Time: Tue Dec 16 13:58:53 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Infiltrator Alert from IP List (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:29:46 >From: believer@telepath.com >To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com >Subject: IP: ATTENTION LISTEES! > >Dear Listees: > >Some of you may be wondering why the IP List Administrator, Ken, has posted >so many articles over the past few days about the RAND Corporation, Delphi >Techniques, and PPBS. There was a reason, and we are now ready to set some >things before you so you know what has been happening with the list lately. > >On November 12, 1997, a man named Carl Reimann subscribed to the IP list. >For almost a month, he posted no information but simply lurked observing >our activities here. Then on December 11, 1997, he began posting small >comments about articles which appeared on the list. Some of Mr. Reimann’s >comments were just enough “on the edge” to cause us to begin an >investigation on exactly who he was and to determine why he was in our >midst. What we discovered was very disturbing, and for the protection of >the list, Mr. Reimann has been unsubscibed. > >For those of you with an interest in “agents of change” (a topic that has >many names and characteristics), we will provide a bit of background >information here, and you will understand why Mr. Reimann was unsubscribed, >and why it may be in your best interest to recognize these things when >Reimann appears on other lists. He has currently been sighted on some home >schooling lists, as well as lists whose focus is purely political. It will >also be useful for you to recognize the characteristics of these “agents of >change” who occasionally appear in our midst either to study our >“right-wing fanaticism” or to attempt to influence thinking and behavior. > >Mr. Reimann is an internationally known liberal facilitator with an agenda >aimed at influencing and classifying what is known as “Intended Behavior.” >In short, his life’s work is dedicated to social engineering by means of >the use of dialectic, ... sometimes also called “total quality management” >or “contiuous quality improvement” or "the Hegelian Dialectic" -- >benign-sounding names for behavior modification as a result of manipulation >of thought. > >Mr. Reimann moderates (facilitates) a list called HEPROC, the Higher >Education Processes network. HEPROC is comprised of 2200 members in 40 >countries, and over a dozen forums covering specialized subjects, all >dealing with behavior modification in the education or business setting, >and the accompanying agenda of moving that behavior modification into the >work place on a world-wide scale. > >Mr. Reimann is also a large supporter of the RAND Corporation and its >objectives and agenda. Note his post of 11/20/97: > >“In 1991, RAND (a policy research institute based in Santa Monica, CA) >established a research program known as the Institute on Education and >Training (IET). The IET's purpose is to conduct research, analysis, and >technical assistance that will help improve policy and practice in >education and training in this country. The IET's research agenda >presently concentrates in these areas: assessment and accountability; >alternative institutional reform concepts; preparation for work and >economic effects; educational technology; the social context of education >and training; and implications of fiscal trends for education....” > >This behavior modification in both education and business is brought about >by the three steps of the dialectic process. Most of you will instantly >recognize these steps: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis -- by which means >a lie can become truth in the minds of those manipulated by the process, >and thus their resultant behavior and decision-making will be influenced >and altered by the "new thinking." > >The word “progressive” in progressive education, and the word “quality” in >total quality management mean exactly the same thing -- they mean “dialectic.” > >The dialectic method holds that the process of development should not be >understood as simply a movement in a circle, but as an onward and upward, >three-dimensional movement; as a transition from old quality to new >quality, from lower to higher -- a sort of paradigm shift. Structurally, >this is the same as evolutionary, new age, humanistic, or Marxist thought. > >Bloom’s “Taxonomy” is the book upon which all progressive education and >process education is based. The very first sentence of this book says, >“Taxonomy is a classification of plants and animals.” But educators have >come to think that this is a classificiation of children’s different >learning styles. HOWEVER, on page 15, Bloom states that it is a >CLASSIFICATION OF INTENDED BEHAVIOR. On page 32, Bloom writes, “All truth >is relative and there are no hard and fast truths that exist for all time >and all places.” > >He is not saying that there is no truth, but that everything is in flux and >all truth changes all the time. Therefore, as he states on page 38, >“Although information and knowledge are important outcomes of education, no >educator would regard this as primary.” > >What then *is* the PRIMARY focus of education? The new focus is the >PROCESS -- the three steps of the dialectic or problem-solving model: >Create a problem; Generate chaos; Offer solution -- thesis, anti-thesis, >synthesis. > >Once a person allows himself to participate in this process, he will >eventualy and slowly change. In fact, this slow change is built into the >system through the following steps familiar to anyone with knowledge of >OBE, TQM, or Marxist philosophy. The three steps are: > >1. Traditional >2. Transitional >3. Transformational > >The name of the game is CONSENSUS -- where everybody leaves his values at >the door. Practical judgment is now defined as three phases or steps which >are: > >1. Identify a problem >2. Look for solutions >3. Formation of plan of action and then assess. > >It is by this process that people become more “dialectical” in their >reasoning. They can then be easily persuaded that a living (dialectic) >Constitution is acceptable, as opposed to inalieanable (didactic) rights. >This is why there is such a sense of urgency and rebellion to change our >Constitution into a living (dialectic) document. Didactic people will, >after that change, be totally unacceptable. > >“Human Relations and Curriculum Change” states on page 56 that individual >freedom leads to chaos, and sometimes force must be used as Hitler did, to >see that democratic responsibility toward the group as a whole is >maintained. No individual must be allowed to rise on the basis of personal >achievement. Individuality is never praised. But rather it is in >conforming to and agreeing with the dialectic group that one is praised and >rewarded. > >In the book “Critical Thinking,” Richard Paul writes, “Dialectical thought >is the master-principle of all rational experience and human emancipation >(freedom from God). It cultivates the mind and orients the person as >technical training cannot. It meets our need to bring harmony and order >into our lives, to work out an amalgamation of ideas from various >dimensions of experience, to achieve, in short, intellecutal, emotional, >and moral integrity. The proper doing of it is our only defense against >closemindedness.” > >THIS is the premise behind process (dialectic) education -- and that >“education” is not confined to schools and universities. It is ongoing in >business, economics, and industry, in religion and philosophy and -- to the >extent that we fail to recognize it and defend against it -- on THIS LIST. > >Mr. Reimann has been in our midst, attempting by means of his commentary, >to draw us into conversation and/or disagreement to achieve one of two things: > >1. To study the phenomenon of what he considers “right-wing extremism” ... >particularly remembering that our didactic outlook (Judeo-Christian) is one >of the more difficult mind-sets to alter by means of dialectic manipulation >because of our beliefs in absolute spiritual and/or political truth; or > >2. To bring his dialectic techniques into the open list forum in an >attempt to perform change upon our thinking, and consequently, to modify >our behaviors. > >Either way, the List Staff did not feel that any of the listees needed to >be guinea pigs for a socialist experiment in behavior modification; nor did >we feel you should be subjected to dialectic manipulation -- especially if >we had not devoted some time to explaining how it works so you can >recognize it when you encounter it. > >The dialectic has many forms, but only one basic structure: > >1. Problem identified 1. Oppose >2. Potential solutions 2. Ridicule >3. Solution/Evaluation 3. Offer solution > >1. Create crisis 1. Thou shalt not... >2. Generate chaos/opposition 2. Did God really say? >3. Offer solution 3. You can be like God > >Synonyms for Dialectic: > >1. Quality (Total Quality Management; Continuous Quality Improvement) >2. Progressive education >3. Process education >4. Global citizen >5. Living (changing) document >6. Higher order thinking skills >7. Critical thinking skills >8. Socratic process >9. Paradoxical revelation >10. Adaptability >11. Cooperative >12. Give me the short version and I’ll decide for myself what it means. >13. Whole language (create new meanings) > >Mr. Reimann and his colleagues also employ what is known as “Discrete >Chaos” in their behavior modification and social engineering efforts. A >post from Mr. Reimann’s list on this subject is attached at the end of this >message, and should be required reading for those who want to understand >the thinking of these “agents of change.” > >We, the List Staff, hope that you now can be more guarded and aware about >some of the techniques that occasionally show up on this list, against >which we must stand together. > >A small archive of Mr. Reimann’s internet activity has been compiled, and >if anyone is truly interested in reviewing or analysing his activities and >objectives, that information will be forwarded to you upon request, or you >can just dig it out of the net yourself. It’s all there. Nothing is hidden >or concealed. Reimann and his associates believe in what they are doing >and are proud of their efforts. It is important that we are aware of these >efforts and resist them, lest through ignorance we inadvertently succumb to >them. > >Thank you for your time and attention. God bless you! > >Jan, Co-Owner, Ignition-Point >Michele, Co-Owner, Ignition-Point >Ken, List Administrator, igntiion-Point > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > >"Discrete Chaos and Learning Orgs LO826" > >Replying to Tim Sullivan, and others who have asked about what I mean by >"discrete chaos" and what is its relevance to Learning Organizations ?? > >With the term Discrete chaos, I am referring to the sudden, and highly >destabilizing, if not breakdown effects, of random variation in >organizational systems. These phenomena, are I believe, behind much of the >"fire-fighting" modes which swamp managers and organizations from time to >time. Such situations further exacerbate a blaming mentality both with >managers and with operational staff. Many of these situations are caused in >our experience, by the flagrant use of the uniformity assumption to >describe the dynamic behavior or organizations in systems planning and >especially financial modelling activities. > >The problem arises because conventional notions of capacity are too simple. > >Readers of Senge's materials and the earlier Systems Dynamics works are >familiar with the fact that much business culture does not even acknowledge >dynamics as such. What I am saying is that using continuous systems >modelling packages like iThink, Dynamo, Stella and many years ago, CSMP, >one must also take care that in many instances that random variation in >demand and supply, and in reliability of system components, are modelled >and anticipated properly. If this is not done, then even though the >beautiful systemic effects of various negative and positive feedback loops >are modelled, much real world but discrete, dynamics are missed. >Unfortunately, in the financial modelling circles near board-level >decision-making all of this is assumed to be mere operational detail, >neglecting to see that bottom-line profit and quality hinge on such dynamics. > >The basic issue is a capacity question from introductory queuing theory. >It is well known that under circumstances in which there is significant >variation in the times between the arrivals of discrete items, that if the >arrival rate is close to the service rate of the workstation, that huge >congestion can occur. Careful study from our animations of this phenomena >show that the behaviour is highly varied and unstable, virtually chaotic. >[Very often the chaotic effects of a burst of congestion has a recovery >time which is in the same order of magnitude of the burst frequency, >guaranteeing a system breakdown.] Why is this observation important in >organizations?? > >People normally think of production and service activity in terms of Rates >(items per hour, transactions per day, tonnage per year, etc.). Planning in >corporate culture abounds with this thinking, and continuous systems >modelling tends to reinforce it. People also assume that full resource >utilization and maximum efficiency is the best policy as well (in addition >to human response objections, this is also a blatantly incorrect assumption >on purely technical grounds outside the scope of this discussion). Hence, >planners will often create situations it is assumed that full resource >capacity should be used, even in conditions of rampant variation such as >the very bursty demand for goods and services. Unwittingly, by this kind >of planning they create the very conditions which cause congestion, often >spreading congestion which lead to various kinds of system breakdown, hence >the fire fighting. > >We have been exploring software modelling and management consulting >approaches to address such systemic failures in organizations. One >apparently little known fact has emerged. That is, that one cannot speak of >Capacity of a system in which there is significant variation in dynamics >(very few do not), without specifying the degree of system reliability >which one can tolerate at full capacity. Pushing the system to capacity >creates the breakdown effects alluded to above. > >We have seen over and over again, the detrimental effects of not >acknowledging these discrete dynamics in organizations, especially when >coupled to performance measurements which do not take the whole system into >account. These effects are not just on human relations, and harmony in the >workplace, there impact upon the bottom line can be terminal. > >There are other aspects to discrete chaos which we have also investigated. >In particular, a connectivity avalanche (or collapse) which occurs in the >evolution of connections in random networks. > >[END] > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail