>Rick, if I'm being "covert," why am I being covert? Is it possible that
>the "rules" that you have imposed make it difficult or impossible to
>criticize a theory "overtly"?
>
>I have tried to criticize "entropy" overtly several times, without rancor
>or personal attack or obscenity: you have used your power and your rules
>to refuse to publish.
Steve, with over a dozen msgs a month over the past three months, I cannot
accept that you've been stiffled. I think you have communicated your
positions on entropy and on At's mode of exposition.
To other readers: Steve is correct that I have declined to distribute some
of his messages. I stand by my policies. (I've summarized them a bit
further below.)
>>At's off in the desert and is not here to answer. Your question is very
>>ligitimate... We have theories; how do we test them?
>>
>>Do you want an answer? or are you just repeating your (negative) point?
>>We do understand from your prior messages that you don't buy At's entropy
>>theories and don't like his exposition.
>
>My question of you and others is this: am I correct in asserting that At's
>exposition of entropy is not cast in theory-practice form? If so,
>"entropy" is not a theory that can be tested in the field of human
>organization.
I don't know what "theory-practice form" is.
I will acknowledge that I don't feel At's theories of entropy, creativity,
and essentialities have been tested, and therefore I am not depending on
them in any significant way. But, I do find them very stimulating and they
have caused me to open my eyes and take notice in certain ways that are
new to me. For me, this is an open area of investigation.
I'm looking forward to At's response on this... How would we test the
theories At has proposed?
>Unless we can help our organizations learn we are doomed.
We certainly agree on that point.
>That is why it is so important to be able to get beyond endless Bohmian
>dialog that never is able to contribute to organizational learning.
Thanks for your appraisal Steve; I have a different opinion.
First, I am not comfortable labeling this as Bohmian dialogue. Bohm has
been an influence in my design for LO, but not the only influence, and
with the limitations of our medium, I cannot think that I am creating
Bohm's container for dialogue.
My operation of LO is a conscious practice, much like my personal
facilitation, speaking, and seminar work. I have thought a lot about the
theories and principles that can make this effective, and I try to put
them into practice here. I take this seriously and invest considerable
effort to do so. The result of my practice plus the generous and wonderful
contributions from all of you is this LO discussion which I OFFER to all
who wish to partake.
Here are my practices, stated as rules for operating:
1. Contributions must not reflect disrespect for the other parties in
the conversation.
2. Avoid repetition. I don't think repeating the same positions makes
for good reading. I challenge writers to extend or inquire and try to
avoid distributing the same msg multiple times.
3. Contributions must have some connection with the topic of
organizational learning. Sometimes it's a "loose" connection...
4. I do not attempt to judge whether any msg is "correct," valid, or
helpful. I do not (knowingly) discriminate against msgs that I disagree
with; and distributing a msg is NOT an endorsement of its content by me or
anyone else.
I believe that every contributor has the skills and sensitivity to get
their points across within these rules. (Steve, I believe this applies to
you and that you have successfully communicated your points.)
Now, about putting THEORY INTO PRACTICE: To me, this LO discussion is a
grand experiment in creating a learningful internet dialogue. I'm putting
my theories, and the theories in organizational learning into practice
here and we have results to observe. The result of LO stands in public
view. I ask each reader to decide for yourself whether it's working for
you.
Well, honestly... It's more than an experiment for me. I believe in this
stuff and I do care how it comes out. I think many of you are aware of my
commitment to work in a manner consistent with the org learning theories,
here and in every aspect of my work.
Steve, although you disagree with my theories (and with Senge, Bohm, et
al.), and although you have a different appraisal of our success here, I
do hope you'll respect my commitment to put org learning theory into
practice here and observe the results.
(I am making assessments here about what I think you believe, Steve.
These come from your public messages and from our private exchanges. If
these are wrong, please let me know.)
Just to be very clear on one small point: Steve has challenged me to make
the LO discussion completely open, distributing anything that comes in.
Sorry, not here... If you prefer that, there are thousands of un-moderated
(fully open) groups on the internet.
>>Scepticism is welcome here. Cynicism, especially veiled cynicism is
>>not.
>
>If I were you, Rick, I would not be quick to distinguish between skeptics
>and cynics: was Jonathan Swift a skeptic or a cynic.
Yes, we must avoid judging *too* quickly. I feel that I've invested the
extra effort to keep you involved here. I believe you've added to the
conversation; I'm disappointed that we remain in disagreement on
fundamental points.
>I don't think I, for one, wear veils. Unless I am forced to by "rules."
I don't believe I have interferred in any way with your replies to me
today, except for reformatting your quotes of my words.
-=- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>