>On the issue that single loop learning inhibits double loop learning, I
>learnt quite a lot from Gareth Morgans Images of Organisation. If you have
>more references on this conflict, I would be interessted in.
I wish to add a note for those, who followed the sureness/wholeness
issue a few weeks ago.
It seems to me, that single loop learning is supporting sureness,
while double loop learning is a way to incorporate wholeness.
For wholeness and sureness are both necessary conditions for any
emergent like learning, I think both, single and double loop learning
are required.
One must not say that double loop learning (wholeness) is superior to
single loop learning (sureness), and single loop must not inhibit
double loop learning. Yet such thinking is quite common. Example 1:
Quantum mechanics is superior to Newtonian mechanics - Newtonian
thinking inhibits quantum thinking. Example 2: Ecology is superior to
economy - Economy inhibits ecology.
But it looks so easily like these conflicts are real. I am wondering,
what assumptions create such conflicts? What can be done to overcome
such (essentiality impairing) assumptions?
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>