Re: Bottom-up introduction of learning?

Jim Michmerhuizen (jamzen@world.std.com)
Tue, 24 Jan 1995 21:11:22 +0001 (EST)

On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Denis Cowan wrote:
[some stuff elided]
> Eddy. G'day from denis cowan
>
> Given that i do not operate from logic, the following argument may
> be flawed.
>
> If a learning organization needs to have an external learning
> organization environment to exist in , then no learning organization
> could exist. Because unless the universe as a whole was a learning
> environment no such sub entity could exist.
>
> OOPs. Possibly the universe is the learning organization and we are the
> blip which is trying to deny this.

Oh, I like that. I really like that. On reflection, I think I believe
that the universe must be a learning organization. You've really hit on
something there.

Now as for the logic: good logic, bad context. This is the kind of
argument that gets blank uncomprehending stares from people, because the
whole argument seems to come out of clear blue sky.

Does that ever happen to you?

> >
> > This, in my mind, naturally takes us on to the question: Can the learning
> > organisation attitude to life be introduced into an organisation bottom-up
> > rather than top-down?

Finally, a better-late-than-never comment on this remark from the fellow
you were commenting on: Yes, it can, and in fact all of us would do well
to remember that *sometimes* a learning culture can develop spontaneously,
without any experts around. All the learning-org stuff that we nurture,
and guide, and examine the conditions of, and write articles about, and
whatnot, lives on top of a general living and chaotic ferment of learning.
Microbes, as it were. Humbling.

> > > dcowan@ozspace.brisnet.org.au
>
>
>

Regards

jamzen@world.std.com