> In [the example of learning to ride a bicycle] , we don't really
>*unlearn* our ideas of 'walking' balance, but we add new ones about
>'cycling' balance. In fact, this new learning does not render our old
>learning completely invalid - nor does it just get tagged on either: the
>intuitive 'walking' balance is still there, but the it is no longer
>exclusive. So if the 'walking' balance ideas were the only ones we had
>about balance up to the point where we learnt how to ride a bike (of
>course they _weren't_, this is just a simplification!), the 'exclusive'
>bit of that changes to 'there are different ways of keeping my balance',
>plus the new 'cycling' balance ideas.
You've made me think of a particular way we get new thoughts/behaviors:
As you pointed out, "there are different ways of keeping my balance" comes
from putting the two contexts together. Recognizing that there are
"different ways" is at a different logical level than recognizing that
there is a way to balance when walking and a way to balance when riding.
There is information that can be known only through comparing situations.
This seems perhaps the flip-side of subsetting (dividing a context into
multiple sub-contexts). When we compare two situations we create a
context that contains both of them.
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>