John Paul Fullerton wrote:
>>>>>BIG SNIP>>>>>>
> Maybe it's partly due to the illusion that we're writing to a computer!
> And, as for myself, I probably assume that someone hasn't considered the
> view that I propose, and then dramatically project the imagined audience
> to be everyone. In dialogue, there seems to be more feedback and shared
> management that might keep conversation from becoming inaccurately
> imaginary. Maybe I'm motivated by thinking that this is the thought that I
> experience as partly received, and I would like for you to have the
> benefit of it also. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't show how to really
> ask the questions above :)
Is it the technology that causes this perception problem, or the learning
history of the individual? I was a disciplined, prolific letter writer
long before my first Fortran class. If you'll look through the archives
here, you'll see not too many, not too few responses from many of us.
Mountains from others. One or two from others. The technology does not
make those differeces. Personal hermeneutics has to do with it.
Having written letters to groups, used internal email as a primary
communication tool, and been taught to reflect before touching the
keyboard, I see the vehicle as one for dialogue. One gets to reflect
deeply on the previous communication, rereading it many times, looking up
the references, putting them in perspective. This is very different that
the verbal repartee often associated with corporate problem solving, where
answers are more important than solutions.
Reflection and calls for clarification are important. With discipline, we
will all improve our writing skills here, by flapping our wings as often
as we need to leave the nest of ego for the broader world of dialogue.
-- jzavacki@epix.net The Wolff Group 900 James Avenue Scranton, PA 18510 Phone: 717-346-1218 Fax: 717-346-1388John Zavacki <jzavacki@epix.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>