Replying to LO28730 --
Dear Organlearners,
John Zavacki <systhinc@msn.com> writes
>Why, indeed. Dennis speaks of 'silver bullets' I call it
>'instant pudding' in either phrase the ring is hollow the
>bell calls us not to dinner but to a longer hunger.
>
>We have, however, a silver something, not a bullet to
>destroy all evil, but perhaps, a silver pudding, not instant.
>It is organizational learning methodology (not philosophy At.......)
Greetings dear John,
I have read each contribution on the topic above. Some gave me much
pleasure as the one of Dennis Rolleston to which you have replied.
By the way, Dennis, what you have called "silver bullets", I usually call
"treasure maps".
So many dictionaries, almost so many deficitions of philosophy. For
example, Webster defines philosophy as "the most general beliefs,
concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group; or an analysis of the
grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs." Funk and Wagnal
define it as "the love of wisdom as leading to the search of it; hence
knowledge of general principles -- elements, powers, causes, laws -- as
explaining facts and existences".
Furthermore, in practice there are many kinds of philosophies like the
Associative, Constructive, Critical, Deductive, Empirical, Experiental,
Inductive, Metaphysical, Practical, Speculative and Transcendental.
Thinking of all of them, philosophy is for me organised thinking on
knowing.
To know and not to think of knowing is like to learn and not to learn of
learning (double loop learning). Similarly, using any methodology without
understanding it within context is like driving a car and not be prepared
for a sudden, dangerous event.
>We have Personal Mastery by which we affirm
>continuous improvement of mind and spirit; Mental
>Models by which we continously question our own
>beliefs and substitute for them with real knowledge;
>we have Shared Values/Visions with which we
>communicate and reaffirm in each other that our goal
>is our next gift, that of Team Learning which inturn
>allows us to see that which is the System of which we
>are Thinking.
And we have "tacit LOs" without which Senge would not had been able to
articulate the 5 disciplines of a LO. How did these "tacit LOs" came into
existence? Did their members not think of their special knowing? I was
twice long ago a member of two such "tacit LOs" and am presently a member
of one. In all three cases it striking that most of their members began to
think on their knowing. Definitely not a fully fledged philosophy, but
perhaps the beginning of one.
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
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.