Michael, you wrote on the LO list:
>I caution against looking for "false" messages. I recommend an
>approach based in the complexity of human beings, our language and
>ourselves as total *and ambiguous* communication systems.
>
>The verbal and non-verbal often don't match and they are just
>co-existing messages. The whole "text" of a communication and the
>structure of it and the specific language (words) are often also
>giving different messages or different cuts at similar messages.
>
>I would rather respect the whole than take one "part" as being false
>and some other as being "true" or whatever.
While I like your approach on this, I need to ask:
Assuming that the construct of meaning exists in my mind and not in the
message itself, why is there greater value in treating the message
holistically, rather than assigning value to differing parts, especially
if I perceive them as conflicting?
For myself, I have an answer to this question, but I suspect it's
different than yours. Please share yours first...
--Jack Hirschfeld Do figures of authority just shoot you down? jack@his.com Is life in the business world a drag?
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>