Replying to LO25642 --
> - Hundreds of people can talk, for one who can think. Thousands of people
>can think, for one who can see. -
>
>Anybody want to 'open' dialogue on the distinguishments implied therein?
Dear Andrew,
how about the following four thoughts, are they 'open' enough to see? May
be its just talking...;-)
First thought:
What will one who can see see in this sentence, I wonder. And if s/he
talks on what s/he sees, will I understand?
Second thought:
If the one who talked this sentence thought about it, did s/he talk about
something s/he could see? Or observe?
Third thought:
At de Lange wrote in LO25635: "When the factor Y can have potentially many
possible values of which only two is actually operating, the dialectical
conflict spill over when the other values also begin to operate. Assume
that the many potential values are Y(1), Y(2), Y(3), Y(4), Y(5), Y(6) and
Y(7) IN ORDER of increasing value." The sentence seems to establish an
order of Y(1) 'talk', Y(2) 'think' and Y(3) 'see'. Freeing myself from the
dialectical traps involved (first and second thoughts ;-) I still wonder
what the factor Y may be.
Fourth thought:
Now beyond any dialecticism, lets assume a LO need those who talk, those
who think and at least one who sees as a team. How can such a team emerge
as a sculpture and not as a heap of loose sand? For those who talk, such
question will not arise. For those who think sceptical thoughts like the
first two above will arise. What does the one who see have to observe in
order to be able to think and talk wise? May be some hidden, or extremely
hidden points?
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
P.S.: Could it be the dance of LEP on LEC?
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@Voith.de>
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.