> I don't think that "all cells of an organism have the same
> information to begin with". I also do not share the
> anthropomorphising that "they all share the same vision and mission
> explicity."
Just to perhaps bring together two ideas -
When seeing the note you responded to, I thought that the information,
vision, and mission were through the avenue of DNA. The cells literally
are based on the same information and the information contains certain
boundaries of general possiblity such as "food will be needed and can be
used for energy and nutrition thus promoting the total furtherance of the
system".
> trust is a replacement for good communication. I don't mistrust
> those with whom I can communicate anything. Where I can't
> communicate, I must "trust" on my own creation - or not at all.
What about the kind of trust that is - or might be - needed to use a
graphical user interface with icons? The user has to trust that the
printer icon results in a print function. Furthermore, there's some
benefit to trusting that it results in a reasonable print procedure rather
than totally clearing all system settings and require that the user
totally redefine them. Even if investigation can substantiate the use of
the toolbar before it's ever used, it would be easier to use the program
if the icons could just be "trusted" - or if the process of the
presentation of the icons could be trusted. In some circumstances where
there's little cost in "trusting an icon" such as in using a WWW system,
maybe trusting is the best practice in terms of reducing total cost of
use. I think that the possibility here transfers to relationships also,
though I couldn't say "people just ought to trust everyone".
-- Have a nice day John Paul Fullerton jpf6745@acs.tamu.eduLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>