knowledge'
level 6
'aim to teach the evaluation of knowledge by structures'
'and aim to teach the evaluation of knowledge by processes'
We can continue with discussing structure and process commands

almost endlessly. However, we still do not know how to create them or
how to ensure their validation as either consistent or contingent
236
commands. In the next section we will examine their validation and in

the section thereafter we will examine how to create them.
A structure-process calculus for logic

It is important to know whether a command is consistent (always
structure or always process) or contingent (sometimes structure and
sometimes process). The reason is that for contingent commands we
have to carefully take into account the context of their application
whereas consistent commands are universally valid in their application.
The consistency of commands can be ensured by two means. On the one

hand they may be created by a formal system capable of creating only
consistent commands. We will discuss such a formal system in the next
section. On the other hand, they may be applied to a model with
sufficient creativity in it so that all the possible cases can be verified.
Thus, for example, in declarative logic we could verify a possible
theorem by means of a truth table. (A theorem is a composite statement
which is always true.) A truth table covers all possible cases by all
possible combinations of 'true' and 'false' for all the singular statements
which make up the composite statement.
The most widely used model for declarative logic is Boolean algebra.
This algebra is indispensable in the design and testing of computers.
The reason is that computers are intended to machine logical thoughts
by employing electrical circuits. We may call Boolean algebra a
mathematical calculus (calculator) and the computer an electrical
calculator (calculus) for logic. Computers make use of units of electrical
circuits called gates.
There are few calculi available other than Boolean algebra. An

extraordinary non-algebraic calculus has been developed by Brown
(1969), reported in his book Laws of Form. It is based on two formulas:
He commands and explains these two laws in terms of the continence

and persistence of any mark (distinction), using ¬ as token. He breaks
237
with classical logic by considering the two form categories more basic
than the true-false categories. However, as in the case of Boolean
algebra, the logical connectives v and w are considered to be
syncategorematic.
His two laws take a new meaning to the student of irreversible

thermodynamics. The first law refers to reversible processes and the
second law to irreversible processes. However, in the light of creativity
as it has been treated in this book, his work compels us to ask new
questions. Is the true-false categorisation really the most basic
categorisation? Think about the being-becoming categorisation which
is an essentiality of creativity. Is it a more basic categorisation or is it
at least on the same level as the true-false categorisation? Think about
the connectives v and w in a being-becoming categorisation. Should
they still be considered syncategorematic? Let us now leave Brown's
calculus aside. We will once more refer to it near the end of this section.
Let us symbolise in our calculus any being by 1 and any becoming by 0.

Thus any singular command such as P is assigned the value 1 or 0 when
its obedience leads respectively to a structure or a process. The monary
_
function ¬ is transformed into " " (overline) while the monary function
'identity' (¬ ¬) is transformed into "_" (underline). Furthermore, in the
previous section it has been hinted that v can be accomplished by any
suitable process while w can be accomplished by any suitable structure.
Let us take these clues and give v and w respectively the values 0 and
1. We also know that entropy production is the primordial cause of all
creations and that it has to be manifested firstly as chaos of becoming
(like ¬P) and then secondly as order of being (like ¬ ¬ P). Let us take
this clue and determine in any expression "___" (underline) which of 1
___
or 0 is most while in any expression " " (overline) we determine
which of 1 or 0 is least. The result (1 or 0) becomes the value of the
formula.
Consider as example the formula
The first P stays as it is, the w becomes 1 and the second ¬ P becomes
an overlined P. Hence the formula transforms in our calculus to the
formula
238
Two cases for P have to be considered, namely {1, 0}. Thus
Consequently the formula definitely represents a structure command

since the calculus produces the value 1 for both cases of P (1 or 0).
Consider as another example the formula
As a procedure command it transforms as follows by the calculus into

the formula at the bottom
Four cases for (P,Q) have to be considered, namely {(1,1), (1,0), (0,1),
(0,0)}. We will illustrate only the second case (1,0):
The 0 indicates a process command. Since all three the other cases will
also evaluate to 0, the command is a consistent process command.
The calculus can also be used to verify the consistency of formulae in

declarative logic. We simply substitute 'true' by 1, 'false' by 0, 'and' by
0 and 'or' by 1. A theorem is represented by an "___" (underline) and a
___
contradiction by an " " (overline). Thus in a theorem we determine
239
which of 1 or 0 is most and in a contradiction which of 1 or 0 is least.

It eventually becomes clear that the calculus employs the idea of
ordering more clearly than Boolean algebra. The reason is that a
Boolean algebra is an ordered being (it is a partially ordered set with the
properties closedness, complementation, distribution) whereas the
calculus becomes an ordering.
From the bootstrapping of imperative logic to declarative logic

mentioned in the previous paragraph we can make an important
conclusion. The general belief is that declarative, imperative and
interrogative logic are disjunct whereas we now observe that imperative
logic encompasses declarative logic. This conclusion is in
correspondence with our main thesis that entropy production is the
primordial cause of all creations. We can now even think of entropy
production commanding its manifestations.
However, through this bootstrapping the calculus also poses serious

questions to declarative logic. The most formidable questions are 'why
should the connectives v and w be considered syncategorematic?' and
'what is the relationship between true and being/becoming?'.
Penultimately, let us return to the 'laws of form' of Brown mentioned in

the beginning of this section. His initial mark refers to a structure which
is symbolised by 1 in our calculus. His first law 'mark over mark' then
transforms to 'line over 1' in our calculus which validates into a process
symbolised by 0. He uses the 'nothing' to mark a process in his calculus.
His second law 'mark after mark' transforms to 'line under 1' in our
calculus which validates into a structure 1. In other words, Brown's
calculus is a primitive version of the calculus described in this section.
Brown's calculus stresses the essentiality being-becoming (structure-
process) which is but one of the seven essentialities of creativity.
Finally, just for the record. The author invented the calculus soon after
the discovery of the moncat patterns and the paradigm shift to entropy
production as the primordial cause. It was invented to validate the
consistency of the curriculum's goals and objectives. Should this
calculus be named, the name moncat calculus is preferred because it
involves one of the three moncat patterns, namely being-becoming.
240
Creating the formal, imperative system

We have mentioned earlier that in order to reduce three-value (being,
becoming and being-becoming) imperatives to two-value imperatives
(being, becoming), we will have to introduce the third value separately
by the concept of Well Formed Command Formula (WFCF). In other
words, we evaluate consistent process-structure commands by WFCF.
The definition of a WFCF may be created as follows:

1 The freeing of formulae:
1.1 If any primitive command leads to a command P (processing
structure) in its obedience, then P may be freed to become a
singular WFCF (well formed command formula). The converse
also applies.
1.1 If any primitive command leads to a structure or a process in
its obedience, then P may be freed to become a singular WFCF.
The converse also applies.
2 The complexification of formulae:
2.1 If ~ is a WFCF, then ¬ ~ and Õ ~ are also WFCFs. The converse
also applies.
2.2 If ~ and ‘ are WFCFs, then ~ v ‘ is also a WFCF. The converse
also applies.
2.3 If a WFCF has the form ¬ ( ~ v ¬ ‘), then it may also be given the
form ~ Y ‘ as a WFCF. The converse also applies.
2.4 If any command ~ can be synthesised by recursive applications of
2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, then R is also a WFCF. The converse analyses
also applies.
3 The higher order qualification of formulae:
3.1 Any command created by 2 above has to be considered as a
contingent command. The contingency of the command means
that it can lead to a structure, a process or a processing structure
in its obedience.
3.2 A contingent command becomes a consistent command when its
obedience under all circumstances becomes either a structure or
a process, but not both. The symbols are "___" for structure and
___
" " for process. These symbols have to encompass the entire
formula. These symbols are part of the WFCF.
241
The definition of a WFCF above will be part of the first initial of our
system for imperative logic. It allows us to enter the system and
participate in the creation of commands. We have to stress that this
practice is contrary to the fragmentarism followed in declarative logic
where the system and the logician are completely separated.
The second initial will introduce the initial CSC (consistent structure
command) and CPC (consistent process command) to the system. We
have to remember that no creation can happen in a void. Thus we will
have to accept some consistent commands to begin with. We will not try
to imitate a Hilbert type of system in which many consistent formulas
and only one processing (inference) rule are assumed. We will also not
try to imitate a Gentzen type of system in which only one consistent
formula and many processing (inference) rules are assumed. It is much
more important for us to have a balance between structures and
processes. Therefore we will introduce two consistent formulae, the one
structural and the other one procedural.
These two consistent commands have to be based on our creative

experiences, as have been discussed earlier in this chapter under the
heading 'Singular and composite commands'. We leave it as exercises
for the reader to relate them to that discussion and to validate their
consistency with the moncat calculus.
The third initial will introduce the consistent processing of consistent

commands. Obviously, their minimum number depends on the number
of initial consistent commands introduced. However, we will again try
to maintain a balance between analytical (deductive, destructive) and
synthetical (inductive, constructive) processes rather than using the
minimum number of processes. Therefore we will introduce four
procedures, two analytical and the other two synthetical. The two
analytical processes will apply to process commands in order to
symbolise the first manifestation of entropy production as chaos of
becoming. The two synthetical processes will apply to structure
commands in order to symbolise the second manifestation of entropy
production as order of being.
Again these four processes have to be based on our creative experiences,

as have been discussed earlier in this chapter under the heading 'Singular
242
and composite commands'. We leave them as exercises for the reader to

relate them to that discussion and to validate their consistency with the
moncat calculus.
The fourth initial complements the first initial as the second and third
initials complement each other. It will allow us to interpret these
formulae in terms of our meta-languages (natural languages). Since we
have distinguished categorically between the imperative system and our
own informal experiences, we may refer to this system as a formal,
objective system.
The initials of the formal, imperative system are:

INI 1. Creating consistent commands.
1.1 The definition for WFCF (well formed command
formula) to produce contingent commands is an initial.
1.2 Each contingent formula has to be qualified consistently
___
in terms of "___" (structure) and " " (process) by
means of INI 2 and INI 3 below.
INI 2. Introducing consistent commands.
2.1 As the prototype for any consistent structure command
(CSC) the following formula will be accepted:
2.2 As the prototype for any consistent process command

(CPC) the following formula will be accepted:
INI 3. Introducing consistent processing of consistent commands.

3.1 As the two prototypes for the analytical processing for
any CPC (consistent structure command) the following
two formulae will be accepted:
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2 As the two prototypes for the synthetical processing for
any CSC (consistent structure command) the following
two formulae will be accepted:
3.2.1
3.2.2
INI 4. Connecting to meta-languages (natural languages).
243
4.1 Let 'not' : "¬" and 'and' : "v".

4.2 Let 'do not aim to command P and not to command Q'
: "¬ ( P v ¬ Q)"
: "P Y Q"
: 'aim to command P which implies command Q'
4.3 Let 'ordering of n+1 consistent structure commands P1
and P2 and ... and Pn (n premises) and Q (consequent)
:
Formally creating consistent commands

Let us use the formal imperative system to create our first CPC
(consistent process command):
CPC 1:
Processing (unabridged) Reference
s1 INI 2.2
s2 INI 3.1.1 on s1
s3 INI 3.1.2 on s1
s4 INI 3.2.1 on s3
(s5 INI 3.1.2 on s1)
s6 INI 4.3 on s2, s4, s5
Step s5 is somewhat unnecessary because it merely repeats step s3.
However, it is shown again to establish the sequence for INI 4.3. The
informal meaning of CPC 1 in education is 'aim to teach the
advancement in knowledge'
Let us create our first CSC (consistent structure command) which has in
education the informal meaning 'aim to teach the mastering of objectives
in terms of their drill and practice', i.e. revolutionary creativity:
CSC 1:
s1 INI 2.2
s2 INI 3.1.2 on s1
244
CSC 2:
s1 INI 2.2
s2 INI 3.1.1 on s1
The informal meaning of CSC 2 in education is: 'aim to teach the
mastering of a complex objective in terms of the mastering of its
component objectives'.
CSC 3:
Processing (abridged) Reference
s2 CSC 1
s2 CSC 2, P = Q
s3
INI 2.1
R = ¬ P, Q = P v P
s4 CPC 1 on s1, s3
s5 INI 4.2 on s4
s6 CPC 1 on s2, s5
The abridged version makes use of consistently processed commands
CSC 1, CSC 2 and CPC 1. This means that the unabridged version will
contain 1 extra step for s1, 1 extra step for s2, 5 extra steps for s4 and 5
extra steps for s6. Thus the unabridged version contains 18 steps.
Unabridged versions may easily contain several hundred steps.
Let us finally examine the abridged processing of a consistent process

command:
CPC 2:
Processing (abridged) Reference
s1
INI 2.1, P = ¬ Q,
Q = ¬ P, R = P
s2 INI 4.3
s3 CPC 1 on s2, s1
s4 CSC 3
245
s5 CPC 1 on s4, s3
s6 INI 4.2
We can continue to create several thousands of CPCs and CSCs,

including all those mentioned previously in this chapter. However, we
will merely complete our lists up to 10 for each. The reader may also
check on their consistency by using the moncat calculus as an exercise.
CSC 4:
CSC 5:
CSC 6:
CSC 7:
CSC 8:
CSC 9:
CSC 10:
CPC 3:
CPC 4:
CPC 5:
CPC 6:
CPC 7:
CPC 8:
CPC 9:
CPC 10:
In conclusion, we have shown in this section that the laws of teaching

may be formulated mathematically, provided education is founded on a
sound basis like creativity. Should the reader require more experience
in working with the unusual mathematics of formal systems such as in
this section, the wonderful book by Rosser (1953) affords ample
opportunity.
The wishes of society

246
We have mentioned in the previous chapter that a singular objective

often contains several tens of essences while a goal often contains
several hundred essences. This chapter allows us to observe another
important difference: an objective refers to a single symbol in the
command formulae whereas aims and goals refer to important patterns
between singular symbols in composite command formulae. In other
words, composite command formulae (aims and goals) are to imperative
logic what theorems are to declarative logic. We may also compare the
relationship between lower order objectives and higher order goals
(aims) to the relationship between quantities and qualities.
It is often recommended in modern curriculum design that objectives

should be formulated only after and in terms of a comprehensive survey
of the 'needs" of a society. We can agree with most of this
recommendation, except for the word 'needs'. Curricula which have
been designed in this way are bare in higher order qualities, despite their
impressive list of objectives. Such curricula fail to grasp the attention
and curiosity of the students concerned. How did this problem occur?
Plants and animals have needs, but humans also have desires of which
some are nearly impossible aspirations. It is those desires, acting as
higher order qualities, which provide the free energy necessary to satisfy
needs. If we consider society's needs and desires together as its wishes,
then the survey should actually have been done on the wishes of a
society. The formalisation of needs leads to objectives while the
formalisation of desires leads to goals.
We may think of the survey as the first or subject formalisation of

wishes. The reformulation of objectives and goals into commands may
then be thought of as the second or logical formalisation of wishes. The
imperative system then relates the objectives as singular commands to
the goals as composite commands. The overall relationship between all
these transformations can then be represented by fig 8.1
South Africa, including its education, has been in the grip of what is
called a democratisation process since 1995. Unfortunately, almost all
of the democratic transformation in education is concerned with the top-
left quarter of the diagram. There is very little realisation that
complexification owing to entropy production increases from the top-left
247
corner to the right-bottom corner. There is also very little realisation

that the free energy in the right-bottom causes the diffusion from the
high concentration in the top-left corner to the low concentration in the
right-bottom corner. This means that qualities of higher order levels are
seriously neglected. However, had democracy been considered as the
protection of even minorities by the majority, this inhibition of the
diffusion would not have happened.
Figure 8.1 The relationship between wishes (needs and

desires), objectives and goals, and imperative logic.
The law of ubuntu

This chapter begins with English, written in Roman script. It then
develops into a highly abstract language, written in symbols many which
are alien to scripts of all natural languages like English, Russian, Arabic
or Japanese. This abstract symbolism will appear to be a barbaric
language for many readers or a sacred language for the few initiated. It
is neither, as the sudden change brought about by the previous section
wishes to indicate. Suddenly all the strange symbols in that section are
gone - only English and one figure (fig 8.1) remain. Furthermore, its
message in Roman Script is clear: complex desires are as important as
simple needs.
However, this message is also carried by the script of the highly abstract
language created earlier in this chapter. The simple wishes (needs) are
indicated by capital Roman letters while the complex wishes (desires)
248
are indicated by complex patterns using the capital Roman letters and
some other symbols of conventional symbolic logic as well as
underlining and overlining.
Now, if that is all there is to it, why has this highly abstract language
been included in this book? Could we not merely have said it all in plain
English verse? Could we not have avoided this black hole and also the
others like the one in chapter 3? No. One main goal of this chapter is
to show that laws of teaching definitely exist and that they can be
formulated with the same clarity and brevity as the laws of basic science.
In other words, teaching is not inferior to the basic sciences in terms of
their abstract symbolism. The other main goal is to use this abstract
symbolism as a metaphor to stress once again what this book is really
about.
We cannot escape the mechanics and dynamics of creativity. The

dynamics imply that entropy has to be produced for anything to happen.
This created entropy is then automatically manifested as chaos of
becoming which will be commuted to the rest of the universe. Only
when the entropy increases sufficiently so that the becoming pathways
are being overloaded, will the bifurcation be reached. Then, provided
that the seven essentialities of creativity are not impaired, the created
entropy will also be manifested as order of being in a localised manner..
One crucial point to realise is that we humans will always be subjected

to chaos of becoming and sometimes to high overloads of it, through our
own doing. Whenever a communication medium (natural or artificial)
is involved to which humans are sensitive, for example languages or
videos, we perceive this chaos as an overload or pollution of
information. This external overload may then induce bifurcations for
which we are not yet prepared. Since they are then not autopoietic
bifurcations, they will often result in destructive immergences rather
than constructive emergences. This means the information overload will
cause decomplexifications which are better known as simplifications or
reductions! These reductions will have a devastating influence on our
communication media, thus causing the trivialisation of our knowledge
(see Bloom, 1987, p ).
In a language, for example, the richness of each word will slowly be

249
eroded until it apparently becomes a simple term of reference. What

more can we wish for - sentences in which each word has a specific
meaning? But we have actually fooled ourselves in two important
respects. Firstly, we allowed such words to be stripped of their
deep/rich/complex meanings. In other words, such words are then
appropriate mainly for digestive learning. Secondly, we have forfeited
our responsibility to recover such deep/rich/complex meanings through
emergent learning. In other words, these words do not command us any
more to seek the abstract field of emergences and digestions which
surrounds each of them. We cannot envisage the field of a word any
more in terms of its deep/rich/complex context.
This is exactly what the highly abstract symbolic formulations in this

chapter tell us. When they are treated as symbols for digestive learning,
they have hardly any meaning. For example, the v stands for 'and' - so
what about it? In traditional symbolic logic it is even thought to be
syncategorematic, i.e. without any internal meaning. However, in this
chapter it has been shown that it carries a richness within it as well as
surrounding it. Should the author have excluded this highly abstract
symbolism, the rich field surrounding it would also have been excluded.
Thus one of the most important laws of teaching would have been
forfeited, namely the law of ubuntu. This law commands the seeking of
the beautiful harmony in and between creations by means of their fields,
emergent and digestive.
What then is ubuntu? It is a word with a complex/rich/deep meaning.

We have patiently organised through many emergences and digestions
the deep/rich/complex meaning of three other words throughout this
book, namely entropy, creativity and learning. In other words, we have
patiently created the field of each of these three words. These fields do
noy merely exists - they have to be manifested creatively. To signify
these fields, we have used the words 'deep', 'rich' or 'complex'. These
'deep' fields will cause much controversy with those who want a reduced
meaning for each of the three words. However, we cannot reduce the
meaning of the word ubuntu because the majority of us know nothing
about this word, except that it has a complex/rich/deep meaning. Thus
anyone who simplifies the meaning of ubuntu, whether accidently or on
purpose, does a great injustice to this word.
250
A literal translation of the word 'ubuntu' would be 'humanity'. Old

dictionaries will show that the word humanity in English had a very rich
meaning: 1 humans collectively, 2 human nature, 3 human quality, 4
educated, 5 civilised, 6 humane and dignified. Please note the order of
complexity in its meaning. But as the information overload increased,
the richness of the word 'humanity' had immerged in the ascending order.
Thus the pollution of information has lead to its trivialisation. Probably
only the first meaning (humans collectively) now survives. In other
words, its most complex meaning must now be signified by another
word, namely 'humaneness'. Is this not crazy! Grammatically,
'humanity' and 'humaneness' are exactly the same thing! Yet we are
forced by our ignorance of the role of entropy production and its
manifestations to make a vast distinction between their two meanings.
However, the word 'ubuntu' still has all six meanings in ascending order
of emergent importance! The deepest or highest meaning of ubuntu is
thus to become humane and behave with dignity. How does it happen?
In Zulu grammar the word ubuntu is derived through the prefix 'ubu-'
from the word 'ntu' which means person. The singular form (prefix
'umu-') of person will then be 'umuntu' and the plural (prefix 'aba-') will
then be 'abantu'. The prefixes 'umu-' and 'aba-' refer to material things.
However, the prefix 'ubu' uncovers the spiritual (abstract) dwelling place
(field) of a material object. Thus 'ubu'+'ntu' uncovers the abstract field
of humans in a collective sense.
In Chapter 3 of this book we have made use of toposlogic and chemistry

to uncover the seven essentialities of creativity. However, we now learn
that through the prefix 'ubu' in Zulu the abstract field or topology
(spiritual dwelling place) of a material object has to be sought, without
any reference to toposlogic or chemistry! Let us then discover
something more about ubuntu through emergent and digestive learning.
It is not a person (umuntu) who has ubuntu, but persons (abantu) in a

closely connected sense, i.e. persons who commute. In other words, the
spiritual quality ubuntu applies to a family, a community, a tribe or a
nation - people who commute in a real organisation! None of us can
ever say: "I have ubuntu". (This will be explained after the next
paragraph.) But each of us can say "I desire ubuntu". This desire is
251
essential to ubuntu.
The quality ubuntu is extremely rich in properties which we would

qualify with the English words humane and dignity. For humane our
dictionaries may list synonyms such as: benevolent, benignant,
charitable, clement, compassionate, gentle, gracious, harmonious,
humble, kind, loving, merciful, positive, respectful, sympathetic and
tender. For dignity we may have: distinction, excellence, honesty,
honour, integrity, loftyness, trustworthyness, wise.
Take only one property of the quality ubuntu to see how it works. Take
the first one listed: benevolent. I can never say that “I am benevolent”.
It takes two classes of persons for beneficence to emerge: the
benefactors and the beneficiaries. It is an organisation, a collection of
commuting humans, which can be benevolent. It is a property of all its
individual members. When it becomes a property of some of its
individual members, ubuntu is immerging. We may thus conclude that
the emergence of beneficence does not entail that it will persist
indefinitely. It can die away (immerge) as surely as it has been born
(emerged). The impairing or destruction of one or more of the seven
essentialities will either prevent the birth of ubuntu or result in its death.
Wisdom is considered by many as the ultimate of all epistemological

emergences. Ubuntu and wisdom go hand in hand . One of the wise
sayings of ubuntu is not to reap where you have not cultivated the
harvest. A person with ubuntu also has an immense respect for
hierarchy, seniority and age. The ubuntu qualities require a mature tree
of emergences (see Maturana and Varela, 1987). The older a tree, the
more a person can learn about life from it. It is especially the flowers at
the tips of the branches of the tree which are important. These flowers
are the high qualities of ubuntu. It is these flowers which give rise to
fruit, new trees and eventually a forest.
Any organisation with ubuntu cannot be indifferent to the disfunction of

ubuntu, whether in itself or in any other organisation. Such an
organisation has to foster the emergence of ubuntu anywhere, no matter
how many times the ubuntu immerges and thus has to emerge again. It
never tries to enforce ubuntu with external work and control, but rather
sets up an example which other organisations can follow spontaneously
252
by means of their own emergences and digestions.
The worst type of disfunctioning in terms of ubuntu is not to recognise

and coexist with different ubuntus - other kinds of trees in the forest.
Thus a major ubuntu task is to set up harmony between all these various
types of ubuntus or trees. This outer harmony has to reflect the inner
harmony in each of the ubuntus, otherwise each one of them will perish!
If the tree perishes, the forest perishes. Western civilisation has now
finally created a concept for this hyper-ubuntu. It is called ecology.
Some, like Capra (1996) have already found it necessary to call it 'deep
ecology'. However, in ubuntu, it is still merely ubuntu. In order to
emerge into this stage of ubuntu whereby humans live in harmony with
nature, fellow humans and God, 'deep' creativity has to be encouraged.
This creativity has to be based on the creation of 'deep' entropy. The
'deep' in each case means that we have to go beyond appearance to
discover the invisible field.
Sadly, African ubuntu (butu) is immerging. We read in newspapers and

see on TV news reports the consequences of this immergence -
intolerable sufferings. Let us compare the past foundation which
subsists ubuntu, namely their former social system (see, for example,
Krige, 1936) with that which remains today. African peoples are
destroying their own social systems to run after the 'superior culture' of
the West, or the former Soviet when it still existed, or probably the Far
East in the near future as happened in East Africa. They cannot detect
the insane drive for power through profit or bureaucracy as the cancer
of these 'superior cultures'. They swarm to the metropolitan areas to have
a better material future, but most of them end up jobless in slums. They
consider the personal care which each individual receives in a society
with ubuntu, to be inferior to factory based schools, tens of subjects and
hundreds of topics to process and one teacher per crowd of pupils. The
more they toil for material gains, the more they lose sight of ubuntu,
their spiritual dwelling pace. They begin to worry about other
organisations like the government not doing their job rather than
worrying about their loss of ubuntu, their spiritual dwelling place Thus
they slowly immerge from producers to consumers.
The loss of ubuntu is a world wide problem. Peter Senge (1990) tried
to prevent this by the introduction of the concept of a Learning
253
Organisation (LO) which has certain highly ordered qualities. Someone

recently asked on an internet forum (dedicated to maintain a dialogue on
LOs). how he could transform his university into a LO. Very little came
of that request. It did not seem to shock any of the almost 2000
members of the forum that our institutions (schools, colleges and
universities) offer learning, but do not have those qualities which
characterise any LO. In other words, it does not seem to shock us that
our institutions offer learning without ubuntu, the spirutual dwelling
place. It does not seem to shock us any more that our learning
institutions have lost the power of learning, the fuel which drives
spontaneous learning. We are only shocked when we have to pay more
and more taxes to control and force nonspontaneous learning with
massive amounts of external work!
Therefor, in conclusion, the final call of this book is:

LET US SEEK THE EMPOWERING RICHNESS OF UBUNTU
THROUGH EMERGENT AND DIGESTIVE LEARNING!
Summary of chapter
The aim of this chapter is to recapitulate the essence of all the previous
chapters in a universal language. This formalisation is typical of
mathematics. Whereas the individual units in mathematics are
statements (declarative sentences), they will be commands (imperative
sentences) in education. These commands are not intended to engineer
the performances of learners by external work and control. They are
intended for mature teachers to follow spontaneously. A teacher who
has to be forced by external work and control to adhere to them
demonstrates nonspontaneous teaching.
Should a teacher follow the essence of the previous chapters, but not
make use of the universal language provided in this chapter, it does not
imply nonspontaneous teaching. It merely means that the teacher
operates tacitly with respect to this universal language. There is nothing
wrong with it. However, it is indeed wrong to deny either the tacit level
of teaching or the formalisation of the tacit level.
254
The universal language is introduced informally by discussing singular

and composite commands in terms of how they are symbolised and what
these symbols mean. The meaning of each symbolic expression is
imbedded in the knowledge developed in the previous chapters. Thus it
becomes possible to formulate, for example, Bloom's taxonomy of
behavioural learning objectives in terms of this universal language.
A calculus has been provided to check the semantics of the command

expressions. This calculus is based on the two manifestations of entropy
production, namely chaos of becoming and order of being. The terms
process and structure rather than becoming and being are used
throughout this chapter.
A formal imperative system has also been provided. It consists of the

definition for creating command expressions (called WFCFs) which are
syntactically consistent and the initials for creating command
expressions which are semantically consistent. Since the definition is
concerned with the form of commands, it has to satisfy the mechanics
(seven essentialities) of creativity. Since the initials are concerned with
the content of commands, they have to satisfy the dynamics
(revolutionary and evolutionary) of creativity. A number of commands
have thus been created formally to illustrate how the imperative system
operates.
The formal imperative system allows a clear distinction to be drawn

between lower order needs and higher order desires in terms of singular
and composite commands. The higher order desires can be considered
as the field surrounding the lower order needs, barely visible in how the
needs themselves are mutually organised.
The highest ordered desire of teaching is the Law of Ubuntu. Ubuntu

commands the seeking of the beautiful harmony in and between
creations by means of their fields, emergent and digestive. These fields
can never be reduced into a simple being or fully represented by a
complex being - becoming is also necessary. The very word 'ubuntu' is
typifying. To the uninitiated it is a meaningless word. To the initiated it
is still one word, but with a field of complex, rich and deep meanings.
These meanings have to be created painstakedly by surveying ubuntu in
every unit of the web of life.
255
256
251
Chapter 9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Quotations on creativity
"The most important result of the idea of the whole is, however, the
appearance of the concept of Creativeness." Jan Smuts (1926, p 119).
"The key point is that it is not enough to be interested only in the

particular results or products of creativity, as they are manifested in
limited fields. The general decline of creativity in society itself is a kind
of 'illness' which must ultimately bring about its destruction. It is
therefore crucial that whatever creativity remains shall be turned
toward the 'destructive miss-information' that is blocking and gradually
choking off the natural potential for creativity." David Bohm and David
Peat (1989, p 268).
"Without it" [creativity], "man's condition would be little better than that
of the ape. For every idea that has led to the improvement of man's lot
or to the advancement of civilization has been the product of creative
thinking. ... Failure to think creatively causes failures in all walks of
life." Edgar Moore (1967, p 141).
"Human creativity may prove to be the key to success or failure in

mankind's quest for knowledge, in his journey beyond the bounds of the
sure and the seen, in his exploration of the unknown." Frank Barron
(1963, p 8).
"Most managers and management educators have a list of what they

consider the essential properties of good management. I am no
exception. My list, however, is unique because all the characterestics,
properly enough, begin with C: competance, communicativeness,
concern, courage [and] creativity. The greatest of these is creativity."
252
Russel Ackoff (1978, p??).
"Anyone can increase his creative output, everyone should increase his
acceptance of, and search for, his own creativity and that of others.
This is a changing world, becoming daily more competitive." Paul
Thorne (1992, p xvii).
"The rarest and most valuable quality of solitary creative effort, is the
dedication and sustained motivation required to pursue goals which
involve high risk over long periods of time. Such dedication is driven by
conviction strong enough to compensate for the lack of assurance
inherent in the shared objectives of the team.". Thus: "An organization's
responsiveness to the initiative of people who have demonstrated
creative ability is the most important measure of the quality of
management." Ronald Kay (1990, p 16, p 94).
"Spontaneous creativity is often experienced as being at our best,

purposefully expressing our competence and confidence in the moment."
William Miller (1987, p 8).
"The problems confronting mankind ... are immensely greater and more
challenging than any which have existed for us before. Perhaps this
cultivation of our creative potential is a way of girding ourselves for the
battle which is soon to be joined." Calvin Taylor (1963, p 389).
"Change is occurring so rapidly that we cannot survive if we insist on

thinking and living in static terms. We must accept the creative
challenge." Paul Torrance (1967, p 89).
"... the general consensus that seems to have developed among cognitive
psychologists," [is that] "a theory of creative thinking is not too far
away." Robert Weisberg (1986, p 148).
"Creativity on its own is only a beginning. ... Having ideas are

relatively easy - having good ideas is slightly more difficult - but the real
challenge lies in carrying ideas through into some practical result. The
crucial issue then is that creativity must have some tangible outcome -
in products, services, in a new structure or strategy, or more diffusely
in a pervasive shift in corporate structure." Jane Henry and D. Walker
253
(1991, p 3).
"The nature of creativity is such that a complete and useful theory of

creativity cannot be a single, simple theoretical statement. Rather, it
will be a complex model involving many classes of factors that
contribute to the final creativity of a product or response. The
painstaking effort required to formulate such a model is more than
justified by the theoretical and practical importance of the result."
Teresa Amabile (1983, p 209).
"Education should be creative all the time, but every schoolmaster

knows that his work is almost without creation. Only when creation is
recognised as the only dynamic factor in education will our schools be
real places of education." A. S. Neill (1944, p 41).
"Unless we can bring ourselves to tell students that our religion is still
in the making, that it portrays our faults, and that each generation of
youths has the privilege of entering into it with free creativity, we simply
cannot reach the depths of youth." George Coe (1925, p 66).
"A learning organization must be a creative organization. Why?

Because an organization learns best when it attempts to create a new
product, service, practice, or process, and then assesses and assimilates
the results. Then, by continuing to do this in just the right way, it truly
becomes Senge's learning organization, one 'that is continually
expanding its capacity to create its future'. Clay Carr (1994).
"Through the power of love ... man can transcend himself through
creative living. ... Much of contemporary violence can be ascribed to the
frustration of the inarticulate." Philip Coggin (1979, p 63).
Bibliography and creativity

The references in a publication have to serve the creativity of its
intended readers. This book documents the completion of a paradigm
shift which began with the work of Ilya Prigogine. This shift will
eventually be recognised as one of the greatest in human history. This
254
book is intended not only to make this shift known to an audience as

wide as possible, but also to assist them in making this shift.
If the references in a publication have to serve the creativity of its

intended readers, then we have to employ the theory of creativity to
reason what references should be included. Let us first consider those
reasons which concern the mechanics of creativity and thus its seven
essentialities.
Being-becoming: Structure (being) and function (becoming) have to

balance each other. However, during a paradigm shift the structures of
a former era contribute to the emergence of the novel structures of a new
era. This means that this book should not only refer to structures of both
eras, but also assist in the process of emergence. Whereas an
overwhelming number of references can be made to the structures of the
old era, very few can be made to the emergences of the new era. In
order to maintain a balance, references to the structures of the former era
have to be pruned so as not to overwhelm the few references to
innovative becoming.
Identity-categoricity. Each of the topics entropy, creativity and learning

already has a well established identity, although in a fragmented and
demarcated sense. Many books and some review papers on any one of
these three topics witness to the identity of the topic by their many pages
of references. However, when we view these three topics together as
one closely connected unit, some aspects of these identities become
categorically important while others have to fade away. The strategy in
this book will be to refer to that literature which can contribute
categorically to the paradigm shift. Although many of these references
have been cited in this book for identification purposes, the others are
suggested to edify the reader categorically.
Associativity-monadicity: Some readers may wish to have a general

review of all relevant work done on the topics entropy, creativity and
learning. The topic entropy has been studied extensively and almost
exclusively in the sciences of the inanimate, material world. There it is
studied either from the foundational or the engineering viewpoints.
Entropy as a topic received very little attention outside these sciences.
The topic learning has been studied extensively in the humanities,
255
especially in education, philosophy and psychology. The topic creativity

may be reviewed from many comprehensive angles. Most angles are
anthropologically based such as psychology, education, business
management and the arts. We may free ourselves from the
anthropomorphic accounts of creativity by considering creativity and
self-organisation as synonymous. Thus other angles, for example those
based on biology (ecology) and chemistry come into view. Were we to
include references to review all these viewpoints on all three topics, the
list itself would become far longer than the length of this book.
Connect-beget: Some persons may want to connect to work (creations)

done by other persons on the same topic. Various motives exist such as
to learn, to improve, to judge, to criticise, to socialise, etc. However,
this book is intended for an audience as wide as possible on a tertiary
level. (Even the contents of chapters 3 and 8 have been reproduced in
a much simplified form compared to the original manuscripts.) They
may come from any subject of the academical spectrum and also from
advanced to underdeveloped countries. To get hold of information in the
latter countries is often an exhausting exercise. Thus a reduction of the
literature is required.
Variety-quality: In the quality truth we have the varieties 'observed fact'

and 'truly inferred statement'. They can often be re-established, the
former by experiment and the latter by logical analysis. In such cases
reference to the experiment or inference is necessary. However, the
more complex a study becomes, the more difficult it is to separate fact
from inference as well as immature from mature creations. For example,
by reading thousands of inferences in hundreds of books and articles, the
mind becomes mature (prepared) to observe unique, complex facts which
otherwise would not have been noticed. It also becomes difficult and
even impossible to reconstruct such facts. This uniqueness of some
experiences makes it difficult to find other authorities to witness to such
experiences exactly.
Open-paradigm: This book is not intended for those who are committed
to resist the paradigm shift which it documents. Since a paradigm shift
is created emergently (revolutionary), it cannot be validated by
comparing it with its past history. The acid test is rather whether the
newcomer can survive. In other words, with respect to this book, if we
256
were to remove all references from it, will its message still convey its
intended meaning? Will an intelligent person still be able to get a grip
on the paradigm shift documented despite the experience and
specialisation of that person?
Although this book may stand on its own legs, it is better to study it in
the light of Order out of Chaos by Prigogine and Stengers because of the
elusive character of the concept 'entropy'. Apart form the book From
Being to Becoming by Prigogine (which repeats much of Order out of
Chaos, only on a higher entry level) and The Nature of the Physical
World by Sir Eddington, there is little else available on the basics of
entropy in a non-specialised and positive manner. Thus the reader is
strongly advised to carefully study Order out of Chaos.
Let us now consider the dynamics of creativity. The book is concerned

as much with the second manifestation of entropy production as with its
first manifestation. This must be true even of the book itself. It will
cause enough chaos of becoming (the first manifestation) in the minds
of its readers by virtue of its message. Too many references will only
increase this chaos of becoming to unbearable and hence probably
destructive levels. Nowadays it is very easy to produce such chaos of
becoming by employing a computer and a data base on scientific
literature. Simply look for entries on keywords such as 'chaos', 'order',
'complexity', 'fractals', 'solitons', 'attractors', 'non-linear', 'irreversible',
etc.
The book should rather assist in the second manifestation as order of

being. This means that the essence of its message should emerge as
clearly as possible because it has to act as an attractor for future self-
organisations. Thus we have to avoid on purpose too many references
to a variety of domains such as biology, psychology, economy and arts.
In a sense this is fortuitous because it opens up opportunities for the
reader to participate in the paradigm shift, whether it be from biology,
psychology, economy, or arts.
The second manifestation as order of being has two phases, first the
revolutionary (emergent, innovative) phase and then the evolutionary
(digestive, competitive) phase. These two phases act as a push-pull pair.
The evolutionary phase is strongly influenced by complexity. Too many
257
references are often used to intimidate the opposition into a non-

spontaneous (demotivated) state so that they can be rendered inactive.
This book need not make use of such tactics, nor to make use of
ordained and pedantic thinking. Prigogine had to argue his thesis that
the dissipation of entropy causes self-organisation in the material world.
He had to trigger the paradigm shift. We do not have to trigger it any
more. We only have to carry it through all its logical consequences - the
two tenets of this book being some of these consequences. Thus we do
not have to argue the two tenets as theses, but should rather use all our
powers to understand them in terms of our individual worlds of
experience.
The list of references will be kept to a minimum. In many of them a

branching to many other important references will be found. Although
some of them have not been cited in this work, they have been included
because of their appeal to the author.
Most of the literature on entropy will be found in physics, chemistry or

engineering under the topic thermodynamics. Unfortunately, this
literature is usually on equilibrium (reversible) systems where the
entropy dissipation is absent or of minor importance. Only a small
fraction of the literature is on entropy dissipation (production), usually
under the topic irreversible thermodynamics. Again, unfortunately, very
little of this small fraction of literature is suited for conceptual
development in a general (non-specialised) sense because of the
advanced mathematics usually involved. See for example De Groot and
Mazur (1962).
Most of the literature on chaos, order and complexity as well as related

topics (fractals, solitons, non-linear systems) is recent and is expanding
rapidly. Such literature is to be found in mathematics, systems theory,
information theory, artificial intelligence and theoretical biology.
However, very little of it recognises the role of entropy production as a
prime factor. Furthermore, most of it is typical to the revolutionary
phase of creativity (chaos of becoming) and thus of a fragmentary
nature.
The literature on creativity is found mostly under psychology and to a

lesser extent the subjects influenced by it, namely business management,
258
education and the arts. Baer (1993) gives a fine summary of the
prevailing theories of creativity. The role of creativity in business
management is delineated by for example the works of Pollock (1982),
Miller (1987), Kay (1990) and Carr (1994). The formal and objective
study of creativity in education is mostly restricted to minor notes on the
gifted child and the preschool child (kindergarten), for example Gold
(1965), Margolin (1976), Miel (1961), Stanley et al (1977) and Taylor
and Williams (1966). Some noticeable exceptions are the following:
Lodge (1937) on the philosophy of education with more than a few
cursory remarks on creativity; Ritter (1979) on employing creativity as
a foundation for education; Coggin (1979) on the importance of
creativity for learning technology.
However, we should not get the idea that education was never sensitive
to creativity. In fact, educational literature abounds with tacit (i.e.
intuitive, informal and subjective) reformations towards more creative
education. We merely have to study the work of great reformers like
Comenius (see Eby, 1952), Rousseau (1762) and Froebel (1826) in the
light of the theoretical framework of this book to see how much they
have done for creative education. We use tacit above in the sense
defined by Polanyi (1967).
The literature on learning is found mostly under psychology and

education. The literature in education on learning is influenced by either
psychology (such as in the USA) or philosophy (such as in Europe).
Very little in the literature even hints to the tenet 'to learn is to create'.
One close approximation is by Wittich and Schuller (1973) who
maintain the tenet that 'creativity is the goal of learning'.
Selected references
Ackoff, R. L. 1978 The art of problem solving. New York: Wiley.
Adams, J.L. 1979 Conceptual blockbusting (2nd ed). New York: Norton.
Amabile, T.M. 1983 The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer
Verlag.
Arrowsmith, W. 1970 The creative university. In J.D. Roslansky (ed)
Creativity: a discussion at the Nobel conference. Amsterdam: North
Holland Publ. Co.
259
Ashby, W. R. 1961 An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
Atherton, D. P. 1981 Stability of nonlinear systems. Chichester: Research
Studies Press (Wiley div.).
Atkins, P.W. 1994 Physical chemistry (5th ed). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Atkinson, J.W. and Birch, D. 1978 Introduction to motivation. New York:
Van Nostrand.
Baer, J. 1993 Creativity and divergent thinking: a task specific approach.

Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum LEA.
Barker, J.A. 1992 Future edge. New York: Morrow.
Barron, F. 1963 Creativity and psychological health. New York: Van
Nostrand.
Barron, F. 1964 The needs for order and disorder as motives in creative
activity. In C.W. Taylor and F. Barron (eds) Scientific creativity: its
recognition and development. New York: Wiley.
Barron, F. 1968 Creativity and personal freedom. Princeton NJ: Van
Nostrand.
Bateson, G. 1979 Mind and nature: a necessary unity. New York: Dutton.
Beer, S. 1979 The heart of enterprise. New York: Wiley.
Bergson, H. 1928 Creative evolution. New York: Macmillan.
Bleicher, J. 1980 Contemporary hermeneutics. Hermeneutics as method,
philosophy, critique. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bloom, A. 1987 The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., First, E.J., Hill, W.H. and Kratwohl, D.R. 1956
Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational
goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: D Mackay.
Bloom, F.E., Lazerson, A. and Hofstadter, L. 1985 Brain, mind and behaviour.
New York: WH Freeman.
Blum, H.F. 1968 Time's arrow and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Bohm, D. 1980 Wholeness and the implicate order. New York: Routledge,
Chapman & Hall.
Bohm, D. and Peat, F.D. 1989 Science, order and creativity. London:
Routledge.
Boden, M. 1994 Creativity and Computers. In T Dartnall (ed) Artificial
intelligence and creativity: an interdisciplinary approach. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic.
Brooks, D.R. and Wiley, E.D. 1986 Evolution as entropy: towards a unified
theory of biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brown, G.S. 1969 Laws of form. London: Allen & Unwin.
Bunge, M. 1980 The mind-body problem: a psychobiological approach.
260
Oxford: Pergamon
Burks, A.W. 1977 Change, cause and reason: an enquiry into the nature of
scientific evidence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Capra, F. 1996 The web of life: an new synthesis of mind and matter. London:
HarperCollins.
Carnap, R. 1966 The philosophy of science. New York: Basic Books.
Carnap, R. 1993 Theories and nonobservables. In J. H. Fetzer Foundations of
philosophy of science. Recent developments. New York: Paragon.
Carr, C. 1994 The competitive power of constant creativity. New York:
Amacon.
Chomsky, N. 1976 Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
Cramer, F. 1993 Chaos and order. The complex structure of living systems.
Weinheim: VCH.
Coe, G.A. 1925 What ails our youth? New York: Charles Scribner.
Coggin, P.A. 1979 Education for the future: the case for radical change.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Cohen, J. 1980 The lineaments of mind in historical perspective. San
Francisco: W H Freeman.
Copei, F. 1963 Der fruchtbare Moment im Bildungsprozess. Heidelberg:
Quelle & Meyer.
Cook, N. D. 1980 Stability and flexibility. An anlysis of natural systems.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Corning, P. A. 1983 The synergism Hypothesis: a theory of progressive
evolution. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Couger, J.D. 1995 Creative problem solving and opportunity finding. Danvers
MA: Boyed & Fraser.
Curtis, D. 1960 Learn while you sleep. Roslyn NY: Libra
Darwin, C. 1872 The expression of emotions in man and animals. London:

Friedman (reprint 1979).
Davis, G.A. and Scott, J.A., (eds). 1971 Training creative thinking. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
De Bono, E. 1970 Lateral thinking: a textbook of creativity. London: Ward
Lock Educational.
De Callatay, A.M. 1992 Natural and artificial intelligence: misconceptions
about brains and neural networks. Amsterdam: North Holland Publ.
Co.
De Groot, S.R. and Mazur, P. 1962 Non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ. Co.
Eby, F. 1952 The development of modern education. New York: Prentice-

Hall.
261
Eco, U. 1990 The limits of interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Eddington, A. 1948 The nature of the physical world. New York: Macmillan.
Eigen, M. and Schuster, P. 1979 The hypercycle. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Eysenck, H.J. 1994 The measurement of creativity. In M.A. Boden (ed)
Dimensions of creativity. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Flood, R. L. 1990 Liberating systems theory. London: Plenum Press.

Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. 1991 Creative problem solving. Total systems
intervention. New York: J Wiley & Sons.
Frankl, V. 1978 The unheard cry for meaning: psychotherapy and humanism.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Froebel, F. 1826 The education of man. Translation by W.N. Hailman 1892.
New York: Appleton.
Gagne, R.M. 1965 The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Galbraith, J.R. 1993 Organising for the future: the new logic for managing
complex organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gelatt, H. B. 1991 Creative decision making: using positive uncertainty. Los
Altos CA: Crisp Publ.
Gellerman, S.W. 1992 Motivation in the real world. New York: Penguin
Books (1993).
Gillispie, C. C. 1960 The edge of objectivity. An essay in the history of
scientific ideas. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Glansdorff, P. and Prigogine, I. 1971 Thermodynamic theory of structure,
stability and fluctuations. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Gold, M.J. 1965 Education of the intellectually gifted. Columbus, Ohio:
Merril Books.
Goldblatt, R. 1979 Topoi. The categorial analysis of logic. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publ. Co.
Gordon, W.J.J. 1961 Synectics: the development of creative capacity. New
York: Harper & Row.
Gregory, J.C. 1924 The nature of laughter. London: Kegan Paul.
Gruber, H.E. 1989 Creativity and human survival. In D.B. Wallace and H.E.
Gruber (eds) Creative people at work. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Guilford, J. P. 1968 Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications.
San Diego: Knapp.
Hadamard, J. 1945 The psychology of invention in the mathematical field.

Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. A. 1995 The reengineering revolution: the
262
handbook. London: Harper Collins.
Hanks, K. and Parry, J. 1991 Wake up your creative genius. Los Altos CA:
Crisp Publications.
Haynal, A. 1985 Depression and creativity. New York: International
University Press.
Henry, J. and Walker, D., (eds). 1991 Managing innovation. London: Sage.
Hergenhahn, B.R. 1976 An introduction to the theories of learning.
Englewood Cliffs NY: Prentice-Hall.
Hicks, M. J. 1991 Problem solving in business and management. Hard, soft
and creative approaches. London: Chapman & Hall.
Hill, W.F. 1963 Learning: a survey of psychological interpretations. San
Francisco: Chandler.
Hofstadter, D. 1994 How could a Copycat be creative. In T Dartnall (ed)
Artificial intelligence and creativity: an interdisciplinary approach.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Holton, G. 1986 The advancement of science, and its burdens. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
James, W. 1907 Psychology. London: Macmillan.

Jantsch, E. and Waddington, C.H., (eds). 1976 Evolution and consciousness:
human systems in transition. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Jantsch, E. 1980 The self-organising universe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Jones, T E. 1980 Options for the future. A comparative analysis of policy-
orientated forecasts. New York: Praeger.
Kagan, J. (ed) 1967 Creativity and learning. Boston: Beacon Press.

Kanter, R.M. 1989 When giants learn to dance. London: Simon & Schuster.
Kauffman, S. A. 1993 The origins of order. Self-organization and selection in
evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kay, R. 1990 Managing creativity in science and hi-tech. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
?Kaye, B. 19?? Chaos and complexity. Weinheim: VCH.
Kendall, M. and Stuart, A. 1979 The advanced theory of statistics, Vol 2.
Inference and relationship. London: Charles Griffen.
Krige, E. J. 1936 The social system of the Zulus. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter &
Shoote.
Koestler, A. 1964 The act of creation. New York: Macmillan.
Kuhn, T.S. 1962 The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T.S. 1977 The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lodge, R.C. 1937 Philosophy of education. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Lorentz, K.Z. 1969 Pathology of knowledge. In K.E. Pribram (ed) On the
263
biology of learning. New York: Hartcourt, Brace and World.
Margolin, E. 1976 Young children: their curriculum and learning processes.

New York: Macmillan.
Margolis, J. 1987 Science without unity. Reconciling the human and natural
sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.
Maslow, A.H. 1962 Towards a psychology of being. Princeton NJ: Van
Nostrand.
Maslow, A. 1967 The creative attitude. In R.L. Mooney and T.A. Rasik (eds)
Explorations in creativity. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A.H. 1972 A holistic approach to creativity. In C.W. Taylor (ed)
Climate for creativity. New York: Pergamon.
Maslow, A.H. 1976 Creativity in selfactualizing people. In A. Rothenberg and
C.R. Hausman (eds) The creativity question. Durham: Duke University
Press.
Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. 1980 Autopoiesis and cognition: the
realization of the living. London: Redle.
Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. 1987 The tree of knowledge: the biological
roots of understanding. Boston: New Science Library.
Miel, A., (ed). 1961 Creativity in teaching. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Miller, J.G. 1978 Living systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, W.C. 1987 The creative edge. Fostering innovation where you work.
Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Morgan, G. 1986 Images of organization. Newbury Park: Sage.
Morgan, G. 1989 Creative organization theory. A resource book. Newbury
Park: Sage.
Monod, J. 1971 Change and necessity. New York: Knopf.
Moore, W. E. 1967 Creative and critical thinking. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Morris, H.M. and Parker, G.E. 1987 What is creation science? El Cajon CA:
Master Books.
Moustakas, C.E. 1977 Creative life. New York: Van Nostrand & Reinhold.
Nadler, G. and Hibino, S. 1990 Breakthrough thinking. Rocklin CA: Prince.

Neill, A. S. 1944 The problem teacher. London: Jenkins.
Nicolis, G. and Prigogine, I. 1977 Self-organization in non-equilibrium
systems. New York: Wiley.
Nierenberg, G.I. 1982 The art of creative thinking. New York: Cornerstone
Library (Simon & Schuster).
Ochse, R. 1990 Before the gates of excellence. The determinants of creative

genius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, R.W. 1980 The art of creative thinking. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Osborne, A.F. 1963 Applied imagination: principles and procedures of
264
creative problem solving (3rd ed). New York: Scribner.
Parnes, S.J. 1970 Education and creativity. In P.E. Vernon (ed) Creativity.
Harmondsworth UK: Penguin Books.
Peirce, C.S. 1901 Abduction, induction and deduction. In A.W. Burkes (ed)
1966 Collected papers of Charles Saunders Peirce, Vol VII.
Cambridge MA: BelKnap Press.
Penrose, R. 1989 The emperor's new mind: concerning computers, minds and
the laws of physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perkins, D.N. 1994 Creativity: beyond the Darwinian paradigm. In M.A.
Boden (ed) The dimensions of creativity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Peters, T. J. 1988 Thriving on chaos. Handbook for a management revolution.

New York: Knopf.
Piaget, J. 1971 Biology and knowledge. An essay on the relations between
organic regulations and cognitive processes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Planck, M. 1950 Scientific autobiography. London: Williams & Norgate.
Polanyi, M. 1967 The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Polanyi, M. 1969 Toward a unity of knowledge. In M. Green (ed)
Psychological issues. New York: International University Press.
Pollock, T. 1982 Managing creatively. Boston: CBI Publ. Co.
Popper, K. 1972 Logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Prigogine, I. 1980 From being to becoming: time and complexity in the
physical sciences. San Francisco: W H Freeman.
Prigogine, I and Allen, P.M. 1982 The challenge of complexity. In W.C.
Schieve and P.M. Allen (eds) Self-organization and dissipative
structures. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. 1984 Order out of chaos. London: Fontana
Paperbacks (1985 ed).
Quastlar, H. 1964 The emergence of biological organization. New Haven:

Yale University Press.
Rickards, T. 1974 Problem-solving through creative analysis. Hants UK:

Gower Publ. Co.
Rifken, J. 1980 Entropy: a new world view. New York: Viking.
Ritter, P. 1979 Educreation and feedback. Education for creation, growth and
change. New York: Pergamon.
Rosser, J.B. 1952 Logic for mathematicians. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rousseau, J.J. 1762 Emile for today. (Translation by W. Boyd 1956).
London: Heinemann.
Rothenberg, A. 1979 The emerging goddess. Chicago: University of Chicago
265
Press.
Runco, M.A. and Albert, R. S. 1990 Theories of creativity. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Schroedinger, E. 1944 What is life? The physical aspects of the living cell.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searl, J.R. 1984 Minds, brains and science. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Sears, F.W. 1963 Thermodynamics. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Senge, P. M. 1990 The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Skinner, B.F. 1938 The behaviour of organisms. New York: Appleton.
Skinner, B.F. 1979 The shaping of a behaviourist. New York: Knopf.
Smith, G.J.W. and Carlsson, I.M. 1990 The creative process: a functional
model based on empirical studies from early childhood to middle age.
Psychological Issues - Monograph 57 Madison: International
Universities Press.
Smuts, J.C. 1926 Holism and evolution. New York: Viking (1967 ed).
Spencer, K.C., (ed). 1988 Chemical mediation of coevolution. New York:
Academic Press.
Spinelli, E. 1989 The interpreted world: an introduction to phenomenological
psychology. London: Sage.
Stanley, J.C., George, W.C. and Solano, C.H. 1977 The gifted and the
creative: a fifty year perspective. Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press.
Stein, M.I. 1974 Stimulating Creativity. Vols 1 & 2. New York: Academic
Press.
Stroink, L.A. 1962 Stad en Land van Twente. Enschede: W G Witkam
Sztompka, P. 1974 System and function. Toward a theory of society. New
York: Academic Press.
Taylor, C.W. and Barron, F., (eds). 1963 Scientific creativity: its recognition
and development. New York: Wiley.
Taylor, C.W. and Wiliams, F.E. 1966 Instructional media and creativity. New
York: Wiley.
Thom, R. 1975 Structural stability and morphogenesis. Reading MA:
Benjamin.
Thorne, P. 1992 Organizing genius. The pursuit of corporate creativity.
Cambridge MA: Blackwell.
Tolman, E.C. 1959 Principles of purposive behaviour. In S. Koch (ed)
Psychology: a study of a science, vol 2. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Torrance, E.P. 1967 Scientific Views of Creativity. In J. Kagan (ed) Creativity
and learning. Boston: Beacon Press.
266
Torrance, E.P. 1994 Creativity: just wanting to know. Pretoria: Benedic
Books.
Van der Stoep, F. and Louw, W.J. 1984 Didactics. Pretoria: Academia.
VanGundy, A.B. 1988 Techniques of structured problem solving. New York:
Van Nostrand & Rheinhold.
Von Bertalanffy, L. 1968 General systems theory: foundations, development,
applications. Revised edition. New York: George Braziller.
Van Oech, R. 1986 A kick in the seat of the pants. New York: Harper & Row.
Warlied, J. N. 1994 A science of generic design. Managing complexity

through systems design. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Watson, J.B. 1925 Behaviourism New York: People's Institute
Weinberg, G. M. 1975 An introduction to general systems thinking. New
York: Wiley.
Weisberg, R. 1986 Creativity. Genius and other myths. San Francisco: W H
Freeman.
Wheatly, M.J. 1992 Leadership and the new science. Learning about
organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Wheeler, J. A. and Zurek, W. H., (eds). 1983 Quantum mechanics and
measurement. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Whitehead, A.N. 1929 The aims of education. New York: New American
Library (1961 ed).
Whitehead, A.N. 1925 Science and the modern world. New York: The Free
Press (1953 ed).
Whiting, C.S. 1958 Creative thinking. New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhold.
Wilson, A.G. 1981 Catastrophe theory and bifurcation: applications to urban
and regional systems. Berkeley: University of California Press
(London: Croom Helm series).
Wittich, W.A. and Schuller, C.F. 1979 Instructional technology: its nature and
use. New York: Harper & Row.
Wundt, W. 1904 Principles of physiological psychology (5th ed). New York:
Macmillan.

Entropy, Creativity &amp; Learning de Lange

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Entropy, Creativity &amp; Learning de Lange

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ENTROPY, CREATIVITY

Copyright: Adriaan M. de Lange

Philip Rudolph de Lange (19xx/xx/xx - 19xx/xx/xx)

who practised the art of midwifery so exquisitely.

Chapter 1 THE CHALLENGE 1

PART I CREATING THE BRIDGE 15

Chapter 2 THE BRIDGE EXPERIMENT 17

Chapter 3 THE ADJUNCTED BRIDGE 45

PART II CROSSING THE BRIDGE 77

Chapter 5 DYNAMICS OF CREATIONS 113

Chapter 6 MECHANICS OF CREATIONS 151

PART III LEARNING BEYOND THE BRIDGE 191

Chapter 7 TO LEARN IS TO CREATE 193

Chapter 8 THE LAWS OF TEACHING 221

Chapter 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY 251

NAME INDEX 2??

SUBJECT INDEX 2??

The ‘deepening’ (enriching) of the concepts entropy, creativity and

Capra writes about the “web-of-life”, as do Prigogine and Stengers in

As such this book will be any publisher's nightmare. It will cover a

This book may even appear to be a nightmare to any prospective reader.

In a remarkable book on the history of a section of the Low-Saxons

But slowly a new chaos began to be manifested. Humankind was not

material and abstract worlds of this universe can be unified in terms of

However, this book is primarily intended to accompany and empower

Are we approaching the grand crossroads?

Are we able to cope with the new millennium of complexity? Will we

Can we read the signs along the route?

in which energy has become the ultimate prize. Energy expenditures

However, the energy crisis is insignificant compared to the oncoming

Energy and entropy are closely related. Both are physico-chemical

Consider, for example, the increasing difficulty of becoming motivated

We know that the spontaneity of a chemical reaction or any other

Which path shall we take at the crossroads?

For example, we may fragment and demarcate the Second Law of

Law supposedly has no influence on material life, why should we

The path of fragmentation and demarcation is usually safe because of the

This book has been designed in terms of the bridge as metaphor. We

emerging of a bridge simply because there was no bridge before. Some

The second problem concerns the ordering of both worlds. More

accustomed to large amounts of quantitative work which involves

The fourth problem is that of motivation. Scientists, for example, should

Since we have now formalised our belief, it becomes of paramount

Will the journey be worthwhile?

When bridging creativity, entropy and learning a price has to be paid.

However, much more is to be gained than lost in bridging creativity,

Our second gain is an elevated understanding of reality. Obscurities will

The third gain is a rejuvenated interaction with reality. Intuition will

Last, but not least, the scientific interpretation of the relationship

Whenever we conduct an experiment to discover the Second Law of

By now the meaning could have become obscure and bewildering to

Consider a second example. We have already noted that bifurcating

To keep this book within manageable bounds we will have to avoid

The above discussion on interpretations in different languages (natural,

due to the language processing.

A turning point or critical moment in the progress of events is

An unprecedented crisis is looming in the near future. It will be more

CREATING THE BRIDGE

However, cultural artifacts such as pottery or plastics

It could become important to know which of mind or

How then are mind and matter mutually related? What

History related to the experiment

This emerging order also had an extraordinary existential flavour. These

The moncat patterns

Entropy, Creativity & Learning de Lange

Entropy, Creativity & Learning de Lange