Replying to LO27113 --
Jim Marshall writes:
> "Doc" Holloway comes close but there is still a gap, I believe, in our
> gatting a sure grip on this matter of whether organisatiuons can learn.
> Looking at it all in the spirit of full reductionism, there is no doubt
> that it is the people who are the active agents who can make or break
> anything to do with collective learning. But what is really at issue is
> whether such reductionism is warranted.
...
> Any comments?
Jim, I think you've hit the nail on the head here, and put more simply and
directly what I was trying to get at in LO27083.
The books I mention there directly tackle the reductionist way of seeing,
assessing its accomplishments and its limitations. Cohen and Stewart
tentatively propose and describe an alternative way of doing science to
recognize and deal with the essential complexities of the emerging
"interesting questions". They call the approach "contextualism", to be
applied in addition to, rather than instead of, the reductionist paradigm.
Fred, rather than trying to refute your position head-on, I suggest taking
the time to read at least "Figments of Reality" (which focuses more on the
evolution and nature of the human mind), and see if it changes the way you
see the issue. For one thing, it might give you a better appreciation of
what At and DP were saying about individuals as organizations.
Best regards,
--Don Dwiggins d.l.dwiggins@computer.org "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" -- Walt Whitman, "Song Of Myself"
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.