Michael --
This issue of communication is very rich, and I appreciate your thoughtful
response. Of course, in a complex, non-linear environment, we need an
iterative process in order for understanding to emerge, so after having
'received' your message, I am 'sending' a response.
I now understand that communication is iterative, and non-linear. When I
talk about senders and receivers, I do not mean to imply linearity. But I
am confused by the statement that
- communication occurs "in the spaces" between participants and meaning
occurs "in the spaces" created within individuals by ambiguities and their
resolution
It is precisely at this point that I am not following you. At another
point, you or someone else said, "The understanding of both the originator
("sender"?) and others will alter as the process progresses."
I agree with this, and now I want to describe the process mentioned in
that sentence. While I recognize that language does not lend itself well
to decribing non-linear processes, we may gain some value from
understanding where the "processing" is occurring in the process. When I
think of it in that sense, I am still stuck with the notion of sender and
receiver as the only places where value or information is added.
It is similar to the field theory in physics. Gravitational fields occur
in the spaces between chunks of matter, just as communication fields occur
in the spaces between communicators. However, there is nothing in the
gravitational field that cannot be inferred from measuring the chunks of
matter, at least in theory. Likewise, there is nothing in understanding
that is being added except by the sender(s) or receiver(s). This need not
imply linearity, and iteration is certainly encompassed. Understanding
may or may not be deducible. I am not wedded to the terms of 'sender' and
'receiver'. We could combine them into 'sender/receiver' or just call
them processors. It just seems that the notion of some kind of processor
is essential, as that is where meaning is identified.
Ultimately, _responsibility_ for understanding must reside with these
sender/receivers. This is my central and only point, and was my answer to
the question originally posed.
Is this aligned with your thoughts? Is this in agreement with your notion
of communication occurring in the spaces between participants?
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc. 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>