Replying to LO27028
At 09:00 23-07-2001, Dressler, Winfried wrote:
> >...develop communities of practice in a non-reductionist and respectful
> >way.
>
>When reading this I still had in mind (from LO26992):
>
> >She [the Master] is good to people who are good.
> >She is also good to people who aren't good
> >This is true goodness.
>
>The connection is quite mechanical, but makes a lot of sense to me:
>
>She is respectful to people who are non-reductionist.
>She is also respectful to people who are reductionist.
>This is true respect.
Hello Winfried:
It is mechanical, yes. But you are also making a transposition from ethics
to epistemology, that I can't follow.
The first quotation says that someone that behaves ethically does so with
every person, including with people who are not good (and the word bad is
not used).
The second quotation is confusing because of the meaning of "respectful".
If respectful has the same meaning as in "I respectfully disagree with
you" I have nothing to object. The problem is that, in what concerns
epistemological matters, "respectful" is often confused with "not showing
disagreements" and that can be easily transformed in "epistemological
relativism" - we can't ever know the truth as there are only different
opinions that one must respect/accept.
There are subjects where truth can't be known (at least in this moment);
there are others where we shall apply "a fuzzy quantum logic", as At is
pointing; but there are others were a binary logic must be applied.
"If oxygen exists than let me tell you, Mr. Priestley, with all due
respect, that the "phlogiston theory" is wrong..." (no, Lavoisier never
wrote that ;-)
Have a nice holiday
Artur
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@mail.eunet.pt>
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.