U Theory and Tokoroten
t> I finished reading U-theory introductory book introduced by nishio. U-theory is logic in the first half, but becomes occult in the second half. I know it is correct, but this is correct for those who have experienced U-theory,
I need to convert the second half into language and logic for proselytizing.
t> Is this just because the person who wrote the introductory book couldn't verbalize it and swung to the occult?
Is there another way to look at the big book translation?
Those who can identify the occult can read it and discount it, understanding that it is not the core of the argument.
Positive effect on those who cannot identify the occult.
n> Well, it may depend on what part of Tokoroten calls occult.
The second half of the Introduction to U Theory is about the seminars that the translators are doing, right?
That is not what the big U theory says.
The review says, "Photos and experiments with water crystals by a Japanese man, Masaru Emoto, which are introduced in the epilogue.
t> However, if you verbalize or logicize it, it becomes how, and the self is not transformed because it is executed by emulation, so maybe you are intentionally avoiding how. n> It is possible that the second half of the how in the Introduction to U Theory is the publisher's intention.
Even if he thinks, "If I write how, it's meaningless.
PS: Otto Scharmer's book, the big book, is not accessible to the general public as a result of trying to avoid the how.
T> Ah, so this is a book advertising the seminar. I'm convinced.
Is this the approach of a religious recruiter who says that if you take a seminar, you will be enlightened?
In the meantime, I will read the translation of the big book one.
t> U-theory is a very understandable labeling for those who have experienced crystallization, verbalizing their personal experience, but if you try to share it with others based on this label, you will fail. But if you try to share with others based on these labels, you will fail. n> Tokoroten gave a good labeling to what I thought when I read U Theory w>U Theory is a labeling for those who have experienced crystallization that helps them verbalize their experience.
It's a book that assumes you have "experience" beforehand, and encourages verbalizing it, to [Be aware of it and be able to repeat it. n> I imagine it is similar to cataloging "coding styles that any competent programmer would have found on their own" with a name like "Mediator Pattern" so that conversations can be had at the level of abstraction of patterns.
flow theory and U-theory are close, but I thought it was something different, and now I'm here to verbalize it. [The flow is the process of using your brain to the limit to solve a problem, and then you lose your self and switch to a purely problem-solving state of mind, resulting in overwhelming performance. n> I wonder if flow is the state in which the distractions disappear by working on a problem of just the right difficulty level, and presenting is flow when you are working on the problem of "taking what is happening as it is and finding the structure in it".
t> flow, an appropriate level of challenge is desirable because every time a problem arises, it blows the thinking out of the water.
With presenting, it's a state of being able to think comprehensively without stopping to think on the issue by gathering all the issues in advance. I wonder if it is.
I think the presenting is probably very similar to the state of group flow. Is there a difference between n> flow and group flow?
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/U理論とところてん using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.