Replying to LO25767 --
Dear Artur, dear At,
Artur, you wrote to At:
>For me it's not easy to write this reply, but I think it will even more
>difficult for you to read it...
I feel compelled to explore a little bit into these difficulties.
Please allow me to introduce some symbols and abbreviations. Every symbol
and abbreviation is highly quesitonable, but my intent is to depict our
common ground, so that I am not going into writing the book(s) needed
otherwise ;-) :
'o' or 'O': Organisation
'o/sy' or 'O/sy': Organisation of system sy
Examples:
- Organisation (O) of (/) Polanyis formal knowledge with respect to
'Tacit Knowing' (p): O/p
- Organisation of Artur Silvas mind: O/S (capital S for the larger
system)
- Organisation of Artur Silvas formal knowledge with respect to 'Tacit
Knowing': O/s (small s for smaller system)
- Organisation of At de Langes mind: O/L (capital L for the larger
system)
- Organisation of At de Langes formal knowledge with respect to 'Tacit
Knowing': O/l (small l for smaller system)
It is clear that 'Organization' is a being.
Further let me introduce a measure 'complexity of O' on O: C(O)
Now about the becoming of Os. I see four kinds of such becomings:
----e----> Becoming by means of emergence, metanoia, profound shift
----i----> Becoming by means of immergence
----D----> Becoming by means of digestion (predator)
----d----> Becoming by being digested (prey)
I want the measure C only to measure differences in the quality of
organization, i.e. C(O1) < C(O2) implies a shift from O1 to O2. To depict
quantitative growth of the organization within one level of complexity, I
have chosen to use small and capital letters like 'o' and 'O'. Then C(o) =
C(O).
An example for an ideal growth process would look like:
----e----> o1 ----D----> O1 ----e----> o2 ----D----> O2 ...
... < C(o1) = C(O1) < C(o2) = C(O2) < ....
Making fire from a tree would look like:
o2/livingtree ----i (fell the tree)----> O1(timber) ----i (burn the
wood)----> ashes C(o2) > C(O1) > C(ashes)
So far, I think we have common understanding. And hopefully I could add
some possibilites to deal with the difficulties in the differences.
The main difference seems to be:
Artur: formal knowledge ----e----> tacit knowledge
At: tacit knowledge ----e----> formal knowledge
These lines are part of your formal knowledge. Thus the first line belongs
to O/s and the second line to O/l. One could rush by means of LEM to the
conclusion that only Artur or At can be right, so that at least one must
be wrong. But what would be the meaning of "wrong organization" -
organizations are different but not right or wrong. If I weren't sure that
both of you know this well, I wouldn't have tried to step in. But there is
a quality in organizations, which come close to 'right' and 'wrong':
'right' corresponds to organizations capable to go to the next required
step (---e---> or ---D--->) while 'wrong' corresponds to organizations in
danger of falling apart (---i---> or ---d--->).
Both of you have the most respectable desire to support and nurture growth
in your surroundings (SU) (and hopefully - not so visible - within
yourself). (Stewardship and Leadership - but this is in another thread)
In formula:
O/S includes a theory of how to nurture growth in the SU of O/S (O/L being
part of this SU) Part of it is the recommendation to walk in other persons
shoes for a while before making up ones mind.
O/L includes a theory of how to nurture growth in the SU of O/L (O/S being
part of this SU) It is all about overcoming rote mental behaviour by
authentic learning.
And
O/S includes also an image of O/l and O/p, as well as an identity O/s = O/p.
O/L includes also an image of O/s and the image that O/S perceives O/s = O/p.
Here I can clearly see the two totally different entropic forces, which
made At and Artur write. I think I should keep quiet on them, I have
already talked too much. But may be there is a path, which is worthwhile
to explore further: To enrich the image of O/l in Arturs mind as well as
to enrich the image of O/s in At's mind.
The first seems difficult to me, first, because At has written already so
much from a huge variety of perspectives on it, the last one discribing
how he came to think of a metaepistemological base (MEB), from which any
authentic knowledge has to emerge from within, while realizing how
destructive rote importing of formal knowledge from outside is. Second,
due to this, Artur would probably only read another repetition of defence.
But if you agree, Artur, share with us more about the basic content of
your O/s. (I must admit, that I am not so interested in how similar this
is with O/p, because Polanyi is not with us here on the list and I did not
yet read his book.)
formal knowledge ----e----> tacit knowledge
tacit knowledge ----i (forced explication)----> fragmented formal knowledge
How did this content become?
Do you remember physically the 'Aha' when it became apparent to you?
Was it before reading Polanyi, so that this 'Aha' made you read him?
Was it while reading Polanyi?
Why did you read him - what questions were driving you?
Came those questions to a rest after your incorporation of The Tacit Dimension?
What new questions arose as a direct effect of this answer?
Where does formal knowledge emerge from?
Do I need to mention that all what I have written here is nothing but a
brief opening of the window into my O/W? Whatever you may have
encountered, it is 'under construction'. ;-) Thank you for all your help -
you know that I will have to create my own theory self, from whereever it
may emerge and whatever it takes me to do.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@Voith.de>
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.