Replying to LO25298 --
Hi Judy
Judy Tal wrote:
> I like what you wrote:
>
> >And all models of the world are only thinking about the universe not the
> >universe itself.
>
> Can I take it a small step further:
> The universe is not in reach for human consciousness,
> Therefore we only THINK about the universe, and unable to KNOW the universe.
This is not what I meant, (however that might be correct) models are
useful for us to model something, some models have agreed principles of
how this might work, i.e. I used to build models of dams to understand
how the water would react under certain circumstances, a model is a
replica (albeit sometimes not very accurate, of what we want to
understand).
Systems Thinking is a model and a methodology. Some times models are not
methodologies. Models of other models are still only thinking about things
or abstract things. The human being is a mental creature. Everything we do
is about abstracting.
> Fine.
> So what is the difference between one model or another?
Well, that depends on what the model is.
> Why should people try to convince other people that their model is "better"?
They don't, however some models do work better under some circumstances
whilst other work better under others. If you know that using a hammer was
better than using a screwdriver to knock in nails what would you use?
> How can one person say to another person "you don't understand"?
Well the person doesn't understand that "point of view", one first needs
to get a common frame of reference and this is sometimes a big problem.
> What is the meaning of such a statement (denial) under your quoted remark?
You might have to refresh my memory with this one, I can't remember in
what context I said this.
> OK, I think I made my point - I was talking about feelings. ;-))
> (you see how these true tables feed on feelings?)
Again Judy I am not sure what you mean here. If you are talking about
truth tables all they do is give some indication of cognitive capability.
I am not sure of what its other uses might be. They are just logic tables.
They really don't have too much to do with feelings (emotions), all
feelings are created by motives, needs and fears, algedonic signals. It is
possible to have no feelings at all in the emotive sense. However very
difficult if I throw myself off a bridge with a bungy attached to my feet,
I then get strong feelings, my body thinks it's going to die. All human
feelings are associated with the tension between fears (perceived or
real), pain and (pleasure, ideals, hopes, desires, needs and wants).
Good books on this is Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear, Ernst Becker
Denial of Death, S Jeffries, Feel the Fear and do it anyway.
NLP is modeled on this very issue. (see Frogs into Princes(Bandler & Grinder)
and meta programs is motives, meta meaning above the other mental programs)
Viable systems Method calls it the algedonic signal.
Semantics calls it the IFD disease from idealism to frustration to
demoralization.
Napoleon Hill calls it the hypnotic rhythm.
All models on human feelings and motives have some or all of these
components, like the content and process theories of motivation. Like
object relations theory, or ego psychology.
kindest
gavin
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
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.