Replying to LO25456 --
Dear At and LO ers
AM de Lange wrote:
> Don Dwiggins <d.l.dwiggins@computer.org> writes:
>
> >This looks to me like the beginnings of something that
> >could be quite useful to a LO, or even someone in any
> >organization trying to tackle a particular problem: a
> >taxonomy of organizational problem-solving tools.
That is all it is useful, if it is not just throw it away and use
something else.
> (snip)
>
> >Would anyone with experience in these or other tools like
> >to add to this, or perhaps disagree and offer a different
> >taxonomy? (It would also be useful to add references to
> >the model names.) I can imagine this turning into something
> >that would be worth maintaining on the LO web site.
>
> The step which you have taken from Gavin's practice made me very excited,
> but also deeply worried. I will explain both feelings.
>
> I have changed the subject line, hoping to give more perspective rather
> than smothering the flow of ideas in the direction which you were
> stepping. I certainly want you, Gavin and others to explore your line of
> thinking naturally in the original topic.
You never had any control on my line of thinking. Wanting me to do some
thing implies there is something in it for you. Why on earth would anyone
want me to expore anything at all unless their is some gain on their part.
> As for the topic to which I have
> changed your topic, it is one with plenty of adventures and plenty of
> dangers. Its like exploring an unknown desert, jungle or ocean. Never do
> it alone, never go to deep at once and get out while it is still safe.
So what, play with fire jump into the abyss, have fun. This is another
very emotive statement. This is truly non-sense advice, maybe you have the
true path, which I should trundle where all the secrets of the universe
will be revealed in due course depending on how one fits the true path or
not. Only the FATHER truly worries about the dangers to his children.
> It
> is here direct where experiences weighs far more than stores of
> information because it concerns mental evolution. So if you want to leave
> this contribution now, do it rather than getting frustrated.
What a totally interesting statement. Experiences are personal and have
meaning only to the experiencer or whatever meaning they deem to give the
experience. Thinking an experince is some form of reality is frought with
tranference and projection issues.
The witch hunters experiences of the devil where are real to them as our
experiences of modern scientific "realities".
Your experiences are precious to you they are your gift to your self.
> Systematics is a special way of thinking employed in many subjects like
> chemistry, geology, geography, botany, zoology, language and philosophy.
> Perhaps you will wonder why I have not mentioned other subjects like
> economics, politics, law and even systems thinking? Well, systematics is
> operating even there, but to be able to discern it, we need to know what
> is so special about systematics.
If one goes deeper enough into any subject and some level or other they
begin to merge.
> Systematics is a deliberate organisation of the theoretical entities
> employed in a subject. This "organisation of subject entities" follows a
> path of evolution just as the subject's theoretical entities themselves
> may follow a path of evolution or even the very objects of practice for
> which these theoretical entities have been created.
>
> I have studied the systematics of many subjects and came under the
> impression that the systematics of a subject has three phases in its
> evolution. I will formulate a few cursory notes for each phase. These
> notes are not final, but have to be subjected to to scientific enquiry.
Yes, I am sure that the learning experiences will come as long as one
walks your true path.
All of this stuff is just meaningless and it is only the meaning that we
give it that gives it purpose.
Every model and theory every devised is just a mental projection just like
your ideas, just like mine, that are only maps of the territory. For
goodness sake hardly the ultimate true reality. You speak as if this is
how reality works, you could hardly be further from reality or whatever
reality is. All you are doing is projecting your reality on to others,
that which is unique to you. It is fine to share it with others, in a
light hearted way.
The Question for you is what do you really want. What do you really seek
and what are your deepest fears and terror, and remember it cannot involve
others in anyway. (if you involve others it's just a cop-out, that way you
never have to deliver to your self). Not their learning or their
experiences. I also do not want an answer to this that is for you to know,
it is your experience unique only for you-for your eyes only so as to say.
> One serious problem which I have encountered in these studies is that far
> more seems to be said between the lines (tacit knowledge) than in the
> lines (formal knowledge). Thus it was neither easy nor always possible for
> me to discern between my own observation (first stage of scientific
> method) and own specualtion (second stage). Another serious problem is
> that I had to work pesistently in three levels -- systematics, theoretical
> entities and practice objects. I often became confused in such complexity.
> If what now appears to be too complex, consider it as confusion and please
> accept my apology.
I would also like to share with you that I have really no interest in
creating a so-called taxonomy, (I do not want to steal your thunder on
this) I use what I use to help my clients do better at what they are
doing. I also have no interest in trying to change people's minds on how
to do things or what paths or personal journeys they want to take.
That is for them to decide. The meaning of their paths is for them to
choose. I am always happy to assist and help if asked but to say that I
know of a true path that is non-sense because I don't. I have no answers
to that, it is the unanswerable.
kindest
gavin
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
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.