On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, John Constantine wrote:
> " How do people progress to the point that they're willing to change,
> without changing?"
>
> Fact is, Ben, that by the time they are "aware" they want to change, they
> have already moved into a new realm; thus, they have already changed.
> That's the joy of being on the train, by the time you know you're
> arriving, you've arrived.
This may be a spin-off to a new thread on learning and language. One thing
I find is that there is sometimes a tendency to "define" our terms in such
a way that they are anitpathetic (?) to learning. It seems to me that
there is some danger in defining our terms so loosely that they exclude
nothing and include everything, thereby making the definition, and
subsequent discussion meaningless.
For example, if we define learning as almost everything, and change as
everything, how can we discuss the link? I'm just playing with this idea,
but I am curious about other's opinions..
Robert Bacal - CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
Internet Address - dbt359@freenet.mb.ca
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. (204) 888-9290
Join us at our Resource Centre at: http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359
--Robert Bacal <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>