Re: Philosophy underlying LO? LO392

jack.hirschfeld@his.com
Thu, 09 Mar 95 20:50:22

Looking for a lost message in my out box, I encountered this one which I sent
last Sunday to Jim Michmerhuizen, meaning to share with the list:

"Subject: Re: Philosophy underlying LO? LO306

In a dialogue with Mike McMaster, Jim Michmerhuizen says:

"Imagine conducting some intense daylong seminar or discussion of some
sort in which the participants become aware of their individual and group
models or metaphors. By the end of the day each model is fully
articulated and everybody is comfortable discussion his or her model.

Now imagine the same process in reverse. A concept or set of concepts is
introduced, discussed, becomes a model, begins to affect conduct, group
dynamics, and is eventually wholly assimilated AND IS NO LONGER TALKED
ABOUT. If I try to imagine this reversal in full lifelike detail, I am led
to the almost paradoxical conclusion that at the very moment when the
model becomes most effective and pervasive, it ceases to have a name."

In another conversation, Mike helped unfold my use of the word
"practices". In Jim's example, conversation is a practice which - in his
description - leads to understanding. In the "reverse", practices
engender behavior habits which render naming unnecessary. This is a bit
spooky, and not typical of our culture where naming is a practice pursued
for its own sake (I view a lot of the conversation here as having that
character). I try to imagine a culture which is envisioned in Jim's
comment, that is, a culture in which people use practices to get "there"
but no longer need the practices when they are "there" because the
practices are only a mode of transportation, so to speak. Joe Campbell,
in one of his talks, tells the story of the Buddha when asked about
practices. The Buddha says something like, "Thank the ferry when you
reach the other shore, for the service it has rendered; but there's no
need to hoist it on your back as you wander inland."

I agree with Jim that The Fifth Discipline's subtitle says in effect "this
is not about theory" but one looks throughout for "pass the salt and
pepper". This is because we have learned in our culture to equate
prescription with practices. We want the guru to give us a mantra, not to
say "find a mantra". And when he does, we respond by trying to create a
framework of understanding for what he has said (theory) rather than going
to find a mantra.

Is it possible in our culture to say something so simple without becoming
obtuse?"

--
jack@his.com           Tell me, what street compares with Mott Street in July?
Jack Hirschfeld