Replying to LO25397 --
Dear fellowtravellers,
nothing as pratical as a good theory. I use my theories as a map. I need a
map to know who i am, why i am here, where i'm going and how. Because my
situation seems to be pretty complicated, i need a map that is as
complicated - the law of the prerequisite variety.
I assume that everybody uses maps - and thus theories - to make some sense
about who you are, why you're here, where you are, where you're going to
and how to come there. It is a pity - or a shame, or a fact, or original -
that we're not fitted out with a map from birth. That makes us
discoverers, learners: we have to find out who we are, why we're here,
where we want to go and how to get there by finding out who we are, why
we're here ... etc. So our map is not only complicated but also
self-referential.
And finally, we have this option to communicate. This means that we're
continously sharing parts of our maps with each other. Here we encounter a
new issue: because we do not know who we are, why we're here, where we are
and what and how to do, we have to communicate peaces, ;-), of our
mind-map based on assumptions. Some of these we're not aware of; some are
created and therefor manifested by the sharing - and become real - and
some are too large to be shared efficiently. So besides complicated and
self-referential, the map is full of paradoxes. Welcome to terra
incognita!
The map i now use contains four colors, as required by the theory of topology;
has four directions, required by the plane we live in; it contains the four
questions (who, why, what and how) and generally does make sense to me. It has
the few drawbacks:
- it is not a simple map or theory
- it is self-referential
- it is full of unsolvable paradoxes,
but it seems to work.
I made this while continously reflecting on not only my work, acts, thoughts
and feelings but also the works of others, like the Fifth Discipline. This map
is a map of four realities, four spiritualities, four ways and means and thus
a kind of MetaTheory. From this map i can see that there are at least six ways
to create theories:
- from experience and principles (how and what theory)
- from principles and ideas (what and why theory)
- from feelings and principles (who and what theory)
- from experiences and feelings (how and why theory)
- from ideas and experiences (why and how theory)
- from feelings and ideas (who and why theory).
So for me, the original question of this thread, how to create a theory,
has already been answered: you (we all) create a theories all the time and
can look back to see how you (we) did this.
There remains some unfinished parts:
The map, the theory is fairly general and rather accurate, so not simple. It
takes time to reflect back, to think about it. We often do not allow this.
Another one is that the map is partly hard wired in our brains - we cannot
see, hear, feel without it and without "colouring" our perceptions. Also
it was handy to "close" or "end" the map-making phase. So after a certain
period it becomes harder to learn. This problem originates from a then
necessary need to survive, so our ability to create theories - or maps, or
learn - must end. Good was good enough.
And lastly, a very tricky problem, is learning in groups and teams.
Co-operating is good, to the benefit of us all. But groups are booby
trapped with all kinds of parardoxes, double binds, transferences and
countermovements. Also the benefits of group work have to be divided and
there we have the problems of who will get what, who is entitled to what
share. This is the problem of justice. It is further complicated by the
fact that a co-operation is vulnerable for "free-riders".
The Dutch have a long tradition in cartography. Years ago i bought an old
one by Mercator (who signed the map "with privilege") from the County of
Holland. Around Holland you can see parts of the other provinces, like
Frisia (Friesland) and Gelre (Gelderland). I've always been wondering why
the provinces at the edges have been described as "Part of Frisia" and
"Part of Gelre". Was it not self-evident that a map doesn't contain the
whole reality?
Thank you for your wise words,
Jan Lelie
> Up to now these things have remained to a large extend the tacit knowledge
> of the individual. Can these things be made a common codified culture
> within a Learning Organisation? Assuming that we want to, can we have a
> LO-dialogue on how to create a theory? What can we learn from our possible
> inability to have a LO-dialogue on how to create a theory?
>
> It was a rather shocking mental experience for myself almost two decades
> ago when I asked myself "How will I create a theory based on the unique
> experiences which I had and experiments which I made?"
--Drs J.C. Lelie CPIM (Jan) LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development mind@work - est. 1998 - Group Decision Process Support Partnering with: Mobilé - Performance Improvement Tel.: (+ 31) (0)70 3243475 or car: (+ 31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl and/or taoSystems: + 31 (0)30 6377973 - mindatwork@taoNet.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.