Spontaneity and leadership | Diana Jones
To gain an understanding of the relationship between spontaneity, free energy, and temperature. To be able to calculate the temperature at which a process is at . The first explored the relationship between spontaneity, as measured by the Revised Spontaneity Assessment Inventory (SAI-R [Kipper, D. A., & Shemer. In this video lesson, we'll study free energy (G) and its relationship to enthalpy, entropy Free Energy: Predicting the Spontaneity of a Reaction.
The state of constant and balance will ultimately fail if left on its own. The challenge to this next stage of our relationship was how to keep things interesting. Our personalities naturally clash. I planned dates and organized our activities.
She was eager and enthusiastic. She likes to travel and relax. I like to relax and well, relax. She likes movies with happy endings. I like horror and disturbing movies. She likes to play. I like to watch. She likes salty foods. We were opposites on so many levels which generated gradients and newness and excitement.
We moved from one equilibrium to another and the paths were always exciting. Aligning Our Interests While paths from one equilibrium to the next almost always bring excitement to the relationship, the paths are seldom free from roadblocks. When you want a relationship to work and when you still have the right reason to continue, you will find the energy to get over any roadblock.
The energy must come from both of you and it must be enough to permanently move you to a state beyond the roadblock. At the microscopic level of Thermodynamics is Physical Chemistry and one of the concepts it studies is Activation Energy. Overcoming the roadblock is akin to satisfying the activation energy.
We had to align our interests. Conversely, it was also clear between us to make each other aware when the time came when we no longer want the relationship to continue. I guess if our relationship had to end, it has to be spontaneous. We discussed what we needed to do in order for our relationship to continue despite the other person losing interest. However, we also discussed how to save both of us from more pain and suffering if it came to that.
Mending Our Interests Both partners contribute to the relationship but both can also cause the relationship to slowly break. Trust, loyalty, open-communication, honesty, concern, patience, understanding, support, encouragement.
I can go on and on about the things I think I need for my relationship to survive but I have difficulty in saying what I want and reaching out for help.
At the onset of the relationship, we both realized it was going to be hard mostly because of my mental health issues and her lack of knowledge on how to deal with them properly. I know she becomes drained every time she has to deal with my shit. We both work hard to overcome my bouts of mental health problems but I fear every time it happens, it leaves us both wounded and traumatized.
Relationship between entropy and spontaneity - CHEMISTRY COMMUNITY
She told me that how she feels. I wish it was healthy and possible to shove all of my problems deep inside and wait long enough for them to disappear.
When I am not at my best state, debilitating and self-harming thoughts creep my mind. I am reminded by my trust and fidelity issues with her. We both want the same thing for our relationship but wanting something is not the same as making it happen. There is this concept of Degrees of Freedom in Thermodynamics. The Degrees of Freedom is the number of independent variables that needs to be fixed in order for a system to exist in equilibrium.
If we want a system to stay in equilibrium, we must limit the degrees of freedom to the lowest possible number. In order for a system to stay in or to easily attain equilibrium, it needs to be simple, the components must not be too many, and the phases of the components must be, if possible, the same.
Similarly, for a relationship to survive, it needs to be simple, free from interfering parties, and guided by aligned interests. If only it was really that simple. Our relationship started simple. We both wanted the same thing — each other. In fact, this double nature of temporality is what forces Merleau-Ponty to state the following: By taking up a reflective stance, we do not shed our temporal skin, nor give up our spontaneity when we lose ourselves in our projects.
We are always already temporal and as such, we are both active and passive. It is a change between two states that differ in degree. But, we have already seen that for Merleau-Ponty, the difference that attention brings about is also one of kind.
Could Being More Spontaneous Change Your Relationship? | HuffPost UK
Hence, we have to conclude that Merleau-Ponty maintains, rather paradoxically, that the difference between attention and absorbed coping is both a difference in kind and a difference in degree. Dreyfus also discusses the double nature of human experience, and he, like Merleau-Ponty, will agree that the reflective attitude does not constitute a rejection of our temporality.
But Dreyfus, unlike Merleau-Ponty, is not ambiguous about the nature of the passage from the nonconceptual to the conceptual. Interestingly, Dreyfus wants to maintain that pure perception, or embodied coping, transcends the domain of logos.
Instead, what this suggests is that, like Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty takes discourse — and not language — to be an existential structure of the embodied subject. These considerations bring to the light a disagreement between Dreyfus and Merleau-Ponty: On the contrary, Merleau-Ponty suggests that the difference between analytic attention and absorbed coping is both a difference in kind and in degree. As such, he is able to bring attention and absorbed coping closer together.
To maintain that the difference between two distinct states is both a matter of degree and of a kind is not to commit a logical fallacy. In fact, this model of difference is used to explain the physical phenomenon of phase transitions, that is, the transition of a thermodynamical system from one state to another. Let us consider the example of water turning into ice. This transformation occurs by successively decreasing the temperature of water until, at a critical point, it turns into ice.
On one level, ice can be characterized as something that differs radically from water: On a different level, however — that is, on an atomic level — the difference is not so radical. On that level, what occurs is the breaking of a symmetry: In that case, the entire volume of the thermodynamical system, which was once wholly fluid, now becomes wholly solid. Finally, one may wonder: Dreyfus holds that human behavior falls under two main categories: What explains the latter — namely, the following of various rules — falls short of explaining the former.
There are no rules, either implicit or explicit, that one follows when one is fully engaged in a project. The world presents itself in a certain manner, and we react to it without having to consider our actions. There is a categorical difference between an expert athlete, for instance, and a competent one. Analytic attention takes us from this state of fluidity absorbed coping to one of rigidity reflective stance. The analysis should be performed at a more fundamental level, one which permits us to circumvent the threat of dualism.
That is, the analysis should be carried to the atomic level, the level of temporality. With reference to that level, what we are is atoms, or, what amounts to the same thing, a constant flow of time: Harvard University Press, ; p. Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ; esp. There, Husserl argues that our experience of any temporal object or event would be impossible if temporality were composed of a series of narrow, independent now-points.
According to Husserl, if this were indeed the case — that is, if we were able to experience that which is given only in sharp instances of now — we would be incapable of experiencing anything that carries temporal extension.
A chain of independent perceptions cannot give rise to a temporal experience. Husserl, aware of these difficulties, concludes that the embrace of consciousness must include more than what is given in the narrow now.
How is entropy related to the spontaneity of a reaction?
In other words, the original experience of past and future must be somehow included in the experience of the now. We are conscious not only of that which is present in the now, but also that which has just passed and that which is about to occur. What is presently perceived is always located between just-past object phases and soon-to-be phases.
The former is an intentional act that furnishes us with a consciousness of the phase of the object that has just been, whereas the latter provides us with a less definite consciousness of the phase of the object that is about to occur.
For instance, Merleau-Ponty argues that it would have been impossible to grasp a circle as the locus of all points equidistant from a center, if the subject did not already have a pre-thematic familiarity with the world. Thus, temporality, as the ground of spontaneity, inextricably binds the subject to the world.