At 10:49 AM 4/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Eugene Taurman wrote in reply to George 'jorge' Bartow:
>
>> One's mental model(by whatever name we chose to give it) cannot be
>> ignored. Mental models travel by many names such as wisdoms, mind set,
>> belief system, paradigms, experience, traditions and more.
>
>Eugene:
>
>Is our belief of something as being 'true' a function of our mental
>models, our sense of self, or our capacity to communicate either or
>both of these to others? Are not mental models that which comprise our
>sense of self--our identity--and where does one begin to draw a line
>between that self and the outer world (not self)? Is it not by
>expressing our 'self' into this outer world that we create a 'truth'?
>Bear in mind, I'm approaching truth as something which is 'objectified'
>by virtue of its validation by (at least) more than one individual.
What is true has little to do with what one believes. If one believes
something to be true, it creates an attitude which in turn determines
behavior.
What I believe may or may not be true but it still causes me to behave in
a particular way. For example management may or may not be trust worthy
but if I believe they are then I behave accordingly. If I believe they are
not then I adopt a different set of behaviors.
Most if not all people cannot even list all the things that they believe
and paradigms they hold yet these are causing behavior with and without
out regard to whether or not they are true.
Most of us do not even know how we arrived at our beliefs. For example I
have always believed if I work hard and learn I can make a better life for
myself and my children. Not everyone believes this but I do. How did I
came by such an absurd ida in an unfair world. I do not really know but it
had to do with my parents and the people I have known as My ideas
developed. Those that believe there is no opportunity also had influence
from their peers and family. But they do not ready know why they believe
it.
>In other words, if I see something and I'm the only person that sees that
>particular something, is it 'true' or do I need someone else to agree with
>me regarding its existence? I believe it takes a tremendously powerful
>sense of self to believe something as true when no one else can see it
>or even conceive of it. But then again, is this not the place where
>invention comes from? But even the greatest inventor needs to find ways of
>sharing their conceptions with others. Is this done through communicating
>their mental models and is that communication accomplished with metaphors?
What ever works at the time.
>Is, then, our sense of self supported by the nature and effectiveness of
>the metaphors we use. Bear in mind, also, that I'm using the term
>metaphor in its broadest of possible senses--whan all of 'reality' is
>nothing more than what Lily Tomlin refers to as a 'collective hunch',
>virtually every form of expression, tangible or otherwise, becomes a
>metaphor.
>
>I realize this quickly becomes a circular argument, but by relating these
>concepts into a dynamic and concentrating on enacting that dynamic as a
>whole I think it becomes possible to transcend the problem of infinite
>regression. Specifically, I'm thinking about four elements that are
>inherently and intrinsically part of a single dynamical 'primitive': 1.)
>the information we possess regarding the world in which we participate
>(thesis); 2.) that part of the world of which we have no awareness
>(antithesis); 3.) our experience of the place between what 'is' and what
>'isn't' (tenison) ; and 4.) the mental and physical constructions that
>arise from our experience of that tension (expression)--apologies to
>Robert Fritz. Taken together and enacted, I believe that something along
>these lines is what I might call 'knowledge' or, more to my personal
>tastes, the 'dynamic of knowing'.
You lost me. My comment are a much simpler set of ides than this
>A bit of poetry, attributed to Schopenhauer and quoted in Wheatley and
>Kellner-Rogers latest book, comes to mind:
>
>"Thus the task is not so much to see
>what no one else has seen,
>but to think what nobody has yet thought
>about that which everybody sees."
>
>Arnold Wytenburg <arnold@originalthinking.com>
Eugene Taurman
interLinx Consulting
414-242-3345
http://www/execpc.com/~ilx
If a company values anything more than its' customer, it will lose the
customer.
The irony of that, if it is profitability, market share, security, teams,
learning or philanthropy that it values more it will lose the opportunity
for these too.
--Eugene Taurman <ilx@execpc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>