On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 17:32, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > > > This so true that this management style is named in French "concertation" > > > and is used all the time: The word does not even exist in English to the > > > point that "concertation" in English means the opposite, ie contention. > > > >I have to say something about this hint of Structuralism, though. Just > >because there's no one-word label (or multi-word idiom) for a concept in > >a language doesn't mean those native speakers haven't learned the idea. > > True. But it is far more difficult to work and build on it in common (what > a culture is). Look at Joe Sims: he published a memo on the GA describing > a concerted management and some subsidiarity. Quite good. Then he > called it "coordination" because this is the only word available. > And from that he said "ICANN" coordinates, being the boss and killing > everything. ICANN is to be a servant to a consensus not a corodinator. equivocation is a logical fallacy whether you use a conventional term from your culture or redefine an existing word. I do agree that having a common cultural term used in its conventional sense can better manifest instances of equivocation. > This is why I try to introduce "concertance" as a word to ballance > "dominance" in the governance understood as a job (French) and > not a methodologt (American). yeah, I think you're right, at least insofar as showing logical fallacies more easily. > >For example, there's a very real fight in the Boy Scouts of America, > >right now, over this issue (central vs local control). > > That is a Boy Scout recurrent problem. This is the Patrol system. actually, I was thinking more about national vs regional vs troop control over certain issues (e.g., gays in Scouting). there's a lot of disagreement over who does/should control what policies. -s
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part