> On Thu 8 Aug 1996, Rick Karasch wrote:
> ... And, there are other elements that we
> take as more fundamental[in relation to OL].
>
> As a personal example, I hold as fundamental the notion of real
>respect for every human being (as Deming talks about this). Once you
>decide to try to operate based on this principle, you don't keep
>asking, "How do we know this is 'right'?"
>
> To me, this is parallel to "Love thy neighbor."
Respect for human beings, love thy neighbour, honesty, integrity and many
of the other 'values' that have been discussed in learning-org in recent
weeks are useful working hypotheses which I am happy to adopt as my own
general code of conduct. But they are simple words expressing very
complex ideas and values, which we are constantly having to challenge,
confront and reframe. For example, there is considerable argument about
the point after fertilisation of an egg when a cell cluster becomes a
human being and that raises dilemmas between respect for mother and
embryo. Love thy neighbour? Adolf Hitler? Pol Pot? There are many
instances - and they have been discussed here - where interpretation of
fundamental values becomes difficult.
In my view OL requires continuing doubt and scepticism (that is probably
the wrong word) about all hypotheses; so well articulated in the
philosophy of science of Carl(?) Popper. It is possible irrevocably to
disprove a hypothesis, but it can only be proved once at a time.
AIUI the Christian and Muslim religions OTOH do require unquestioning
faith in words.
[AIUI = As I understand it..., OTOH = on the other hand...]
OL, as earlier contributors to this thread have said, requires a
willingness to question ALL assumptions and to reframe hypotheses.
Remember Galileo.
--John Farago <jfarago@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>