Replying to LO26468 --
Hi Hanching
demingtw wrote:
> Gavin's 'best' definition is not good enough for me.
I am not so sure what I said here, are you talking about the definition of
structure? Then I used Maturana's definition. There are many definitions
of structure. But what is important that when we read an article we
understand the definition used by that author, we can then make effective
correlation's to our own learning.
> Perhaps you like to
> read Jean Piaget's Structuralism.
Yes I do know this work and I have used Elliot Jaques work which is really
a continuation of Piagets work for business situations. Jaques work is
very structural and correlates complexity of information to organizational
structure. For business purposes this is much more helpful that Piagets
work.
In fact Peter Senge is a big fan of Jaques. He makes many references to
his work on Time.
> For 'monads', you might like to read B. Russell's A Critical Exposition of
> the Philosophy of Leibniz for a nice exploration.
Yes, I agree that Monads is very important and I have only read bits of
Liebniz's work but I have read JC Smuts' Holism and Evolution which makes
many references to this work with very nice comparisons between monads and
holism.
Remember when Monads was written relativity Theory had not been discovered
and much of Liebniz work is very mechanistic.
This still does not change my opinion about structures and processes in
fact both books corroborate the Maturana definition of structure.
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.