FW: Re: Philosophy underlying LO? LO195

From the Learning Organization List. Thought it might be of some interest.

Marc

Received: from europe.std.com by panix4.panix.com with SMTP id AA21168
(5.67b/IDA-1.5 for msa); Wed, 22 Feb 1995 20:36:57 -0500
Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.6.8.1/Spike-8-1.0)
      id UAA03782; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 20:27:11 -0500
Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
      id AA15407; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 01:15:19 GMT
Received: from kbddean.demon.co.uk by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
      id AA20846; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 03:34:01 -0500
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 20:56:23 GMT
From: Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk (Michael McMaster)
Message-Id: <353@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
To: learning-org@world.std.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy underlying LO? LO195
X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10
Lines: 76
Sender: learning-org-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: learning-org@world.std.com
X-UIDL: 793513428.004

Replying to LO142 --

Joe, I quite like your diagramme and see it can be useful for

introduction

material. Thanks for sharing it.

One way to represent the "spreading" of this worldview is:

     Philosophy--->Physics--->In time, all other disciplines
     ---------- ------- --------------------------------
     DesCartes Newton Dalton in chemistry
     etc. Darwin in biology, etc.

(the "new")

     Philosophy--->Physics----> In time, all other disciplines
     ---------- ------- --------------------------------
                                Ashby? Von Bertalanffy?
                                Wiener? Shannon?
                                Maturana/Varela in Biology?
                                Prigogine in Chemistry?
                                Bateson in Anthropology?
                                Boulding in Economics?
                                Powers in Psychology?
                                Shewhart and Deming?
                                Forrester and Senge?

My offerings for the sourceful philosophers and physicists are:
Heideggar and the phenomonology tradition
later the Hermeneutic philosophers (although they're very hard to "get")
in physics, Einstein, not for only for his science but for the later work

he

did in exploring how new ideas are created and in particular his

conclusing that

language doesn't have a necessary and logical relationship to "reality"

and, if

the language that is being used doesn't work, then invent a new one based

on an

intuitive rather than a rational basis. H is attributed with saying, "If

I'd

been bound by the definitions and language of physicists, I couldn't have
created the theories that I did."

My candidates for the list would include earlier thinkers, particularly

in

Economics because that's my background, who were doing thinking

consistent

···

From: [Marc S. Abrams (950223.0013)
On Tue, 21 Feb 1995 20:56:23 GMT Michael McMaster wrote:

with the new models before the tools were available. The greatest of
these is Ludwig von Mises who has much to tell us about self organising
systems but we can also go back to the "Scottish Enlightenment School"
which is the source of (the much misinterpreted) Adam Smith.

Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>

My questions are:
       1. What philosophers are the originators of this "new"
          paradigm which underlies the Learning Org concepts?
       2. Are Kant, Hegel, Santayana, James, Dewey, Russell and
          Whitehead philosophers of the "old", the "new" or some
          "intermediate" paradigm?
       3. Who in Physics -- Einstein? Heisenberg?
       4. Any additions/deletions to "all other disciplines"?
       5. If we are now moving beyond the "clockwork", what is the
          metaphor for this new worldview or paradigm?

I await increased understanding...

     _ __________________________________________________
    / )| Joe Kilbride -- Kilbride Consulting, Inc. | ( \
   / / | PO Box 64 Downers Grove, IL 60515 | \ \
_( (_ | jk@mcs.com--Ph:708/515-9882--FAX:708/515-9883 | _) )_
(((\ \>|_/->__________________________________________<-\_|</ /)))
(\\\\ \_/ / Metaphor and analogy can be helpful, \ \_/ ////)
\ / or they can be misleading. All depends on \ /
  \ _/ whether the similarities the metaphor captures \_ /
   / / are significant or superficial.-- Herbert Simon \ \
  / / The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd ed., pg. 193 \ \

--
Michael McMaster

--------------------------------------------------------
                "As far as the laws of mathematics
Marc S. Abrams refer to reality, they are not certain,
msa@panix.com and as far as they are certain, they do
Brooklyn, NY not refer to reality." A. Einstein
--------------------------------------------------------02/22/9523:45:52

-------------------------------------