Replying to LO27676 --
Dear Organlearners,
Steve Wehrenberg <wstephen@erols.com> writes:
>... the overall thesis of which was: contrary to the
>oponions of most managers, developing a good
>"theory" is an important and necessary part of managing,
>and that tangible practice without theory is as likely to
>be dysfunctional as not. I believe the thrust might have
>been to indict those managers and leaders who denigrate
>"theoretical" talk and thinking, and constrain their people
>to deal only with "reality."
Greetings Steve,
There are some people who neglect theory for practice and others who
neglect practice for theory. There always were in the past such people and
there will always be such people in future. It is between these two
extremes that each of us has to steer her/his own learning.
But there are also some people who focus superbly on theory (without
neglecting practice) like Einstein or who focus superbly on practice
(without neglecting theory) like Faraday. This is an issue of personal
style and should not be used as a vindication that theory is better than
practice or vice versa.
>It sems to me this is much like saying one should
>try to predict the results of actions to make explicit
>the mental model of the actor, allowing for better
>comparison of experience to expectations, which
>in turn facilitates learning, adjustment of mental
>models, and informs further action.
I agree. I also want to add the following. With a theory we
venture to put some distance ("objectivity") between us and
our practice, i.e. we extend the pattern
. we * practice
to
. we * theory * practice.
The extented pattern is the associativity of wholeness. It means
that we do this extension to get a holistic view over the past,
present and future of any practice. In whatever practice we are
always interacting with its present and neither its past nor its
future (since we do not have a "time travel device"). Hence we
tend to forget about the practice in the past as well as to neglect
the practice in the future. The theory is thus the closest we can
come to a "time travel device". This is indiciated by the patterns
. we(present) * practice(present)
to
. we(present) * theory(past-present-future) * practice(present)
One basic problem of every theory is to modify it continually to get a
better match with its practice through its time span. The reason why there
is a mismatch between theory and practice is that the theory is a product
of human imagination. The theory is a creation "inside-world-of-mind"
whereas the practice involves primarily activities
"outside-world-of-mind". Many people detest theories because they judge
the continual modification of theories as futile excercises.
However, making a theory and modifying it to match a practice better
requires advanced creativity. This creativity is not just there, but have
to be developed by excercising it. One way of excercising creativity is
this very making a theory for any system and then modifying it to match
the practice better.
The more any system changes through time in whatever manner, the more it
becomes necessay to have a theory to manage or to control that system. At
a certain stage we may begin to think of a complex system and the
complexity of its changes. It is then when it becomes very difficult to
make a theory and modify it unless we manage our creativity by having a
theory for it too.
However, we should then be willing to admit that our creativity is also
complex so that a complex theory for it is also required. Such a double
complexity involving the system and creativity is usually too intimidating
so that many managers give up on both for a day-to-day way of managing the
system.
Can we call this "day-to-day way of managing" pragmatism? I do not think
so because modifying the theory to match better the system over many days
is the original meaning of the Greek word "pragmatikos". It was used to
describe any person well learned in the daily affairs of a changing
practice. However, in the 20th century the word "pragmatism" became to be
used for that philosophy in which ideas have value only in practical
action while their truth are determined only by practical results. This
philosopy diminishes the importance of creating a theory in the first
place.
One last point which I want to make is the following. Many people believe
it is best to learn rotely an existing theory which accounts best for a
certain practice. I think that it is far better to learn authentically how
to make a theory for a practice and then modify it to match it better,
even though the outcome may not be as good as the already existing
superior theory. This authentic learning is absolutely necessay to
acknowledge the "already existing theory" as indeed superior, or to spot
some major flaw in it not yet accounted for.
>Does anyone on the list recall such an article? If so,
>can you cite it or point me toward it? Thanks.
Sorry, I cannot help. But perhaps you may have a look at the
paper
"The Theory and Practice of Complexity Science: ..." at
< http://www.concentric.net/~kurtar/Berty2/MISC/Theory.htm >
There is also an electronic book (very large) which is interesting
because of its authenticity in trying to complement theory and
practice with each other:
"Back to Socrates" by D R Kashaba at
< www.back-to-socrates.com/let%20us%20philosophize.pdf >
The following is for me a memmorial paragraph quoted from it:
. "I need a view of the world that does not help make me
. feel at home in the universe -- that was the function of
. mythology. I need a view of the world that respects and
. does not mock my intelligence. That was and is the beginning,
. the generative sperm, of all philosophy."
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
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.