Dear Organlearners,
Richard Karash <Richard@karash.com> writes:
>Chris Argyris talks about people's "espoused" theories for how
>they act vs. their "theory in use" (how they actually act).
>
>There are often big differences.
Greetings Rick,
This topic reminds me very much of what st James talks about in his New
Testament epistle:- "faith" and "deeds". He says that "deeds" are
consistent to the tacit "faith" which enables them, but that an
articulated "faith" is neither necessarily consistent with deeds nor may
it even enable them. In other words, deeds (practice) witness stronger
than words (theory).
Martin Luther had great difficulties with this epistle. He called it the
"straw book" of the NT and wanted to take it out of the NT canon. He
thought that James taught that the deeds of a person will save that person
and not the faith of that person. But James actually taught that deeds
confirm your faith since faith alone cannot confirm itself. Luther came
only a few months before his death to this insight, feeling very bad that
he held this epistle in such low esteem.
Martin Luther lived 5 centuries ago. The difference between "faith" and
"deeds" was a riddle to him for most of his adult life. It is still a
riddle for most people. I think the ridlle is caused because we are not so
sensitive as two millenia ago that a word "xyz" can have different
meanings for different individuals. In other words, a
"one-to-many-mapping" exists between the token (symbol) "xyz" and its
possible meanings. We need deeds to pick out the one meaning which the
word actually has from the many meanings which it may have.
The more we become sensitive to the difference between tacit knowledge and
formal knowledge, the more the "words-deeds" riddle will become clear to
us. We assume naively that the formal (explicate) knowledge which we
articulate is identitical to the tacit (implicate knowledge which have
emerged in us as a result of our experiences. This assumption is wrong for
many reasons. For example, we may as individuals not be aware of the most
common meaning which a ceratin word may have for other individuals.
Furthermore, the "measurement problem" of Quantum Mecanics tells us that
the totality of the all the measurements which can be made is less complex
than that from which the measurments have been made. Thus we rather ought
to assume that unless we have taken utmost care, our articulations will
not express our tacit knowledge with high fidelity.
Two essentialities underly the "words-deeds" riddle, namely liveness
("becoming-being") and sureness ("identity- categoricity"). The deeds of
each of us are not complementary to the words which each of us articulate.
But our deeds (as "dassein"s) are indeed complementary to our tacit
knowledge and faith which we also try to articulate with our words. But
using these words is not a matter for individuals ("dassein") anymore
since a language is the result of "mitsein" (collective) creativity. Thus
each of us can establish our personal identity with words only in terms of
the understanding of the community. This is another reason why a learning
organisation is so important -- it affords us the categoricty to complete
our identity and thus become sure of ourselves.
>For decision makers to become aware of their theories in use
>-- this can be a powerful learning moment.
>
>Thereafter, they can be responsible for their decision making.
>Without the ability to see the differences (tools and sensitivity)...
>They can't be responsible, even if others try to hold them
>responsible.
Thank you Rick for such a powerful exposition. It is another nail in the
coffin of superficial negation and even judgement.
Allow me to summarise. The articulation in a natural language or an
artificial language that which is tacit to each of us as a result of our
personal experiences, does not happen automatically like the first
manifestation as chaos. This articulation is the second manifestation of
entropy production as order. It requires constructive emergences which are
highly contingent, ie. they require a definite set of essences to be
present. These articulations are superb examples for "emergent learning".
The learning organisation affords the most beneficial environment for them
to happen in.
I long for the day when most people will understand that emergent learning
enables any person to take up his or her responsiblity. It is foolish to
insist upon responsibility without acknowledging emergent learning.
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>