I hate to say it, but you are speaking platitudes that don't stem from
original thought, but from more ancient platitudes. That has to be so
when the typical reference of "proof" is, "it is so because HE said it's
so." The Social Scientist is apparently well read, but lacking even one
Steve Kurtz wrote:
Greetings,
Ed Weick's piece grabbed me, so I'm sharing it. I agree with much of Jay's
work, as does Ed. Futurework is a damn good list.
Steve
Brad: Virtually everything you say is correct. However, with az bit of
rigor, we can more sharply define all the elements of this discussion to
simple understanding -- something that the Real Sciences should have
done instead of leaving it to the Unreal (Social) Sciences. (I'm not
condemning the
Sorry guys gals,
but it ain't that simple. Just ask Hall, Geertz or any of the
others who have come to realize that the world does not only have
two sides. Brad, that Maslow hierarchy exists as a holistic
frame, in the moment, not as an order of events. I would encourage
a look at his
Ray E. Harrell wrote:
Sorry guys gals,
but it ain't that simple. Just ask Hall, Geertz or any of the others
who have come to realize that the world does not only have two
sides. Brad, that Maslow hierarchy exists as a holistic frame, in
the moment, not as an order of events. I
