Linear thinking LO22930

Winfried Dressler (
Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:36:35 +0200

Replying to LO22911 --

> diversity breed diversity,
>in other words
> otherness promotes otherness.
>The trouble with culture (of humans) rather than nature is that it
>disturbs the harmony in the brain immensely.
>As soon as the magnet (culture) gets closer to the TV screen, the >picture gets distorted (culture case).
>When we think linearly, we have to seek the cause in culture >and not in nature.
Can Learning Organisations afford linear thinking?

Dear At,

sorry for sniping around in your message. It is a kind of many to one
mapping isn't it? A kind of preparation for a linear answer to a complex
question. But I have something else in mind: Can this sniping serve as an
illustration of what you have in mind that culture does to nature? An
attempt to cultivate of your writing?

I personally don't see culture as a way to linearize complex nature. Such
linearization is more accurately named by the term sin. Since sin seems to
be a possibility only for orders of freedom equal to or higher than human,
sin is a possibility of culture but by no means its essence. The essence
of culture as emerged from nature is in my view the reached degree of
freedom and the corresponding responsibility. Culture is also diversity
breeded by diversity. Yet it includes the possibility to reduce diversity.

Human Learning Organizations are a cultural phenomenon. As such they are
capable of linear thinking - but also capable to recognise and overcome
linear thinking. As a reader of Robert Fritz, I may ask: What structures
makes an organization oszillate between linear and non-linear thinking
instead of advancing irreversibly?

Liebe Gruesse,



"Winfried Dressler" <>

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