Dear Leo,
You are tying your best to "bridge" our worlds (another metaphor!), to
help me to see what you are sure is there but that I do not yet see.
A few comments, Leo.
>Hopefully that this will add another picture to illustrate and bridge the
>abstract world of mathematics with the world of organisations.>>
Why is it important to you, Leo, to build this bridge?
Remember that Pascal too was a mathematician of great stature, but he
insisted that the "heart has reasons...," and that the the realm of the
heart did not lend itself to mathematization.
We need to be able to count how many people work with us, and how many
customers we have, and how much to charge for our services, and how much
tax to pay. But why try to mathematize the dynamics of human
relationships?
>In the contribution of me, towhich you referred (LO23007) I thought to
>build this bridge (or link) with the chain problem. Apparently the
>problem was not well described:
The chain "problem," Leo (it is only a problem to those who want to think
about it: others might prefer to avoid linear thinking by spending a few
extra dollars to get rid of the problem!), the Ford factory illustration,
the pizza restaurant: none of these help me to see your point, help me to
underatnd what is and isn't "linear thinking," and why linear thinking is
bad, or a great human accomplishment, nor do they help me to see the
utility of the "form-content" dichotomy, or how "entropy" reveals any of
the secrets of organizational dynamics.
So: the teacher(Leo) is tryhing hard to help the student(Steve), and the
student is not learning.
Two possibilities. One locates the problem in the teacher, the other in
the student.
The problem may be me. I may be looking at the world through windows of my
own making, and I therefore cannot see through your windows.
The other possibility is this, Leo.
You may be beginning with conclusions--about linear thinking, about
entropy, about the utility of mathematics--and searching for examples, in
chains, and pizza, and Ford, to support your preformed conclusions.
Let me illustrate by starting with a "line of thought" of my own, which
assumes that "linear thinking" is a difficult accomplishment, one many are
not capable of, and that a channel-jumping nonlinear tv generation has
difficulty in mastering.
I'll begin with Adam Smith's famous illustration of the increase in
productivity in a pin factory when each worker is given one "line" of
work, becomes a specialist as labor is divided into separate "lines".
Ultimately this "line of thought" led Ford to his "assembly line": the
triumph of taking a large number of operations, ordering them into a
linear sequence--"linearizing" them, and in this way achieving massive
gains in productivity.
An "argument", or "brief",again, involves finding the "line" that collects
a large number of "events" and "facts". Many can not learn to create such
a line, or follow one that another has created.
Let me repeat an image I've cited before. That image is John Dewey's use
of a "line" image to illustrate one approach to "thinking."
He said, imagine a traveler following a road. The road is now straight,
now winding, but the traveler has no problem as long as he follows the
road--and he does not have to think.
Now he comes to a fork in the road.
And now, he has a problem, and must think.
Here again we have a "metaphor," an image. The image, I believe, has
usefulness, and also limits: it leaves things about thinking out.
But I do not see why we need to talk about this view of thinking in
mathematical terms, or use concepts borrowed from physics, like "entropy."
Or inject additional complications, like the "form-content" dichotomy.
Be well.
Steve
--Steve Eskow <dreskow@corp.webb.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>