Replying to LO27966 --
Dear LO'ers
Good Day Daan. Thank you for a stimulating post. I would like to ask a
couple of questions in order to question my own thinking.
You (Daan Joubert) wrote:
> At, when you write that - as I understand it - provision has to be
> made for the dynamics of change, within the organisation itself
> introducing new norms and modifying old ones ("becoming-being") and
> with respect to its relationship with its environment
> ("identity-context"). My rhetorical question would be, "What
> yardstick, what guideline would serve both as indicator that change to
> the norms is needed as well as to what direction that change should
> take?"
>
> The yardstick has to be a constant - a rule that can be applied under
> all (normal?) circumstances and perhaps under all abnormal
> circumstances too. The Golden Rule (GR) is such a constant - stated
> twice in the New Testament; first as the second half of all the words
> of the prophets " . . and love thy neighbour as thyself" and then
> even more explicitly as "Do unto others . . "
> Using such a 'constant' as the yardstick for all policies and
> decisions - and for the norms and standards of the actions of an
> individual or an organisation - will reveal when the situation has
> changed to such a degree that the operating rules and guidelines, and
> the policies, of the person or business, have to be modified to become
> effective again. Effective in terms of the basic ground rule that is
> being used.
Daan, why does the "yardstick" need to be a constant? Can it possibly be a
constant and variable at the same time?
Assuming that the "yardstick" is complexifying every day what is the
implications there off ?
The Golden Rule as stated could be a very dangerous tool should we regard
it as a constant. Did we not make this mistake here in South Africa. We
can become mental slaves trapped in a world of "constantness".....
I think we should also be very sensitive that any specific articulation of
the "Golden rule" can only partly describe reality and will not be
descriptive of the whole of reality with far reaching consequences on
policies, decisions norms and behaviour. For e.g.
Do unto others
Do unto all others
Do unto all others unlike me/us etc......
> This leaves ample room for the "becoming-being" and the
> "identity-context" to receive attention and to mutate in response to
> the dynamics of internal and external changes taking place all the
> time - but always driven by the primary directive set by the ground
> rule.
Should we not continuously question the primary directive set be the
ground rule or should we not question the unquestionable?
Groete
Regards to all,
Alfred Rheeder
alfred@pvm.co.za
--Alfred Rheeder <alfred@pvm.co.za>
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.