Michael and Robert have made some very helpful comments about stability
and chaos etc.
My problem is the perennial one of 'if this is so, then how should I act?'
Taking a Kuhnian view of the development of science, I act according to my
current theory, which I am also looking to disprove, until the weight of
evidence is so great that I have to make a fundamental shift in my
understanding, and then act differently. Stability is the state in which
I am applying my current theory and it is working well enough, the
creative or destructive edge is when the theory has failed and we develop
a significantly new theory.
The point about not being able to live on the creative edge continually is
that we have to have a workable theory to guide action most of the time,
even though we accept that there will come a point where that theory will
no longer be useful as a guide to action and will need to be changed.
Taking the example of Newtonian Physics, this allowed us to act
appropriately in most contexts until the ability/necessity of looking at a
sub-atomic level demanded a theory of Quantum Mechanics.
I believe that I can act as if a theory is true, without believing that it
is true and will not change, and that in fact this is what it means to be
open to change.
Michael/Robert, am I still missing the point here?
Thank you for your help
Malcolm
prodeuro@atlas.co.uk (Malcolm Jones)
--prodeuro@atlas.co.uk (Malcolm Jones)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>