Posted by Reilly Atkinson on January 21, 2000 at 15:50:07:

In Reply to: Re: KM -- Why Bother? posted by Mezei on January 21, 2000 at 09:59:06:

Don -- How does the KM you describe differ from the pursuit of traditional Natural Philosophy? And, if it is -- which I quite firmly believe --, why the need for a new name?

And, of course, people still argue with great passion about the issue of:"is Nature managed, and who is the manager...", or is it governed by the Darwinism of material. Centuries of research, thought and argument have lead to wonderful insights, but precious few answers.

Your notion of "opposites" sounds somewhat Hegelian. Trouble is, in practice you usually have many "opposites", and with many the issue of how to deal with lots of competing forces is far from simple.

Regards,
Reilly

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: KM -- Why Bother? Mezei 17:29:26 01/21/00 (4)
  • Re: KM -- Why Bother? Reilly Atkinson 20:02:30 01/21/00 (3)
    • Re: KM -- Why Bother? Mezei 11:10:02 01/26/00 (0)
    • How does KM help get things done? Denham 21:54:34 01/21/00 (1)
      • Re: How does KM help get things done? Reilly Atkinson 21:30:44 01/24/00 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: