Re: Shared Vision Tough Spots LO875

Mariann Jelinek (mxjeli@dogwood.tyler.wm.edu)
Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:02:38 -0400

Replying to LO843 --

Jim's response to my stories comment, was that he came out,
>
>Fence-sitting, comfortably. The question I'm occupied with is
>epistemological: how can a story contain "knowledge"? How can singular
>occurrences (real or imaginary) instruct us? And if they can instruct us,
>how in the world does the instruction we derive from them relate to our
>"general knowledge" - our grand theories and systems.
>

Perhaps the underlying difficulty is the "mystery" of it all- that
insight and understanding, "getting " a joke, koan or parable, is somehow
grasping the ineffable (understanding beyond what is in the literal words
because we somehow transform the analogical links into our own frame of
meaning. Seems to me that this means a translation of sorts, from the
singularity of a particular instance (a particular one, from Samaria, and
what he did with another particular one, found on the road) to the general
guideline to speak of. Just as you say,

>As a bare minimum, then, a story is a kind of existence theorem: "This
>happened." And therefore "This is a possible thread through the world".
[snip]

In learning, a highly individual "aha!" that explodes in the brain
(in VERY short periods of time) creates massive electrical discharge,
according to some research on humor). So physiologically, we can document
what happens when somebody "gets it" - though it's not necessarily true
that their understanding coincides with yours or mine! When the learning
happens interpersonally, between two or more, discussion and interchange
can play a role (as can stories, which illustrate "how we do things around
here," as well as what we find funny, or honorable, or desireable or holy,
etc. ). Note the hortatory push - this is how you, too, should understand .
Stories are, by their nature, I think, intendedly persuasive.

[snip more interesting stuff here]

Now, if stories are encapsuled understanding, and persuasive
communication at that, then they contain at least an implicit "theory" of
the world: good guys always prosper, maidens must be rescued, knights in
shining armor are laudable (and, except for the no-goodniks, won't
pillage, rape or burn the innocent .) or even that "the peace that passeth
understanding" may be found in deep enough, frequent enough meditation.
The real kicker, though, IMHO, is that the underlying theory is presented
as an existence proof to whatever theory of the world the hearer may
currently embrace: "See, here's how it works!" Particularly seductive in
this regard are "explanations that transcend the ordinary explanations,"
like Sufi and Zen tales, where the reader/hearer must bridge the gap in
understanding. Maybe what is "wired in" is a desire for completion, and
the successful story induces us to fill in the blanks? To translate from
the specific to the general to our own life, thus going "click!" when we
achieve satori?

And to think that our natural software really IS hardware
independent . ;-)

Say on, Jim, your questions are thought-provoking, interesting fun!
>From you we learn.

MXJELI@MAIL.WM.EDU
Mariann Jelinek
Richard C. Kraemer Professor of Business
Graduate School of Business,
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23185

Tel. (804) 221-2882 FAX: (804) 229-6135