Doug, you are asking difficult questions. I am attempting to stay
out of domains in which I am not expert (Eastern philosophy, for
instance) and those which are not acceptable to Western thinking
available to business. I am not interested in invalidating either
because they supply me with learning, possibility and comfort.
I'm not suggesting that ALL connections are cia the medium of
language. Hoever, I am extending the linguistic domain far beyond
what is common. That extension is from the starting point that we
become human beings by being socialised into a language system and
hence anything that we can manifest publicly - beyond pure experience
- must be grounded in some important way in language.
The implication here is *not* that the intellect can capture much of
anything - certainly not if the intellect is considered to be
linguistic. From interpretive (hermeneutic, postmodern, etc)
approaches, there is the case that there is always much more "in the
background" than can be said, known or presenced - and yet it is
there. I think that implied in my way of thinking is that there is
always more "in the language" than can be known or "in the
intellect".
I understand Flores' work to be saying that we can *make* completions
as linguistic acts by declaring them. That does not make them
completions in any sense of object, external or "real" except for the
reality or power of declaration. The conversation which is
"completed" began in a context - that is before - and will end in a
different context and will continue in some form.
The act of declaring a completion marks a point and creates an new
opening. But that is from a very time and location constrained point
of view.
>... In my experience I have completed connections with others
> where the deep understanding went beyond the intellect, even the heart
> into the non-physical, but were not permanent in the physical sense, but
> seemed timeless.
How does one "complete connections with others"? I am still
connected to my former wife. I think this is an example of the
possibility of declaration - but it doesn't thereby become complete
except from one of many points of view.
I think this is an important conversation because our human
institutions exist in this domain and we need to create powerful *and
acceptable* distinction to see us through.
Thanks for the challenge,
Michael McMaster
Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
-- Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>