Replying to LO24836 --
Dear LO'ers,
At de Lange wrote something very interesting:
> Others have already suggested a sort of division or parallelism (the
> beginning of a hirarchy) among LO-topics. You are welcome to do it too. As
> for myself, I wonder if I ever will be able to scratch all the "free
> energy" to participate in the "LO-dialogue" after such a "parallelism" has
> been introduced? It may work for rote learning, but will it work for
> authentic learning? What about wholeness? Can I cut my body in two halves
> at, say the waist, and then expect the two halves to still function as one
> whole? "Hard core science" has cut itself in so many pieces, each with a
> wel defined name, that few are able to make Humpty Dumpty whole again ;^)
May I share my thoughts on this. But first of all I like to ensure you,
that I am fully aware that I only picked a small part from the whole
(message).
I was one of the contributers of this list who suggested some kind of
'breaking apart': [from LO24769]
"
1. Divide the messages in 3 categories, each clearly labelled with some
sort of code.
2. These categories are: A) Abstract/principles/theories/systems thinking;
B) problems/questions and ideas/solutions; C) analyses/information/data/
descriptions.
3. These 3 categories are 3 levels of creative thinking and problem
solving: upper 'abstract' level - middle level of the very problem and
solutions - lower level of data and information sensu stricto. Some of you
may see in the upper level the 'content' and in the lower level the
'form'.
4. The thinking meanders between the upper and lower levels. To find a
solution to a problem, one has to meander several times between these two
levels, passing the neutral middle level to drop ideas and solutions.
Perhaps this way of splitting the messages will help. But in my opinion
the only way a LO could function in a healthy way is that one has to visit
regularly all 3 levels.
"
I am still convinced that this way of dialogue and analysis of problems
and topics is a good way.
One cannot see the whole if one does not see the parts. Or one could not
realise what the whole is, if the composition, relationships and
structures of the parts are not realised.
So any kind of topic has to be studied in detail AND at a distance.
[I realise too late, that one may read the former paragraph as a command.
Please, this is not ment to be a commend, it is my own enthousiasm of my
own conviction. You are free to create your own thoughts]
It is therefore sometimes helpful to split the body apart in the waist,
legs, etc. They form in itself wholes. Wheels within wheels within wheels;
systems within systems within systems. This separation into parts could
even clarify the understanding of the whole. Or maybe I should say: "An
understanding of A whole".
This latter sentence possibly sounds strange. A whole and not THE whole??
My own thoughts meander between content and form. If you read the original
contribution of At on this topic (LO24809) you will see that also At does
this: from electrons, atoms, molecules etc. to relationships, forces
structures and processes. Many times from one side to the other in a
smooth and rhythmic way.
But my reconstructed picture of Humpty Dumpty is probably different from
that of At. My whole is probably not At's whole. But I am in full
agreement with At that if we try to learn about LO's, we should look to
both worlds: form and content. Our understanding needs this.
And thus: splitting apart is part of the analysis, but it should always
be accompanied with reparing and reconnection with the environment.
I wish you insightfull meanders.
dr. Leo D. Minnigh
l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl
Library Technical University Delft
PO BOX 98, 2600 MG Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: 31 15 2782226
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let your thoughts meander towards a sea of ideas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Leo Minnigh <l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.