Dear LO'ers, dear Steve,
Steve Eskow made some important comments: is there a possibility to
overcome two different languages? And if so, how could that be realised?
The main point of Steve (and others??) is that descriptions of abstract
things, some analogies and metaphors from other disciplines do not connect
with our general topic of interest, i.e. Learning Organizations.
Particularly the background of mathematics, entropy and other topics
(which frequently appear) make little connection with the learning
organizations.
Let's first see what Steve had written:
> 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.
I am glad that you recognised the metaphor-richness of my words and
language in general. Particularly in a dialogue on abstract matters - like
thinking - we have to do; it is impossible to do it without metaphors and
analogies.
> Why is it important to you, Leo, to build this bridge?
Let me articulate this answer for myself, thus avoiding the teacher role.
It is important for me to:
find patterns,
to be able to make predictions
to analyse,
to simplify
to categorise,
to recognise
etc.
> 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.
According to me, mathematics is something for the heart AND the mind. I
am glad to use both.
> 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.
Steve, a question for you:
Why do we need to be able to do these things?
I don't know the tax system in your country. But I am sure that the
(imaginary) look alike of you (male, same age, doing the same job in the
same company, earning exactly the same amount of salary) will not pay
exactly the same amount of tax. Why? Because this look alike lives closer
to his work, travels by bicycle, or bus or train, spends all his money to
house and food, whereas you safe money to study, bying books etc. The
contents are different.
But you asked another important question:
>But why try to mathematize the dynamics of human
> relationships?
>
I am going to answer this for myself again.
Because the relationships between humans are for a great deal defined by
the number of people, the customers, flow of money. And since all these
items REFLECT the dynamics of human relationship, it will give clues to
prediction
problem solving
optimisation
economisation
environmental issues
health care
safety,
etc.
etc.
Why did we learn at school language, calculation, geography, biology,
history, etc. To communicate, and to understand (another metaphor!), not
to treat these as different and separate worlds. We learned language to
communicate with others and to understand others, and to make yourself
understandable. We learned calculation to communicate and understand each
other (e.g. with use of money); we learned geography to communicate and
understand (e.g. by travelling, dynamic behaviour); we learned biology to
communicate and understand eachother (e.g. by sexual relationships); etc.
We learned mathematics also to be able to do some statistics. Statistics
is the mathematics of dynamics.
All these disciplines are not a method to be able to make instant
pictures, but to connect form with content and to be able to live, cope
and foresee the dynamical relationships of our world we live.
>
> 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.
Let me stress, that I never said that linear thinking is bad.
The road from the mountains to the ocean may be straight. it will be the
shortest. But is it the way with the least resistance?
All rivers meander.
Two, of the many ways to arrive at the ocean.
> 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.
Or both, or neither of the two: an outside agent is responsible. How nice
to point the fingers to someone/-thing else :-))
> 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.
I like to stay on top of a mountain, no windows, huge panorama (also above
and below).
I am sure that our different wavelengths of signals is greatly caused by
the fact that we don't know each other. I don't know your cleared windows,
peep holes, and the windows that need some cleaning. The glass may be the
barrier.
> 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.
I hoped in LO23079 that I cleaned another window for you, so that you were
able to create your own personal line. (there were many, many different
lines between the stepping stones).
Steve, when I saw your message for the first time, I was not sure if you
did not want to think about my 'teachings', or if you were not able. Now
that I know that it is the latter of the two, that you are willing, I will
give you another hint.
The fact that two things do not make a connection could have several
reasons. One reason is lack of 'attractivity', another is a (physical)
barrier between the two. We know that both sides are willing to move.
I am at the moment not able to make linearity, entropy, form/content more
attractive, since I do not know your windows of view. But let us suppose
that these matters are attractive. Like a delicious meal. This meal is
right in front of you. You like to reach this meal and consume it
directly, in a linear way. The smell is irresistable, you see the
beautiful plate and dishes. HOWEVER.....,
there is a wire-netting between you and the meal. You cannot reach it
directly. You may imagine this scene: a chicken in front of the
wire-netting, the nice grains on the other side. The chicken tries again
and again to get its food. No way. Not linearly.
However.....
The dog in a simelar situation tries also in the beginning the direct
way. The dog too, could not reach the food. Now we could observe the
difference between chicken and dog: the dog starts to search an other way
to get his food. And finally he will find that the wire-netting is of
limited size. The dog was able to reach the end of the netting, walked
easily to the other side, and enjoyed his delicious meal.
Sometimes, one has to leave the direct road to destiny. Sometimes there is
a way of least resistance along a much longer path to destiny.
I am sure that most of us are not chicken-like.
> 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.
One thing is clear (another metaphor): the traveler is aware of the two
possible roads. Some travelers even don't see the other roads, and thus
are not stimulated to think.
> 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.
Steve, there are so many roads, so many reasons to think. There are so
many windows to look through. I thought to clear a couple of these windows
for you. I thought the dirt was on the outside.
Now I know that you are willing to clean some windows by yourself, since
there is dirt on the side were you are. You are completely free to
start the cleaning or to look through the already clear windows. But even
after cleaning, I don't know if the new sight will be attractive.
All the best,
dr. Leo D. Minnigh
l.d.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>