Re: Chiasma verses Integration LO188

Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. (
Tue, 21 Feb 1995 17:27:13 -0800 (PST)

Hi--- Replying to LO169

See comments below . . .


Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. :Administrator of ThinkNet {aka DialogNet}
Software Engineering Technologist :philosophy and systems theory email lists
autopoietic social systems theorist:hosted at the Thinknet BBS (714-638-0876)
-----------------------------------:Send message "HELP" to ***** A new universe of discourse. *****

On Sun, 19 Feb 1995 wrote:

> Kent,
> The problem with rolling the ball up the hill is that when you let go it
> doesn't just slide back down again, it rolls back on top of you. As far as
> immaginary conceptual fantasies.. isn't all memory and thought an act of
> immagination anyway?

Good point.

> >Either-or and both-and function only after the chiasmatic duals have
> >differentiated. The chiasm exists prior to that complete >differentiation.
> What is is! The differentiation is an act of my own immagination. After I
> have created the duality I begin to believe it and am no longer willing to
> consider reintegration back to the chiasm for I perceive it as not possible.
> What an enemy I am of myslef.

No what IS comes into Being. It is not static Parmenidian space time bloc
but hericlitian flux. Actually different roots of the verb To BE support
each of these meanings. You do not create the duality alone it is a
cultural artifact that you reaffirm continuously with your actions and

> I found Csikszentmihalyi's "The Evolving Self: A Psychology for the Third
> Millenium" and his earlier 1990 work "Flow" to be very thought provoking. I
> would recommend that if you read "The Evolving Self" you can skip "Flow."
Have not seen that book.

> >Integration is also a possiblity but it does not refer to the chiasma. I
> >wonder if chasm and chiasm are really the same word. Just occured to >me.
> When I first saw 'chiasm' it was 'chasm' that came to mind, yet now they seem
> to be opposites. Chiasm would remove the chasm.

Exaclty. Never occured to me before our conversation.

> I found a copy of Heidegger's "Being and Time" on my shelf, maybe I should
> get off the net long enough to read it.

It is a big job. Suggest you read one of the commentaries unless you have
a lot of time to spare.

> >Integration of the duality is not always possible because in the very act
> >of establishing the duality you have precluded its integration.
> I choose not to agree with this! I will not limit my future by saying that I
> have created a problem that I can't solve. If I created the duality then I
> can create the chiasm or a reintegration---especially if I understand that
> the duality was of my own creation to begin with....

You have not created the problem you cannot solve it is a historical
cultural projection by our society. There are many of these unsolvable
dilemmas that just keep perpetuating themselves like pro-choice verses
right to live.

> >Have you figured out how to pull off integrations such as these? In
> >engineering which I am most familiar with this is the heart of the >design
> problem. How to attempt to integrate a system in the face of >wicked probelms
> in multiple dimensions.
> The problems are not wicked, it is I that am wicked. My solutions are limited
> by what I believe. Very often I have found that the solutions I see for what
> appear to be intractable problems are such simply because I am looking for
> the solution in the wrong place.

That is a good point. The use of the term wicked here does not mean evil
bout only that it can never be optimized without concommitant
sub-optimization somewhere in the problem domain.

> >Following the lead of Taoism one might instead attempt to change >the
> situation when the wicked arising problems are still young and >mutable. Or
> you might go back prior to their arising and attempt to >change the context
> so they will not arise in the first place. This latter >strategy is the one
> pointed at by the existence of the Chiasma prior to >the arising of the Chasm
> between dualistic opposites.
> One of my currently limiting beliefs is that I can only operate from here
> forward. If you have figured out how to go back in time to change the context
> so the problem doesn't arise in the first place please enlighten me!

See my post on deep time forwarded to the Learning Org list today. The
past does in fact change as emergent events occur -- we understand it
completely differntly. Cf G.H. Mead THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE PRESENT. We are
not isolated from the absolute past only from the relative past and future.

> As you mentioned Taoism, have you seen Forest Gump? The image that repeatedly
> came to mind was that of "a willow in the wind."
Have not seen this movie. Was it any good?

> I have to let my head rest again. I expect the rest of the mail in my in-box
> will rather restful after this.

Thanks for your input into my process of learning/teaching.