Evident Points, Hidden Points LO25236

From: Judy Tal (judyt@netvision.net.il)
Date: 08/29/00


Replying to LO25209 --

Replying LO25209

Shalom to you John,

Wish I could procreate such a proposition (both: pro and position):
>But that's just me. Wrapped in lanuage, buried under an eternal
>poem in which mathematics and language are the one suchness
>played on a pan pipe.

But that's just me ...... Judy.
oops .... sorry, I'm plagiarizing!

John, I believe we could reach an agreement in our stand points about
Mathematics, should each of us consider worthwhile the effort. Learning
Organizations, notably our LO list, are committed to tolerate such
dissonance (unless the existence of the Organization itself is under
threat - which is not the case. ;-)).

Some LOers, including myself, are preoccupied with an ongoing search for
expressing and sharing 'experience in Learning Organizations', in ways
that will resonate in the hearts and in the minds of as many as possible
members. I bet that not even one considers fields of knowledge like
Chemistry, Zen, Physics, Holly-Scripts, Art, Psychology, Mathematics, etc.
to be more than pillars to support exchange of ideas towards a common
understanding in 'What Is It to be a Member in a Learning Organization'.
Reductionism-like, where everybody knows the limits. Or sometimes just a
"story" told in another (borrowed) language.

I mentioned somewhere one of many (many!) approaches towards this kind of
understanding, that emerged from action research in the Tavistock
Institute - the so called Socio-Technical Model. This model encourages to
seek for optimization between the Task and the Sentience needs by means of
boundary control (in the framework of Open Systems), and therefore deals
much with communication and "language" (terminology, culture, etc.).

When classified by their level of formalization - more formalized
languages like Physics, Chemistry, Linguistics, ... all scientific
theories vs. less formalized languages like Dance, Music ... all Arts as
well as Philosophy, and when re-classified by their level of abstraction
vs. their concreteness (Mathematics will be abstract while Engineering
concrete) - four types (am I plagiarizing again? ;-)) of languages are
defined. I hope you agree that it will be reasonable to expect languages
from different types not to interact naturally nor easily.

I assume you and I just speak different "languages" and Compilers are
needed. So ... can we actually reach an agreement? ... Time will tell.

All the best,
Judy

Dr. Judy R. Tal
LCL-Learning Cycles (1999)
+972 3 6997903
+972 54 666294
judyt@netvision.net.il

-- 

Judy Tal <judyt@netvision.net.il>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>


"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.