Competition LO17363

Lee Bloomquist (LBLOOMQUIST/0005099717@MCIMAIL.COM)
Mon, 09 Mar 1998 15:46:28 -0500 (EST)

Replying to LO17325 --

Doc Holloway writes...

>This is an intriguing question because I've not considered inquiry
>and advocacy from this perspective (duality). Without much
>hesitation, though, it appears to be dualistic (just as "give and
>take" are two sides to one coin).

I do have a suspicion: That our thinking seems to be constrained to
dualities, and only in clarity of feeling do we have the chance to
experience an underlying singularity. Zeno's story about the race between
Achilles (the fastest of the gods) and the tortoise (the slowest of the
animals) may have been the first expression of this in the Western
tradition. Naturally, we give the tortoise a head start, but before
Achilles can catch up, he must first reach a place-- or "state"-- that is
half way between himself and the tortoise.

(Paragraph X:) But to catch up from this place-- or "state"-- Achilles
must, by some "event," reach yet another state that is (once again) half
way between.

And so on... perhaps providing the first ever example of Godel's first
theorem-- That even when inferring from acceptable axioms about the dual
concepts of "state" and "event," all true statements about the (one)
process they, together, constitute might not be speakable. Why? Because
there is no end to saying paragraph X, and so no way to deduce-- even from
correct axioms about the dual objects of state and event-- certain correct
statements about the process that we feel they, together, constitute: for
example, that Achilles does win-- as we all know by "tacit knowledge."

Now I can try to answer one of your questions...

>I'd have to review At's posting (referenced) to respond to your 2nd
>inquiry. Would you clarify this question for me, please?

I think "dual" concepts are required to think about a singular feeling

Philosophers like Descartes and David Hume (in his Treatise) discuss a
basic difference between thinking and feeling, but this discussion really
goes all the way back (in the Western tradition) to Heraclitus and
Parmenides. In fact (if you'll allow me to infer from Plato and
Aristotle), Zeno contrived his "paradoxes," such as the one above about
Achilles, to express what he had learned from Parmenides about this
condition (that we tend to think in terms of dualities, but experience a
singularity). "Dual" concepts, like "state" and "event," are those which
define each other, and in this case, they provide some, but not all,
justification for our saying reasonable things about the singular
"processes" which we feel they constitute.

Doc, in your experience, are "inquiry" and "advocacy" a dual pair like the
"state" and "event" in Zeno's paradox?

If so, is there underlying experience that constitutes the crucial "tacit

(You may already be on the right track...)

>I guess the crux of the matter is that I no longer find myself
>frequently enslaved to my own reactions, but can act from the
>center of my authentic self as an advocate--and respect and honor
>the other through the process of inquiry.

Done truly and well, this sounds to me like a ceaseless, but
enjoyable, path of learning.

>But, indeed, I would like to know where your question comes
>from--what generated your interest, and what your thoughts are?

My interest?...

History is filled with organizations that have run amuck.

But to what extent is all of organizing built on one-to-one interactions?
(A lot, it seems to me.)

Then what was the magic in certain, perhaps ideal, one-to-one
interactions-- such as those between Zeno and Parmenides?

Lee Bloomquist


At...thanks for your kind reply, as well.


Lee Bloomquist <LBLOOMQUIST/0005099717@MCIMAIL.COM>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>