The Sandorian Grove: From Theory to Praxis: an example & thoughts about Mastery and Organization(s)
 From Theory to Praxis: an example & thoughts about Mastery and Organization(s) 4 comments

 [< Back] [The Sandorian Grove]

Category:

26 Jul 2008 @ 06:14 by vaxen : The gunas...
are 'binding forces.' "The Dream of Ravan" - http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/The%20DreamOfRavan_ThreeGunas_2003_.htm

Beyond 'them' - 'we' are...

Tri Gunas Rahitam... Nitya Mahan Namamyaham ... Aham si chit.

Chit Shakti Vilas
Tamas Rajas Satwas
Shen Chi Jen
0 - 00 - 000
Ad Infinitum - Oderunt Dum Metuam

Zero/yin is flow - One/yang is contact. 0=8=yin 1=7=yang 8+1=9=Old Yang 7-1=6=old yin Such grace!!! ;)

http://www.afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Yijing&no=0

27 Jul 2008 @ 06:17 by vaxen : Gee...
mx your minimal tools essay has 119 comments! Does that say something or what? ;)

29 Jul 2008 @ 05:38 by fill-void @84.73.101.177 : Where start "consecutive analysis"?
Maybe this is besides the point - I didn't understand the more concrete parts of the example. I suspect I got (and even use "naturally") some basic structure and function to which is pointed anyway, and comment what seems a useability problem to me:
You write "we can find the binary structure of anything and use this to determine the 'codes' of all aspects of an organization until the desired resolution of the model." Well, if I look at where I have difficulties, this would be of limited help. Because even when I arrive at finding the binary structure (which already is easier said than done), the task of relating the correct "resolution level" to a given problem or conflict is immense - usually, according to my experience, the bad situation involves all levels, and the difficulty is then to determine where to start the "consecutive analysis". Top down? Bottom up? Somewhere in the middle? And where's buttom, where's top - if the conflict is not viewed from a 3rd dimension, quite difficult to establish. But if one could look at it from a 3rd dimension, one probably wouldn't have created the conflict in the first place.
Thus the evaluation of the start of use involves ressources and probabilities, and their optimum estimation - for which the binary structure workout may be an approximation and help, but - not quite in the way I understand your example. One couldn't establish the binary structure at first and then work on the "consecutive analysis", but one would start with a hypothetical approximation of the binary structure and an estimation (estimating the resources too) where to best start the analysis, and then on going on toggle between precising more and more the approximation of the binary structure and analysing more. The reach of the precise binary structure would then be congruent to the resolution of the conflict - all before was only hypothetical approximations.
The dealing with which and with the concurring levels down and up the binary trees already before the resolution hopefully was more fun than tears.
I wonder - wonder! - if even bottlenecks or "non-optimal throughputs" are not construed to have fun, despite the tears. My efficiency protesting devil wags his tail on this wondering, while my discipline asking devil aghastly shakes his head. And I come to the hypothetical approximation that this is a hypothetical approximation which only serves to guess that I still face too much or too little or the too wrong or the too right bottlenecks - depending on from where I look to where, and depending on the devil over which's shoulder I glance.

Seriously, I don't see in this how the "resolution level where to start addressing the conflict" is determined. (Perhaps this is the same as not understanding the Toth diagram, this only relates to this single essay.)

29 Jul 2008 @ 14:16 by mx @189.68.178.24 : resolution
the term 'resolution' is so overloaded with different meanings that Wikipedia has an entire and very long disambiguation page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution

in any case, for practical applications, especially conflicts, you do the process UNTIL the desired resolution is achieved. No need to think about it beforehand.

As for the start, you take an outbreak of an actual conflict (Joey hits Mary on the playground with a bat), and GUIDE the parties through the analysis. This requires two things: the mediator him/herself needs to be internally and externally free and independent of the conflict, the parties need to be willing to confront the roots of the conflict.

It is NOT an 'easy-to-do' process but, if done, works miracles.

 Your Name: Your URL: (or email) Subject: Comment: For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other articles in
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:18: A summary of the summaries of Max Sandor's projects
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:04: Project Summary 6. Game Theory - why and how do we manifest?
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:02: Project Summary 5: Polar Dynamics - theory and praxis of polarities
23 Sep 2016 @ 17:01: Project Summary 4: Quantum Fá - a practical guide to this Universe
23 Sep 2016 @ 16:45: Project Summary 3: The Book of Numbers
22 Sep 2016 @ 16:12: Project Summary 2: UrTon - the basis of spoken languages
18 Sep 2016 @ 00:32: Project Summary 1: The ConCur Paradigm - the structure of Reality
9 Aug 2016 @ 14:35: Robot Psychologist (by Awaz)
9 Aug 2016 @ 14:35: Project Summary 7: Archetypology of the Human Being
1 Aug 2016 @ 00:40: Victory, submission or what else? Sign and symbol of the Rio 2016 Kickoff

 [< Back] [The Sandorian Grove] [PermaLink]?  [TrackBack]?