Replying to LO26399 --
Thank you Winfried for your thought-provokers.
>P.S.: Some rambling on the difference of perceiving us as a system
>looking at environment and perceiving us as environment looking at
>systems.
>May be I can illustrate the difference by contrasting the scientific
>method with scientific dogma. ...
There is also a flip side to this. Much of scientific development also
seems to have resulted from near-dogmatic pursuing of ideas and models by
their key propounders. If scientists were to give up there ideas and
models on the slightest provocation of a disconfirming evidence, then we
would not have seen the sort of systematic theoretical developments we
have seen in different areas of scientific endeavour. [In fact, this is a
known criticism of Popper's conceptualisation of scientific progress
through falsification.] To me, what seems interesting in science is NOT
that people do not pursue dogmas, but that there appears to be a way (or a
set of ways) to MAINTAIN CONVERSATION among the participants who are
perhaps following DIFFERENT dogmas.
It is this latter type of advantage of science that ought to enrich
professional work in scientific management, strategic research, action
research, and systemic consulting. But I should be quick to join Winfried
in saying that I do not find much of that in these areas.
As a footnote, I found a really insightful article on action research at:
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/virtual/dreyfus.htm It is called: Action
Research as History Making. There are some interesting articles (e.g., on
conversational community, relational humanism, therapeutic communication,
bringing forth of new realities, etc.) at the above site.
DP
DP Dash
India
--"D P Dash" <D_P_Dash@nts2.ximb.ac.in>
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.