Replying to LO29720 --
Hello Terry, dear readers,
Thank you for you contribution and critical remarks.
The essay does start with a kind of definition of religion, but as a kind
of phenomena, not a certain type of religion. Her motivation to write the
essay was the uncritical approach by her fellow students. Perhaps the
problem is that the old religions are NOT about critical thought, inquiry
and self-development. It somehow came out that way. Can you be a good
human being and not belong to a church or religion? Can you say that the
concepts in religions are simplifications for simple people and not to be
taken too litteral? Can one belong to a religion and not adhere to its
prescriptions (one truth) and make ones own thinking? Is there a
trade-off, perhaps?
Have to go, kind regards,
Jan
Tadeems@aol.com wrote:
>Certainly, "learning" is not the be-all and end-all. I can learn to
>become an excellent burglar, oppressor or whatnot. I've often thought
>Senge focuses on learning without adequately examining what is meant by
>that. What I see in LO's is an educative or developmental model for work
>and people at work. In Dewey's (1930s) work, an educative environment is
>one in which learning and growth occur along a certain direction
>(development). Learning in and of itself is not enough. So if this is
>indeed Rooze's point, I'd have to agree.
>
>>What do you think? Are we the disciples of a new faith? Is LO great and
>>Senge its prophet?
[... snip by your host ...]
--Drs J.C. Lelie (Jan, MSc MBA) facilitator mind@work
mind@work VOF - ondersteuning besluitvorming van groepen LOGISENS - bedrijfsverbetering
tel.: + 31 (0)70 3243475 mob.: + 31 (0)65 4685114 (auto) web.: http://www.mindatwork.nl/
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.