In a message dated 96-09-08 13:36:15 EDT, you write:
>When thinking about Rand we need to place her in the context of other,
>opposed, literary traditions. From Plato's cave to Mary Shelley, to all
>the mad scientist movies ever made, To HAL in 2001 (not Hal Popplewell!)
>and - perhaps most significantly of all to the present debate -
>Heidegger's essay 'The Question of Technology', we have a tradition which
>asserts the opposite of Rand; that the unbounded, socially unsituated,
>intellect is at best futile, and at worst destructively dangerous.
I do not think Ayn would disagree with most of this. Recall that the
valley was populated by *many others* - Galt was *not* a loner.
Doing something as a team or community or *for* others is in no way
against the core philosophy she espouses. Rather, the philosophy relates
what one does to the fact that one receives a benefit for that action -
give to a charity and you feel better and the world you live in gets a bit
better. No altruism is necessary to give to others nor to work within a
team.
Senge et al write of multiple perspectives: "The more perspectives on an
issue that a team can consider, the more possibilities exist for effective
action." In effect, they are saying "get each and every person's idea
then choose the best idea." Perhaps the best idea *could* be an amalgem
but that is not *necessary* for this method to work. Now when we say
"every person" we mean every *individual* - do we not?
The *individual* came up with the idea, the *team* chose or refined it -
two very different contributions. Good teams are built of good
individuals.
-- Hal Popplewell GaltJohn22@aol.comLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>