Vam, in this you and I are on opposite poles. I believe we are everything and can turn to no other place but ourselves for the root causes of our misbehavior. I agree my thoughts are presumptuous but I wouldn't call yours adolescent. Please offer me the same grace. I do however think that your path, while eventually leading to the same place as mine, is a very roundabout path to get there. And I do agree with systems such as you postulate, but only for short term temporary patches and fixes until we can get to the root causes which have been planted for a long time and go deep so it's going to take some doing to get down to them in many cases, such as is at hand.
On Aug 5, 7:16 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Gruff, you ( and I ) are nothing, nobodies, to really be " address > ( ing ) the root causes of humankind's misbehavior." You only have to > attempt with it with one person, anybody, you know. So, I find the > very thought presumptuous, and adolescent like. > > However, we all can and should try, in our own ways, provided we've > succeeded with ourself. I do it not because I have any hopes of > reclaiming some, but because that is how responsible I feel, for > myself. In short, because I cannot help myself from trying to do so > when I am faced with an occassion. Period. I rather consider the > entire characterstic leading to " humankind's misbehavior," the > nature of the cause, like the crookedness in a dog's tail ! > > In the meanwhile, I'd like to go for systems that would work. It would > be of course be more holistic, if we could work on the cause side too. > > On Aug 5, 6:55 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Vam, your exposition is interesting but if I'm reading you correctly, > > you seem to be saying that addressing the effects via a systemic > > methodology is more effective than attempting to address the root > > causes. Is this correct? If so I have to agree. That is akin to > > treating the symptoms of a disease rather than it's core cause. It > > will be a temporary fix at best. > > > That said, however, it seems that your method is the one most often > > chosen by our leaders, movers and shakers to correct the deeper > > problems in our society. But I disagree with the entire concept. > > Treating symptoms is MASH battlefield medicine and does nothing to > > alleviate or cure the root cause. Using your example regarding > > productivity and on-time attendance, if you set up a near perfect > > system to catch the tardy help you might eliminate the tardiness in > > the immediacy of the situation, but it changes nothing in that > > individual who is prone to being late. It does not change their > > attitude, value system, life view, motivation, effects of environment, > > etc. It merely makes them a scofflaw who has been forced to adapt to > > avoid being caught. Any real change would have to have a significant > > effect on that person's inner self to create a higher sense of > > responsibility, self-worth and moral behavior. > > > Seeking and treating the root causes may take longer but it's > > permanent and has a much greater and more positive effect on the > > individual and society as a whole. We cannot continue applying > > patchwork temporary fixes to deeper problems. I find it very > > difficult to accept that we can't address the root causes of > > humankind's misbehavior which is see as the only means of achieving > > the goals we seek. > > > On Aug 3, 10:43 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You know, Gruff, I'll share a case we faced with a huge MNC. It was > > > about productivity which, in short, was about wastage ( pilferage, > > > stealing ) of resources, including time. One specific issue was on - > > > time attendance. Since it involves human beings, everything in our > > > backgound ( within and without ) causally converges on this issue ... > > > our attitude, value system and life view, motivation, effects of > > > environment, our home, inconsistencies within the organisation, our > > > commute and the means, etc. > > > > Clearly, addressing the causes would have been limited and taken a > > > long time for effect. The solution : Define the value and communicate > > > it clearly, including the effects of breach. The repercussions ranged > > > from reward to punishment, promotion to dismissal. All that was > > > required was installation of a transparent and fail - safe system at > > > the gate for satisfactory result. > > > > The result was not perfect, even though the system was close to > > > perfect in transparency and accuracy terms. The man or his nature, his > > > philosophy and his fears, were not material, of zilch relevance, so > > > long as one passed through the gate at 9 AM or before. If he didn't, > > > the system let him ( and others ) know. > > > > This is what I am speaking of. If we cannot address the cause(s), we > > > can have a transparent and thorough monitoring system to address the > > > effect(s). > > > > On Aug 3, 10:03 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Chris actually got this round going back on Aug 2, 1:11 pm with his > > > > series of one-liners but I'd like to see the both of you in this as > > > > well. > > > > > Nice summary Francis. Yes, I can see we are both arguing along very > > > > similar lines and aiming at the same goal. But I'd like to see you > > > > and Chris get into the fray as well. The more voices the more stable > > > > and productive the discussion would be. After all, we each know each > > > > other well enough to assess each others words fairly well. > > > > > /e > > > > > On Aug 3, 9:23 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Now this is what I call a discussion, Vam and gruff! (BB47 and > > > > > deripsni could both learn from you :-)) > > > > > > Maybe it's because the three of us have been around here for a while > > > > > that I can really appreciate what both of you are saying, because I > > > > > know something about the way the two of you think about a lot of > > > > > things. Actually, I see you both arguing along similar lines; Vam has > > > > > a professional background in systems analysis and quality management > > > > > and has a lot of experience in the practical work of building, using > > > > > and changing systems, while keeping his gaze frimly fixed on the goals > > > > > (QM as it should be be, but, in my experience, so seldom is); gruff as > > > > > someone who sees people/societies trying stuff, getting into messes, > > > > > starting over and, somehow, sometimes, getting it a bit more right the > > > > > next time (that old 51%/49% optimistic analogy that I often doubt but > > > > > always admire). > > > > > > So ... I think I'll stay out of this for a while and hope you both > > > > > carry on! > > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
