Here I am replying to a question Marianne asked Michael McMaster! Oh well,
people do say that in really exciting groups nobody keeps track... .
Anyway, here's the material I'm commenting on:
> >Less deep, but similarly damaging to the cause of learning are vision,
> >motivation and commitment. There may be gold in each of these ideas, but
> Where I'd like to hear more is why you think commitment, vision,
> etc. are detrimental to learning. How come? Can't a shared vision of where
> we'd like to go (toward a learning organization, for instance) help? Can't
> commitment to a philosophy of learning assist people in selecting
> appropriate reactions? Say some more, please!
I think Michael was referring to the _concepts_ (i.e., in my basic-english
version of the world, the words "commitment", "vision" and so on), and not
to whatever it is that the concepts in turn refer to. This is an
immensely practical distinction; many people today signal it, in
face-to-face conversation, with little finger-waggles representing
quotation marks. In written english such as these postings, it helps to
use quotation marks directly, as I did up in that parenthesized expression
If I've guessed right, then Michael's statements were questioning, not the
value of commitment and vision where it exists, but the value of some
kinds of talk about "commmitment" and "vision" where, just possibly, these
things do _not_ exist and where nobody in fact would recognize them if
There are more different kinds of people in the world than there are people...