RE: Buddhism and Quality Circles

["D C Flatman" <d.flatman@dsl.pipex.com>]

I enjoyed Sean's posting about Buddhism and Quality Circles, "maybe its just
because I am younger ...".
Can I make two points - for now!
Firstly, and I may be being pedantic here, my understanding is that Buddhism
is not metaphysical.  It does not deal with first things, with how the
universe came into being, does not debate the what/how/why of existence.  It
starts from the point of our experience of existence and proposes a
practical wisdom for how to live.

Secondly, the relevance of linking Deming to Buddhism or any other theories
is surely a natural outcome of being curious, if you believe that Buddhism
is saying anything about how to live 'in organisations'.  Surely, to see
consistency between the profound basis of Deming's thinking and Buddhist
thinking could strengthen and deepen understanding.  After all, we know that
Newton's theories were not 'right'.  They are useful in certain (very
common) situations.  Who said "all models are wrong and some are useful"?
If Buddhist thinking or any other philosophy helps us to get to a deeper
level of understanding then we will be even more effective in applying
Deming's ideas and recognising their limitations.

David Flatman
Transition Partnerships

-----Original Message-----
From: clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu [mailto:clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu]
On Behalf Of Sean Stickle
Sent: 08 September 2005 14:21
To: den.list@deming.ces.clemson.edu
Subject: RE: Buddhism and Quality Circles

Maybe it's just that I am younger. Maybe it's just that I have read general
systems theory and molecular biology and other kinds of complex systems and
not needed metaphysical mechanisms. Maybe it's just that I am naturally
contrarian.

But for whatever reason, I think that this parade of Buddhism, Process
Theology, Taoism and other metaphysical-religious approaches to Deming stray
wide of the mark. It looks a lot like covering a fairly straightforward,
though subtle, practical theory with layer upon layer of mumbo-jumbo.

I don't need to be an Aristotelian to read and understand exactly what
Ptolemy is talking about in his great treatise on planetary motion. It is
presented clearly, demonstrated mathematically. I don't have to be a
sun-worshipping numerologist to understand Kepler's laws of planetary
motion. And I don't have to be a Christian alchemist to understand what
Newton was on about when he wrote *his* great treatise on planetary motion
and physical forces.

The beauty and power of Ptolemy, Kepler, and Newton is that their ideas are
clearly expressed and backed by rigorous analysis.

Their personal beliefs and idiosyncracies, like Deming's, might make for
interesting biographical reading. Certainly interesting in the context of
the history of scientific and process thought. But to argue that to
understand Deming it might be helpful to be a Buddhist or whatever just
reduces his ideas to some mushy branch of New Agey nonsense.

If Deming's ideas work, then they are useful. If they don't work, but are
just interesting from a Buddhist perspective (or Process Theology or
whatnot) then they are mere trinkets for historians of science to write
about in one of their numerous comparative histories journals.

I find Deming's ideas striking and powerful, his line of argument clear. I
do not see anything particularly mysterious about his arguments, and
certainly do not think they are relics of the Inscrutable East that the
doctrine of Orientalism furnishes us.

But that's just me.

--Sean