A paragraph here catches my eye:
> The phrase was in general use in cognitive psychology, especially as
> applied to the philosophy of mind and to the analysis of human-computer
> interaction, from that time on. I presume that's where Senge got it
> from; I think I remember seeing a reference in the 5th Discipline
> Fieldbook to that effect.
>
Interestingly, the "model" idea arose in a counter-current to earlier
behaviorist theories which had attempted to deny that "inner workings"
could ever be of any theoretical interest -- or even import -- at all.
I think the idea -- apart from its most recent expression as "mental
model" -- really does go back a long way. Just tonight, I'm thinking
maybe Aquinas. What I'm actually thinking is "nobody *since* Aquinas".
What I mean is, it's really been a *very* long time since any of the
big-name philosophers conceived of a human mind as "modelling" reality.
Aquinas is the last one I can think of.
That's one reason, I think, why some of us, on that other thread about
religion/5thDiscipline, are so intrigued by a kind of "congruity of
outlook" between our religious concepts and our systems thinking: we
sense -- whether correctly or not -- that Senge and others are upholding a
certain kind of common wisdom or common sense about people and systems, a
kind that is really quite radically *different* from anything we've seen
in the West for the past four hundred years or so.
To encapsulate this in a single image: if a manager can truly model in
himself the larger system processes which his decisions play a role in,
can the Tao be far behind?
--
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen jamzen@world.std.com
web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
--------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
. . . . . There are more different kinds of people in the world . . . . .
. . ^ . . than there are people... . . . . .
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations
For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>