>I don't know what "theory-practice form" is.
Often theories are stated in a form that allows for the making of
predictions.
One "form" for the theory-practice link is the "if-then" form.
"If the world is round, then a pendulum suspended from a ceiling will...
"If the world is round, then a sailboat as it moves into the distance
will...
"If e equal mc2, then..."
The problem,then, with determining if "entropy" as it applies to
organizations is indeed a theory becomes, can we imagine, invent, an
"if-then" statement that would confirm it?
"If entropy is present in LO, then..."
"If entropy is present at the meeting of an academic department, then..."
The issue, then, is not whether we actually perform the experiment, but
whether we can imagine a test.
I, for one, can not imagine, conceive, or invent a test that confirm or
disconfirm the presence or absence of entropy in human affairs. (Not in
physical phenomena, where entropy has proven useful as an explanatory
concept.)
>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 have no doubt that you have been stimulated by this language. As you
know, there are cults, sects, secret societies. . .people who rub
crystals, use Ouija boards, and are much impressed by Tarot cards. And we
know that people who take placebos are often stimulated into good health.
The undeniable fact that people have been stimulated by, say, capitalism
or Marxism is not, in my view, justification in a list devoted learning to
preventing criticisms of capitalism or socialism from being printed--as
long as they conform to appropriate standards of behavior of expression.
Specifically: that you have been stimulated by discussions of entropy
should not give you the right to disallow serious criticisms of it.
>I'm looking forward to At's response on this... How would we test the
>theories At has proposed?
I look forward to At's answer. I don't know the answer, and don't think
there will be an acceptable one forthcoming.
...snip...
>Here are my practices, stated as rules for operating:
>
> 1. Contributions must not reflect disrespect for the other parties in
>the conversation.
You have yourself violated this rule, and disrespected me here, but since
this is not my rule I don't mind the violation.
> 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.
In my view, the last few dozen discussions of entropy (for example) have
been repetitious.
> 3. Contributions must have some connection with the topic of
>organizational learning. Sometimes it's a "loose" connection...
Of course I believe that the contributions of mine that you have censored
have been always tightly on the point.
> 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 think that you have violated this rule in regard to me, and I think you
have publicly state the reason: you have been "personally offended" by
some of my opinions.
...snip...
>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.
Rick, as you would agree, when you restate another's opinion, accuracy is
important.
I think Senge's work is central and crucial.
I think his reliance on Bohm/Krishnamurti in the way that he has written
about these has led to serious abuse, as witness some of the
endless--literally endless--discussions here. I think Bohm's criticism of
"discussion" as "percussion" is bad etymology and harmful to democratic
practice, which needs for talk to end sometimes, to move into decision
making modes, like discussion, debate, and argument.
Who is the Al in "et al"?
>(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.
Absolutely untrue, Rick. I believe in moderated discussion. I think all
sorts of contributions should be ignored and excised.
I believe you have, from the best of motives, created and imposed "rules"
that inhibit free discussion of crucial issues that are directly related
to LO's, and to the topics on this list.
If you are willing to submit this proposition to a test, print any of the
messages of mine you have censored, and see if all agree that they are
unworthy of inclusion in any marketplace of ideas that claims to be free.
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>