Re: den.list-d Digest V2003 #48

["Patterson - Powell" <patterson.powell@ntlworld.com>]

Dear DENizens

I am new to the group but feel that I cannot let aim number 9 in the 'please
do' list pass without comment.  This is also related to the 'Thinking about
Thinking' theme mentioned by Bill Bellows in the 'Ongoing Discussions' dated
22nd Sept.

Aim No 9 says : -

"Try to state ideas and theories as conditional opinions as opposed
to absolutes - this produces better dialogue.  As one DENizen stated: 'I
try to use words such as "sometimes", "may", "maybe", "might", "could",
etc.' "

I apologise for any unease this may cause others but the grounds for my own
unease are as follows.

"Conditional opinions" on any subject can only ever provide us with
provisional knowledge.  In order to grasp a System of Profound Knowledge,
absolutes are essential.

All dialogue is good of course but dialogue is aimless unless we are able to
arrive at some conclusion or achieve some aim through that dialogue.

My own introduction to Deming's philosophy came in May this year when I
attended a seminar presented by Nigel Clements in Doncaster.   The title of
the seminar was "Hitting the target and missing the point."

The aim of producing better dialogue, in my view, misses the point.
Reaching
conclusions on how to better apply Deming's philosophy is a higher and more
worthy aim.  This IS, after all, a stated aim of the DEN.

The terms "sometimes", "may", "maybe", "might", "could", etc.' " are all
expressions of uncertainty.  For some reason which I fail to understand,
certainty and absolutes have become undesirable and unfashionable
commodities.

"Sometimes", "may", "maybe", "might", "could", etc.' " are also expressions
of possibility.  The term 'IS', is a statement of actuality and the term
'MUST BE' is one of necessity.

I see nothing wrong with using such absolute terms.  Unfortunately such
expressions are sometimes perceived as hostile.  Any perceived hostility
lies in the mind of the perceiver rather than in the expression of certain
or absolute knowledge.  Absolute knowledge is neither hostile nor friendly.
It is entirely neutral.

It is difficult to grasp a system of profound knowledge from statements of
possibility.  If we begin with a statement of possibility, we can only ever
draw possible conclusions.  If we begin with a statement of actuality, we
can only reach actual conclusions.  Only by beginning with statements of
necessity can we reach the absolute conclusions demanded by a 'System of
Profound Knowledge'.

I am aware that some will find this comment unpalatable, especially from a
newcomer, but could I remind you that Dr. D. didn't reach his position of
acclaim by mincing his words.  He told it how it IS and how it MUST BE.

Yours sincerely

Mark Powell

patterson.powell@ntlworld.com