Pegasus: Wheatley Keynote LO10907

Jacqueline Mullen (J.Mullen@agora.stm.it)
Fri, 8 Nov 1996 15:40:19 GMT

Replying to LO10889 --

>Does it have to be a dichotomy between the mechanistic-reductionist
>paradigm and the holistic-expansionist paradigm?

No, I don't think it doesn't either, but..

...snip...

>The purpose of leadership is to manage the creative
>tension between the two paradigms, not advocate one at the expense of the
>other.

I find myself intrigued by the idea of the creative tension
between multiple paradigms, and the broadened, parallax-like, vision that
comes from viewing the world through many different lenses. The ol'
parable of the blind men and the elephant. A greater richness of meaning
emerging from a variety of points of view.

I think even the idea of attempting to all agree on a "new
paradigm" is risky business, and in the end could be stifling to
creatively interpreting one's world. It tempts one into thinking that
because you are using the same language that there is agreement on
substance. Yet, the questions churning in my thoughts are how all this
would look in terms of the theory of relativity, the quantum theory, or
the other assorted flavors out there these days. What if the idea of
"Now" is unique to each person in his or her own space/time, is context
dependent? What if perception were discontinuous? What if we create the
world we perceive, as we go, by our interactions? What can this tell me
about the nature of "universalities" and "fixed points of reference" or
what I can even know as "true"?

Hmmm..

He later goes on to say:

>We are all on a quest for certainty,
>why else would we be participating in the LO list?

This statement doesn't apply in my case. I participate because
learning is challenging and fun, because I like to question. I also
"meet" stimulating people who push me in new directions and to question
further. But I don't particularly care to "believe" my conclusions, or
even to be "sure" of my conclusions. It is precisely the uncertainty
which I enjoy. I like the questioning more than any specific answers.
And I tend to think this list is far more significant in its ability to
broadly connect a diversity of people who, in an open and respectful
environment, are considering which questions in today's world need asking,
rather than the theories or models potentially offered. I guess I just
don't think communities of learning are necessarily communities of
agreeing.

Even if somebody finally figures out a way for complexity theory,
or whatever, to describe all the deepest questions that man has been
scratching his belly about for the last 100,000 years, I'm still not going
to "believe" it. No offense. I might think it a nifty theory, be
astounded by its ability to integrate difficult questions, be relieved by
the variety of applications it can tackle. But, to me, it will remain
"just a theory", "just a model", incomplete. The map is not the territory
and all that. It might work better than others, but I will be no more
"sure" of it, it will be no more "true" for me, in the broadest sense,
than would be a Ptolemaic paradigm, or a Copernican paradigm, or a
Newtonian paradigm or Altas holding the world on his shoulders, for that
matter. I'm not trying to imply a muddled free-for-all. Let's hear it
for scientific rigor. Just don't get cocky on me. We are part of the
system we are exploring, so it presents limits on what we can know. Or so
it seems...

<Major snipping>

>Without theory there can be no learning.

As we contemplate multi-cultural situations, I think it important
to consider that many cultures never held the "former" "Newtonian"
"paradigm" in the first place. Perhaps it was understood through coming
into contact with Western outlooks on economic and political theory,
perhaps not. (Although, I'd be pretty irked if no one bothered to find out
my vision of the world before suggesting I needed new models.)
Nevertheless, I am fascinated by gleanings into the complex nature of
systems other cultures have had throughout their own cultural histories.
However, since modern science (i.e. "theory") is a product of certain
Western ideals; in other cultures I might instead look to the stories, to
the cultural traditions, to the religious views, to the healing arts, and
to language and the metaphors used. So in many cultures, as well as our
own, I feel learning would not strictly stem from a contemplation of
"theory". But I suppose it depends upon how one defines the word theory.

--
        Jackie Mullen
        J.Mullen@agora.stm.it
 

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>