Hal Steinbeigle said, 05.02.97, in LO12379
>I have the quotation as, "There is nothing more difficult to plan, more
>doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a
>new order of things...Whenever his enemies have the ability to attack the
>innovator they do so with the passion of partisans, while the others
>defend him sluggishly, so that the innovator and his party alike are
>vulnerable." Found in a translation by George Bull, Penguin Books, 1961.
>Which leads me to believe the quote is more about new ideas (innovations)
>and the uphill battle they face for acceptance whether from individuals or
>systems.
and
Jim Reynolds said, on 06.02.97, in LO12385
> "Nothings more difficult to undertake, more perilous to conduct,
>more uncertain in its outcome, than to take the lead in introducing a new
>order of things; for the innovator has for enemies all those who did well
>under the old and lukewarm defenders amongst those who may do well under
>the new."
>I received this passage of Maciavelli, or an interpretation, from Jack
>O'Toole, UAW Vice President of People Systems at Saturn Corporation.
>Anyway, it has kept me vigilant over the last many years in our quest to
>introduce a new order of things.
Both quotes, regardless of accuracy, are variations on the same
theme.
I post this not because I'm greatly concerned about which "quote"
is exactly correct, but because it is interesting to me to see some folks
in a rather large group who appear -- at least to me -- firmly and pretty
unequivocably humanistic in the most positive and constructive way, using
quotes from a man's whose amoral, but influential writings, have turned
his name into a synonym for cunning, duplicity, and unscrupulousness.
Bertrand Russell described "The Prince" (Machiavelli's, unfortunately,
most famous writing) as "...a handbook for gangsters." And to prove
Russel's point, Benito praised it -- paraphrasing Russel -- as a handbook
for STATESMEN. By the same token, that influential (Christian)
philosopher Francis Bacon insisted we are much beholden to Machiavelli and
some others for writing what men do rather than what they OUGHT to do.
Please do not hear me pushing religion (though I call myself
Christian), but Machiavelli, as a good, for his time, Christian gentlemen
(although, of course, many, many, many Christian scholars would not allow
him to be so called) insisted that one of the problems with that faith was
that (paraphrasing again) something like "...if our religion (and
everybody in Florence had better be Christian in the early 1500s) demands
that you be strong, what it asks for is strength to suffer, rather than
strength to do bold things." He further insisted that Christianity turns
people away from this world, away from the collective responsibilities of
citizenship, towards individual salvation.... That is the effect of its
'truth.'
Where am I going with all this? PLEASE bear with me.
Although "The Prince" is Machiavelli's best known writing, because
of its controversial stances, his later -- and in my humble opinion most
foundational and thought through work -- "Discourses" offers advice to
citizens for a free state. His thinking in the "Discourses," there is
little doubt, significantly influenced later philosophers who are much
better known as laying the groundwork for what we have now come to
consider 'democracy.' He argued against the pure self-interest of
autocrats, because there is found not merely greed and mismanagement, but
uncontrolled risks taken in secrecy without any regard for civic
responsibilities. He insisted that "self-interet" passes itself off as
"rational activity" when, in fact it is irrational, because it is not
subject to any rules of ethics. He argued adamantly that when men's
(sorry, ladies, that's out of the culture of those times; his arguments
apply equally well to women today) reputations had been gained not by
public service but "...by private means, they are very dangerous and
extremely harmful." He thought that one of the likeliest souces of
corruption was the ability of the rich to buy influence by means of
patronage, nepotism, and favours. He believed in equality, in the sense
of the vigorous participation of the "plebs," or ordinary citizens, in the
political life of the ideal state and that in order to do so they had to
have freedom; that "...they value freedom simply in order to live
securely. As such, they are a vital check on the ambitions of the rich
and powerful few, who want to 'be free' to rule." He argued for that
equality because "...where it exists, it is impossible to set up a
principality; and where it does not exist, impossible to set up a
republic. Therefore government by the populace is better than government
by princes." He further insisted that government should be constituted
(constitution??) by a system of checks and balances so that no minority
could gain control or be controlled.
He was obviously not endeared by rulers. In fact, was tortured
and exiled in spite of his contributions to his city-state of Florence.
These thinkings were, obviously among many others, foundational
for 18th century people like David Hume ("Essays Moral and Political") and
Adam Smith ("Theory of Moral Sentiments" -- though, as we all know, better
known for his laissez-faire theory of economics in "The Nature and Causes
of the Wealth of Nations"); both of whom argued that ethics demand that
ideas of morality and PUBLIC INTEREST originate in the feelings of
sympathy people bear toward one another even when not bound by kinship or
other direct ties. Though many (of we prideful Americans) insist that we
originated everything, we all should know only too well that this
philosophical thread culminated in the arguments of John Locke that
sovereignty did not reside in the state by with the people, and that the
state is supreme but only if it is bound by civil law (law originating
within the body). ((Sound like Machiavelli??)) It was Locke's concern
that humanity had "natural" rights, and the primary responsibility and
duty of government is to protect those rights. His experiences of being
under control by a "theocracy" (as a young man he moved in the direction
of clericalism, but under the Pietistic government of the time, he could
not become part of a religious body which cotrolled people) convinced him
of the necessity of the separation of church and state (remember
Machiavelli's concerns about his own religion?). He advocated a system of
checks and balances in government, with an elected body as pre-eminent
(remember Machiavelli's desire that men should be free so they could
vigorously participate in the affairs of state?).
---- Nuff of that ----
I became interested in the "learning organization" because it
seems to me that it can only exist under conditions of maximum freedom.
The implications for that, in my humble opinion, for those of us
participating in this wonderful discussion group, are immense. So is the
belief in the nearly unimaginable potential of humanity which is only
beginning to be scratched. So is the belief in, and trustfulness in each
other and the caring for one another.
I see all of that being exemplified in this LISTSERV (generically
speaking).
I'm new. And I've just broken my own committment to myself to be
one of those "listeners/lurkers" for a much longer period of time than I
am doing.
But the comments about Machiavelli just got me going. I hope
those of you who may have found this diatribe insufferable will forgive
me. I'll go back to listening again. But I must tell you that I have
really come to like many of you in this brief period of getting acquainted
and that what Richard Karash has created is, to me, a wonderful and
exciting gift.
My thanks.
'Bye for a while.
Bill Fisher anbfishr@mail.ohio.net
--"bill fisher" <anbfishr@mail.ohio.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>