Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Robertson claims that the term holacracy is derived from the term holarchy; the latter was coined by Arthur Koestler in his 1967 book The Ghost in the Machine. [ 8 ] Koestler wrote that a holarchy is composed of holons (Greek: ὅλον, holon neuter form of ὅλος, holos "whole") or units that are autonomous and self-reliant, but also ...
Arthur Koestler CBE (UK: / ˈ k ɜː s t l ər /, US: / ˈ k ɛ s t-/; German:; Hungarian: Kösztler Artúr; 5 September 1905 – 1 March 1983) was an Austro-Hungarian-born author and journalist. Koestler was born in Budapest , and was educated in Austria, apart from his early school years.
The Act of Creation is a 1964 book by Arthur Koestler.It is a study of the processes of discovery, invention, imagination and creativity in humour, science, and the arts. It lays out Koestler's attempt to develop an elaborate general theory of human creativit
Category for non-fiction books by Arthur Koestler. Pages in category "Books by Arthur Koestler" The following 16 pages are in this category, out of 16 total.
The term holon was coined by Arthur Koestler in The Ghost in the Machine (1967), though Koestler first articulated the concept in The Act of Creation (1964), in which he refers to the relationship between the searches for subjective and objective knowledge: Einstein's space is no closer to reality than Van Gogh's sky.
Koestler's contribution appeared on 2 October 1969. Sins of Omission: While Six Million Died by Arthur D. More. Reviewed in the Observer, 7 April 1968. The Future if any: The Biological Time-Bomb by Gordon Rattray Taylor. Reviewed in the Observer, 21 April 1968. Going Down the Drain : The Doomsday Book by Gordon Rattray Taylor.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
According to Koestler, the great cosmological systems, from Ptolemy to Copernicus, have always reflected the metaphysical and psychological prejudices of their authors. Furthermore, it would be wrong to think of the evolution of scientific progress as if it moved in a purely rational way on an ascending vertical line.