Eugene Taurman wrote in reply to George 'jorge' Bartow:
> One's mental model(by whatever name we chose to give it) cannot be
> ignored. Mental models travel by many names such as wisdoms, mind set,
> belief system, paradigms, experience, traditions and more.
Eugene:
Is our belief of something as being 'true' a function of our mental
models, our sense of self, or our capacity to communicate either or both
of these to others? Are not mental models that which comprise our sense
of self--our identity--and where does one begin to draw a line between
that self and the outer world (not self)? Is it not by expressing our
'self' into this outer world that we create a 'truth'? Bear in mind, I'm
approaching truth as something which is 'objectified' by virtue of its
validation by (at least) more than one individual.
In other words, if I see something and I'm the only person that sees that
particular something, is it 'true' or do I need someone else to agree with
me regarding its existence? I believe it takes a tremendously powerful
sense of self to believe something as true when no one else can see it or
even conceive of it. But then again, is this not the place where
invention comes from? But even the greatest inventor needs to find ways of
sharing their conceptions with others. Is this done through communicating
their mental models and is that communication accomplished with metaphors?
Is, then, our sense of self supported by the nature and effectiveness of
the metaphors we use. Bear in mind, also, that I'm using the term
metaphor in its broadest of possible senses--whan all of 'reality' is
nothing more than what Lily Tomlin refers to as a 'collective hunch',
virtually every form of expression, tangible or otherwise, becomes a
metaphor.
I realize this quickly becomes a circular argument, but by relating these
concepts into a dynamic and concentrating on enacting that dynamic as a
whole I think it becomes possible to transcend the problem of infinite
regression. Specifically, I'm thinking about four elements that are
inherently and intrinsically part of a single dynamical 'primitive': 1.)
the information we possess regarding the world in which we participate
(thesis); 2.) that part of the world of which we have no awareness
(antithesis); 3.) our experience of the place between what 'is' and what
'isn't' (tenison) ; and 4.) the mental and physical constructions that
arise from our experience of that tension (expression)--apologies to
Robert Fritz. Taken together and enacted, I believe that something along
these lines is what I might call 'knowledge' or, more to my personal
tastes, the 'dynamic of knowing'.
A bit of poetry, attributed to Schopenhauer and quoted in Wheatley and
Kellner-Rogers latest book, comes to mind:
"Thus the task is not so much to see
what no one else has seen,
but to think what nobody has yet thought
about that which everybody sees."
Cheers, Arnold
--Arnold Wytenburg <arnold@originalthinking.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>