RE: [unrev-II] Re: Towards an atomic data structure (Somuthing happened on the way to the forum)

From: Gil Regev (gil.regev@epfl.ch)
Date: Tue May 02 2000 - 04:56:32 PDT

  • Next message: Gil Regev: "RE: [unrev-II] Relational thinking and improvement"

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Henry van Eyken [mailto:vaneyken@sympatico.ca]
      Sent: samedi, 29. avril 2000 01:52
      To: unrev-II@egroups.com
      Subject: Re: [unrev-II] Re: Towards an atomic data structure (Somuthing
    happened on the way to the forum)

      I sent this message in reponse to Gil Regev. Somehow it got cut out:

      Henry wrote
    > Loved your comment, Gil, and the humor that went with it. To be frank, I
    > am not pleased with myself for having posted that item
    > yesterday. It is so much easier to criticize than to build, isn't it? On
    > the other hand, it may have been well I did it because of the central
    > statement that the same message may very well fit one person's
    > experience and not another.
      I liked your comments very much. I think that it allowed us to put things
    in perspective and be more humble about what we do. Also, it could lead to
    new ways of looking at what we do and maybe take different directions.

    > I have difficulty perceiving language as some sort of a bitmap because
    > its sources, thoughts, are not akin to bitmaps. They seem more
    >like jpeg to me -- highly dynamic jpegs, that is. Putting thought into
    > words cannot be, I believe, an accurate one-to-one process
    > because the very uttering and structuring of words feeds back into
    > thought, thereby altering it, and because language is less dynamic
    > than thought. There is a freezing out process. Does this make language
    > more tractably atomic than thought? And will it have an
    > atomizing (structuring) effect on the thinking of the listener? And, if
    > so, how effective, and for how long
      From Sensemaking in Organizations (Karl Weick): "How can I know what I
    think until I see what I say?" Weick's argument is that sense making starts
    with the act of putting our thoughts into words which we then hear and that
    makes us understand what we've been thinking.

      Gil



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 02 2000 - 05:05:19 PDT