Replying to LO30611 --
Dear At and other learners,
The other day i was discussing a Dutch book called "Vraagbaken", which
might be loosly translated as "Question Beacons" but also has a meaning in
Dutch like "Source of answers", something like "encylopedia". The author
discovered two types of questions, learning, developing, growing, change
that he names: "kenweg" and "keuzeweg" of "path of knowing" and "path of
choices". I take the liberty to apply this to your question and would like
to suggest that learning is of at least two kinds: learning to know
something (know how, know what, facts, experience) and learning to choose
something (know where, know who, know why). These two kinds need each
other (facts without choice have no real meaning, as many pupils learn at
school and choosing without facts looks like gambling) but have different
purposes.
On the other hand, your question might be about meta-learning (learning to
learn), in which case i would argue that all life is evolving and there is
no way to tell if there is an ultimate purpose or not. When there is no
ultimate purpose, we have just trial and error and perhaps not even that,
only entropy creating. The "purpose" of learning is to "learn" better ways
to create more entropy. We've "learned" that ordered, structured entities
have a higher rate of entropy creation, so that's why we have them. On the
other had, when we assume that everything must have a purpose, we also
think that evolution and learning have a purpose. From the assumption that
everything must have a purpose - a self-fulfilling prophecy, just like the
assumption that there is no purpose - we easily conclude that everything
must be managed which leads us in turn to KM: managing knowledge with a
purpose or two.
When i apply the two types of learning, i would suggest that learning to
know has a purpose (being: making better choice) while learning to choose
has no purpose (being: making choices). It reminds me of a variation of
the famous paradox:
The next sentence learns you you have a choice.
The previous sentence learns you you do not have a choice.
Choose life, take care, kind regards,
Jan Lelie
AM de Lange wrote:
>>Here lies the root of my suspicion of KM (and LO and the
>>7S-model and the Business Balanced Score Card and ....what
>>have you ): what it the intention, the purpose, the goal or the aim
>>of learning. Do we want people to change their behaviour (with
>>a certain purpose) or do we want to make people aware of their
>>behaviour and offer them a choice? Part of the problem is the
>>fact that in the beginning people (children) do have to depend on
>>others and we do have to learn behaviour. Often i read here
>>about the purity of the learning of children. Off course: that is
>>learning for its own sake. And most of the schools - with the best
>>intentions - seem to destroy this kind of learning. Because one
>>needs to control the behaviour of children. True rebels without a
>>cause.
>
>Greetings dear Jan,
>
>The above paragraph moved my spirit, especially the sentence "what it
>the intention, the purpose, the goal or the aim of learning". In one day of a
>never ending journey i may learn ABCD for some time, following it up
>with EFGH, then IJKL, ...... For each of ABCD, EFGH, IJKL, .... i had
>a purpose. But what is the purpose of the whole journey?
>
>Is it to survive? Is it to get and keep a good job? Is it to become rich? Is it
>to become influential? Is it to gain in knowledge? Is it to grow in character?
>Is it the fun derived by learning? Is it learning for its own sake? Is it to
>glorify God better and better? Or is there not any ultimate purpose since
>the purposes for ABCD, EFGH, IJKL, .... are sufficient?
>
>snip
>
>As for the OUR question, a very interesting source of information is the
>inaugural addresses of chancellors of universities. Almost every chancellor
>defines a new purpose. Is it done because a change is expected? Is it
>done because of a passionate belief? Is it done because of having to adapt
>to a changing society?
>
>As for the MY question, i have asked over the years thousands of pupils
>and students the question "what is the ulimate purpose of YOUR learning".
>I got about as many different answers from them. I would like to put this
>question to you fellow learners too.
>
>Perhaps you may also try to answer the following one. Is it possible for
>an organisation to know that it is a LO while it has never considered the
>three questions above?
>
>But what about the ALL question? I must admit that after dozens of years
>contemplating this question i have not yet come up with the slightest answer.
>I want an answer which goes beyond the ME and the OUR to the ALL.
>This universality of the answer is exactly where my inability to answer it
>comes from. As a scientist i feel that the question has to be asked and to
>be answered. But as a learner for such a long time, i feel that finding the
>answer may finally end my own journey of learning.
--Drs J.C. Lelie (Jan, MSc MBA) facilitator mind@work
mind@work VOF - ondersteuning besluitvorming van groepen LOGISENS - bedrijfsverbetering
tel.: + 31 (0)70 3243475 mob.: + 31 (0)65 4685114 (auto) web.: http://www.mindatwork.nl/
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.