Replying to LO25806 --
Thank you, Artur, for your reply.
Let me ensure you that neither did I make the mistake nor did I want to
imply that you or At did it.
>>One could rush by means of LEM to the
>>conclusion that only Artur or At can be right, so that at least one must
>>be wrong. (...)
>
>Not at all! Only because the same expression "tacit knowledge" is used in
>both formulas you are assuming that the expression has the same meaning >in both, which is not true. You should have writen "tacit knowledge-Art" in
>the first one and "tacit knowledge-At" in the second one ;-)
'One could rush...' does not mean that I am rushing. But I know that such
rushing is quite common. In this sense I welcome that you stress this
point even more (although on my shoulders ;-)
>I am affraid the same is also true about "formal knowledge".
or any term...thus:
>So I have
>almost proved that any discussion is always impossible, unless we define
>the terms used... In what concerns "tacit knowledge" I have tried to do
>that in my last mail to At.
Two questions may depict my current thinking:
What does 'define' mean? This is a self-referential question and requires
the most abstract levels of general systems theory, which is something in
the making.
What is a 'term'? This is also a selfreferential question.
I stress this, because it is this selfreferential property which is in my
understanding at the roots of why the tacit dimension exists at all.
(O-H-d/Tacit-Dimension-Win ;-)
Terms can be understood as elements with relations: This is where
definitions make sense. Definitions are then a collection of the relations
of one term to others. This understanding is somewhat pre-systemic, and
one may have difficulties in seeing the point of my two questions above.
But terms can also be seen as systems in a context (surrounding). It is
such systems which evolve, complexify, collapse creatively (or
immergently) etc. This is the realm of painting rich pictures instead of
defining. One thread talks about 'meme spam'. A term in the sense of
system in a context may be a meme. Such memes could act like free radicals
in chemistry. (Sorry for touching this without painting the required rich
picture.)
My whole point was, and is, to honor the term 'tacit dimension' as system
in context. And no two different minds form the same context for one term.
You may have noticed that my questions, this 'more about', refer to the
context of 'tacit dimension' in your mind.
>But if you agree, Artur, share with us more about the basic content of
>your O/s.
snip
>I am refering to metanoia as you have probably already understood. I
>promise to come back to your questions in a different mail.
Surely, 'metanoia' is a not about elements in defined relations but about
systems evolving in contexts.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"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.