On 8 Aug 96 at 12:17, kent.myers@lmco.com wrote:
> I'm deflated by Michael's statement that he doesn't have a "deep
> affinity" for much of the postings. Does he have it for some? He
> has become recognized as the leader and tastemaker, and if he says
> he is a bemused yet detatched guest at a party, then that will have
> a lot of influence on the party.
I would like to comment from my own perspective. Trying to stay within the
realm of observation...
I find this group stimulating, but I see a very strong tendency to grapple
with the more philisophical issues, and even semantics, rather than with a
combination of the philisophical/abstract, and teh applied. It "feels" to
me, that this group is like a group isolated from the everyday world (not
as individuals but as a group). The "culture" here seems to support this
type of discourse.
Several threads are of no interest to me (religion and LO's, for example).
Others do (the one in the subject line), but I am surprised at the lack of
concreteness to even this thread, which i think is amenable to much more
specific (and helpful for learning) ideas and applications.
I have, in my stay here (relatively brief) engaged in this very
abstract type of discourse, but it is becoming tedious to read and
write about how many angels can stand on the edge of a pin. Ain't my
cup of tea, because it simply isn't productive for ME.
> I like a party too, but all the swirling is not conducive to
> long-lasting conversations that make a difference. Perhaps he is
> suggesting that to modify the pattern of speech, even in a corner of
> the room, is to ruin the party. On the other hand, he suggests that
> the party IS a kind of sustained conversation and can achieve
> something. But how good is it? As we all do, he conducts sustained
> conversation elsewhere, among those ideas and people with whom he
> has more affinity. Can't LO be part of one's inner circle?
I like metaphors, but not getting lost in them. I can't make head nor tail
of the above, which tells me that I should bow out of these conversations.
> I don't know if it is possible for these two patterns of speech
> (which we haven't completely clarified) to coexist within one
> listserv, or whether it is possible to have adequate sustained
> conversation in any listserv. That's the question I opened myself
> to, and decided to keep working on.
I find that very little is clarified on this list. It seems that that is
part of the culture, and perhaps for some, it appears that things just go
round and round. For others, clearly, this is the kind of discourse they
enjoy.
Robert Bacal, CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
dbt359@freenet.mb.ca, Located in Winnipeg,Canada.
*For articles on management, change, training,communication, etc,
visit our home page at: http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359
--"Robert Bacal" <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>