Dear LO'ers, dear Steve, dear Glen,
I hope that Steve and Glen don't mind that I composed a reply to both of
you. Your mails were a reaction on my mail (LO21479) where I tried to
explain that the perception of reality is a construction of the mind.
This is a difficult subject, since a 'logic' proof is not available. (We
cannot compare the pictures in our mind with the pictures in others'
minds). But let me spend some other words to this subject.
I agree with Glen that imagination based on memory and experiences is
different from the result of the processing of data collected by the body
sensors. Purely internally created images (thus purely within the mind,
sometimes called fantasy) is another process than the images created by
external perceptions. But in both cases it are pictures in our minds. The
house of our dreams or of our childhood is as imaginative as the
perception of the thing in our environment that we call our house.
We must keep the difference in mind between metaphors (the camel is the
ship of the desert) and analogies (the morphology of a desert is
comparable with that of the ocean). In both cases our mind is lifted to a
higher level of abstraction. And this too, deserves imagination. But let's
keep in mind that this is one of disciplines of Senge: SYSTEMS THINKING.
I wonder why the practice of systems thinking on this list generates so
much confusion.
Glen wrote:
> An example might be the difference from experiencing sex with the lights
> on, and reading about it and imagining what it is like.
>
> Metaphors are more like the story of sex... might be fun... but doesn't
> have the same quality of data.
>
I think you refer to an analogy. Apart from the differences between
fantasy and reality (one is safer than the other :-)), the main issue here
is to think about the common items between the two.
But remember, we originally were talking about obfuscation. Obfuscation
created by analogies, which are for some readers maybe too far away from
each other. But we also delt with analogies that were not fantasies but
'realities' from different disciplines. So it is better not to compare the
fantasy sex with real sex, but compare the real sex with for instance, a
traffic collision. If you have a sex problem, you might think how to avoid
a collision. If you like sex, how to create collisions. If you like sex
only with a specific person, how to arrange a specific collision. And how
to avoid serious damage (keep distance, safety belts, speed not too fast).
It does not matter that the quality of data is different.
And this is also the heart of the message of Steve (LO21491):
>Perhaps more importantly for our purposes, one value of a "pragmatic" use
>of language is that it helps us in day to experiences with what we face.
>
>That is: one value of a good piece of language is that it helps us
>navigate in the world, helps us predict, helps us solve problems.
>
>This was William James' insight when he used the term "pragmatism." He
>said a crucial question for the pragmatist is, what difference does it
>make?
I hope that you will see my point, Steve. It is not an issue of looking
for differences. Our mental task is to look for the similarities. This
might not be 'pragmatic' in W. James' and your sense, but it may create
another perspective, another scale of observation. It is, instead of
crawling insight a 'problem' and focussing on differences, like taking a
distance, creating a helicopter view. The goal of this mental excercise is
not primarily to solve a problem, but merely to understand a problem. We
call this in our language: creating 'insight', although it should be
called 'oversight'.
Thus this systems thinking, metaphors and analogies never give direct
answers and direct 'solutions'. But they could give clues for the
principles and forces 'behind' problems. And these latter may help you
with the understanding and with possible future actions to be made.
>I have to decide how to work, how to make decisions for company, where to
>live, what to say to my grandchildren. Nothing I do seems to be affected
>one way or another by the "temperature" of "thoughts." And I cannot seem
>to improve my decisions by thinking about "entropy" and the possibility
>that my organization will 'self organize."
If we understand the Digester of At well, we may conclude that those
persons with better structured thinking will always win from the chaotic
thinkers. Thus the level of (self)organization of a person might give a
clue for the success of the person. It is just one of the many conclusions
one may extract from the Digestor.
>That is: if "entropy," is at work in my learning organization, how can I
>use that to improve the work of that organization?
Well, this is also a question which I struggle with. But some very
interesting things with a lot of practical use have been said on this
list. For instance: the possible results of stress from the environment to
the organization; the importance of learning time and patience, the
differences between pushing and pulling (distraction and attraction),
punishment and praise.
>I'll think about the strangeness of reality, as you suggest, if you'll
>think about the emptiness of certain words and concepts!
Is this a proposal? I will do my best. But I must confess that I seldomly
see emptiness in words and concepts. There is always something present: an
empty cup is full of air, I think I have developed a sense to recognise
the words which are not said or written. The sky seems empty, but is full
of matter, radiation and temperature differences. It is just a matter to
change direction of observation, or change to another dimension. The spot
in the far distance has zero dimension ('empty'); with a closer look
(smaller distance) it appears to be a cirkel with two dimesions; still
closer it is a ball of wool with 3 dimensions; still closer (inside the
ball) it became one-dimensional, because we observe only one thread of
wool; inside this thread, passing the level of fibres, we end in a
zero-dimensional world of atom-spots.
Our learning is a meandering from overviews to inside views, systems
thinking and problem solving.
But Steve, your last phrase, reminded me also to a Dutch expression:
"Holle vaten klinken het hardst" - "Empty (hollow) barrels sound the
loudest" which is said to people with no brains which talk too loud and
too often. I really do not thought of you, but I thought of the difficulty
to hear and understand the filled barrels (if you may understand my
metaphor).
I hope for all of us that we avoid the empty words and concepts (If the do
exist, which I do not believe).
dr. Leo D. Minnigh
minnigh@library.tudelft.nl
Library Technical University Delft
PO BOX 98, 2600 MG Delft, The Netherlands
Tel.: 31 15 2782226
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let your thoughts meander towards a sea of ideas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Leo Minnigh <L.D.Minnigh@library.tudelft.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>