Posted by Mezei on July 06, 1999 at 10:34:29:

In Reply to: DIK = Dangerous typology! posted by Denham on July 05, 1999 at 22:36:07:

Denham, this appears to me to be existentialism. In other words, nothing really exists (except in our paradigm) therefore any form of classification is 'dangerous' because it imposes a form or rationale onto someone else. Which is fine in the world of philosophy, when the ultimate idea of the 'good' or the 'true' is the 'goal'. However, if this form of thinking were prevelant in the world of business, very soon now the business of commerce and industry would become a part of existentialism. Which is probably a good thing. But nonetheless, submitting that 'dangerous' is part and parcel of this discussion smacks of the worst form of censorship, because it is the subversive and the radical element in society that is considered 'dangerous', that 'dangerous' ways of thinking are to be stamped out and replaced with 'correct' ways of thinking, or of perceiving, and quite frankly reeks of extremism.

Having said that, all views have always been welcome here, but I'm calling the kettle black as far as this goes.

Don

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: More on "Dangerous": Can "Dangerous" be "Fun"? Yogesh Malhotra 21:35:35 7/06/99 (7)
  • Re: More on "Dangerous": Can "Dangerous" be "Fun"? John Tieso 09:05:40 7/07/99 (6)
    • Re: More on "Dangerous": Can "Dangerous" be "Fun"? Mezei 10:24:44 7/07/99 (5)
      • DIK Martyn R Jones 12:11:50 7/07/99 (4)
        • Re: DIK John Tieso 08:38:31 7/08/99 (3)
          • What makes a good CKO? Christina Cheng 02:43:15 7/11/99 (2)
            • Re: What makes a good CKO? John Tieso 11:09:15 7/14/99 (1)
              • Re: What makes a good CKO? CJSekhar 20:45:38 9/21/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: