Epistemes, It-Gets-To-Me's LO185

Joe Kilbride (jk@mcs.com)
Tue, 21 Feb 95 16:02 CST

I asked Kent Palmer to trace the "lineage" of the "systemic" episteme that
has given rise to Systems Thinking and Learning Org concepts. He offered
the following:
>>Origins of the "systemic" episteme:
>> Newton -------> Kant -------> SYSTEMIC Approach
>> Leibniz Hegel System as purely present

In addition, he proposes two subsequent epistemes [snips from each].
The Ontological, Epistemological, Logocentric episteme
with "lineage" of:
> Kant ---------> Husserl -------> Process Approach

The anti-ontological, anti-epistemological, meta-systemic,
general economic episteme with "lineage" of:
> Bohr -------> M. Henry -------> Meta-systemic Approach

To follow this thread further I realize I have about 6 mos. of reading to
do. But before I go off to the library, let me ask this:

If Learning Org concepts have evolved from the "systemic" episteme,
how are the Process and Meta-systemic Approaches described above
likely to impact Learning Org and Systems Thinking concepts in the
future? i.e., Since L-O and ST concepts have become cornerstones of
the practice theories of many who haunt these airways, what
predictions can you offer us re: how L-O and ST concepts will
evolve as these "post-systemic" ways of thinking weave their way
into management thinking?

Kent also wrote:
>Each epistemic change is an intensification of nihilism.

Is that really true? Ad infinitum? With never an anti-nihilistic swing of
the philosophic pendulum? And some have called Systems Thinking the dismal

Thanks again for furthering my thinking.

_ ____________________________
/ )| Joe Kilbride -- jk@mcs.com |( \
/ / | Kilbride Consulting | \ \
_( (_ | Downers Grove, IL | _) )_
(((\ \>|_/->____________________<-\_|</ /)))
(\\\\ \_/ / \ \_/ ////)
\ / I think, \ /
\ _/ therefore I am, \_ /
/ / I think. \ \
/ / \ \