Joe, I quite like your diagramme and see it can be useful for introduction
material. Thanks for sharing it.
>
> One way to represent the "spreading" of this worldview is:
>
> Philosophy--->Physics--->In time, all other disciplines
> ---------- ------- --------------------------------
> DesCartes Newton Dalton in chemistry
> etc. Darwin in biology, etc.
>
>(the "new")
> Philosophy--->Physics----> In time, all other disciplines
> ---------- ------- --------------------------------
> Ashby? Von Bertalanffy?
> Wiener? Shannon?
> Maturana/Varela in Biology?
> Prigogine in Chemistry?
> Bateson in Anthropology?
> Boulding in Economics?
> Powers in Psychology?
> Shewhart and Deming?
> Forrester and Senge?
My offerings for the sourceful philosophers and physicists are:
Heideggar and the phenomonology tradition
later the Hermeneutic philosophers (although they're very hard to "get")
in physics, Einstein, not for only for his science but for the later work he
did in exploring how new ideas are created and in particular his conclusing that
language doesn't have a necessary and logical relationship to "reality" and, if
the language that is being used doesn't work, then invent a new one based on an
intuitive rather than a rational basis. H is attributed with saying, "If I'd
been bound by the definitions and language of physicists, I couldn't have
created the theories that I did."
My candidates for the list would include earlier thinkers, particularly in
Economics because that's my background, who were doing thinking consistent
with the new models before the tools were available. The greatest of
these is Ludwig von Mises who has much to tell us about self organising
systems but we can also go back to the "Scottish Enlightenment School"
which is the source of (the much misinterpreted) Adam Smith.
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
>
> My questions are:
> 1. What philosophers are the originators of this "new"
> paradigm which underlies the Learning Org concepts?
> 2. Are Kant, Hegel, Santayana, James, Dewey, Russell and
> Whitehead philosophers of the "old", the "new" or some
> "intermediate" paradigm?
> 3. Who in Physics -- Einstein? Heisenberg?
> 4. Any additions/deletions to "all other disciplines"?
> 5. If we are now moving beyond the "clockwork", what is the
> metaphor for this new worldview or paradigm?
>
> I await increased understanding...
>
> _ __________________________________________________
> / )| Joe Kilbride -- Kilbride Consulting, Inc. | ( \
> / / | PO Box 64 Downers Grove, IL 60515 | \ \
> _( (_ | jk@mcs.com--Ph:708/515-9882--FAX:708/515-9883 | _) )_
> (((\ \>|_/->__________________________________________<-\_|</ /)))
> (\\\\ \_/ / Metaphor and analogy can be helpful, \ \_/ ////)
> \ / or they can be misleading. All depends on \ /
> \ _/ whether the similarities the metaphor captures \_ /
> / / are significant or superficial.-- Herbert Simon \ \
> / / The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd ed., pg. 193 \ \
>
>
>
>
>
-- Michael McMaster