On 6 Aug 96 at 15:21, Keith Cowan wrote:
> >I imagine even the principles of an LO can be treated as dogma.
>
> I had to pick you up on the last word. I expect that LO is "dogma"
> and, if not, then that should be our objective to make it so. It is
> important that we distinguish between "dogma" which is neutral and
> "dogmatic" which has a negative connotation.
This sounded interesting enough to run for the dictionary. Mine says:
Dogma, an established principle,tenet or system of doctrines put forward
to be received ON AUTHORITY, esp, that of the Church as opposed to
deduced from experience or reasoning. [Some typos in the last sentence
corrected by your host...]
A secondary definition includes the word arrogant.
Since the adjective dogmatic is defined as "pertaining to dogma", I am
really puzzled, since the difference in denotation is only formal
(noun/adjective).
If you are speaking of connotations of the word, you might enlighten, or
if you have some different accepted definition, I would be curious to hear
it (never much liked dictionary definitions, but I am not sure where else
to go).
> Our ideal outcome is to have an accepted dogma without being
> dogmatic about it, which is your main point and I agree with it.
Since dogma appears to be established by authority, and not experience or
deduction, I don't understand the meaning of the above. Help!
Robert Bacal, CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
dbt359@freenet.mb.ca, Located in Winnipeg,Canada.
*For articles on management, change, training,communication, etc,
visit our home page at: http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359
--"Robert Bacal" <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>