- Greg

I truly love your blog. They way you fearlessly bring ideas together is amazing. I find myself critiquing your work only because I want it to be “more right”.

What Goedel proved was that in any logical system there are statements concerning the objects in the system that cannot be proved from any set of postulates. For example, in plane geometry there is a postulate something like “if two lines in a plane are perpendicular to a third line in the plane, the first two lines do not intersect” (parallel lines never meet). It is not obvious why this has to be an assumption, but it cannot be proved from other Euclidian postulates (Riemann tried and discover a whole new geometry). The KG conclusion was that no logical system based on a finite list of assumptions can be complete.
The self-contradictory proof was known long before KG.

The hardest thing I ever did was to wrap my brain around the notion that light was both a wave and a particle. If you look at it like a wave, it acts like a wave. If you look at it like a particle, it acts like a particle. Once I felt comfortable with !Both! in Physics, grasping that ideas like Top2Bottom and Bottom2Top somehow being both correct or best or true was simple. My practical criteria for perspective selection is “is it useful?”.
Hal Stull´s last [type] ..EA Analytics

btw. I was checking out some of the videos on your site. Pretty cool!

- Greg

Welcome back. Good to see you again.

You make a good point. I don’t think it is a question that should be answered. The whole point of the exercise is to decide a priori which information your going to ignore and that’s a judgment that needs to be made on a case by case basis.

One of the great things about the new science of social networks (not to be confused with the new bullshit of social media) is that influence can be tracked in network studies. Inevitably, the result of these studies is always surprising (i.e. some anonymous middle manager ends up being the go to guy for answers, lots of info gets passed on by smokers, etc.)

- Greg

Your post makes for interesting reading mate. The ancient aspect of this debate was particularly enjoyable.

I can’t help but wonder if it will ever be fully resolved though. As organisations have evolved so their needs and operational requirements have altered. The continual rise of the multinationals, particularly those in the manufacturing space, and their continual quest for more/bigger/better has fuelled this debate further.

In the recent past, I suspect P&G might have pushed the debate more openly with the change to a more centralised leadership position of GBUs and MDOs. Unilever have somewhat emulated this with Brand Developers and Brand Builders and am sure there are many more examples.

I guess my question to put out there would be is anyone really doing it well? Many have and continue to try, but are there leading examples out there among the 100s of thousands of businesses that we could learn from?

Cheers
Dick