Systems Thinking vs Belief? LO19829

W.M. Deijmann (
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:45:20 +0100

replying to: Systems Thinking vs Belief? LO19817

At de Lange wrote:

>I have read your message over and over. I have read some of your earlier
>messages again. I have read your website. I am sure that you have
>"something definite" in mind. But I am still not sure that you mean
>"judgment". In fact, when I wrote
>>>Each judgment (to which a condemnation is associated)
>>>destroys life in a lesser or greater degree. I do not want
>>>to participate anymore in hurting or destroying life as its
>>>final outcome.
>you replied with
>>>I also avoid condemnation at all costs, this is where At ,
>>>me and anyone else on this list agree.
>Maybe the problem is with me. I think of "judgment" as "assessment and
>condemnation depending on the outcome" -- as "verdict and sentence
>depending on the outcome" -- as "free or guilty". This is how "judgment"
>is used in law and theology. Maybe it is my etymological sensitivity
>because judgment comes from the Latin "judicium" where "jus"=law and
>"dico"=say. Even though "natural laws" play a fundamental role in the
>world of science, the word "judgement" is never used in this world to
>reflect on the outcome of a natural law. But when the word gets used in
>the world of science, it is mostly in a negative sense like "your
>judgement is false" or "your judgement is bad". I seldom have heard or
>read the word being used in a "neutral" sense as you do. But in your
>favour the English dictionaries also give a neutral meaning -- an act
>affirming or denying a conclusion -- an act accepting or refusing a
>result. However, your own sentence "It includes taking risks, because I am
>never sure how they will be received..." tells me that others have not
>reacted neutrally to your neutral usage.

Yes, the problem is with you, but also with me and probably with anyone
else in this world.

Why does human kind create different languages for every scientific
system, for every religion, for every system, for every country. And it
hasn't stopped yet. Why do we keep on putting our efforts into creating
differences, boundaries and barriers instead of developing one overall
language, based on a 'System of Systems' or something like that? Wouldn't
that make learning easier?

It seems to me that all our efforts to understand ourselves and the world
with the purpose to create a unified world (Global Community) result in
the opposite, more boundaries, more barriers, more lonelyness. Don't we
use more words to check eachother's understanding than coming up with an
universal concept that helps overcome barriers? According to Victor Keegan
from the Guardian, every day more than 20 million words of professional
literature is pumped into the world. Does it help???

Let me emphasize that I am not better than any of you, but even worse is,
that I realize myself at this moment, that I am also taking part in this
whole dance. Perhaps I better stop here.

Winfried Deijmann


Mr. Winfried M. Deijmann - Deijmann & Partners - Zutphen - The Netherlands Artists, Consultants and Facilitators for Organizational Learning, Leadership and Action Learning Events Het Zwanevlot 37, NL 7206 CB Zutphen, The Netherlands <> Phone: +31-(0)575-522076 mobile: +31-(0)654 94 71 27 Homepage: <>

For information on our International Workshops: <>

"An educated mind is useless without a focussed will and dangerous without a loving heart" (unknown source)

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