Re: Postmodernism -- switching epistemes... LO154
Sat, 18 Feb 1995 10:11:02 -0500

Kent, thanks for a stab at an answer, yet you make my head hurt!

You continue to use the word 'chiasm' which I take as a form of 'chiasma'
meaning 'a cross wise fusion.' Is this correct?

Your answer seems to make sense, at least within the limits of my
ignorance I guess. My thoughts were initially from a more pragmatic stance
I think. I was trying to understand how our tendence to think in duality
limits our ability to achieve because we consider the elments of the
duality to be either / or attainables.

American business firmly believed that lower cost and improved quality
were an either / or duality. They could pursue lower cost or they could
pursue improved quality. The Japanese proved American business to be wrong
by aggressively pursuing "both" in a rather simultaneous fashion. Also,
Csikszentmihalyi, in "The Evolving Self" descibed Complexity as the
integration of differentiated and integrated.

>From these two examples my thought was rather a question as to whether we
limit ourselves in many other areas because we believe the apparent
duality can not be integrated.

>From a business perspective suppose there is a way to integrate the
pursuit of short-term profits and long-term growth and development, or
growth and stability, decentralize and centralize, desire for change and
desire for continuity, etc.

Robert Fritz, in "Corporate Tides," refers to these as structural
conflicts with the resolve to be in deciding which is more important and
manage the other accordingly. This I see as simply limiting the potential
results for if I admit to it being an either / or situation then I will
cease to search for an integration of the two.

What I seek in not a chiasm of the duality, yet rather an aggessive
pursuit of an integrated form of it.

Kent, please let me know how this one strikes you...

Gene Bellinger...