Sherri Malouf wrote:
>I found myself very drawn to Joe's description of how he learns and
>follows different conversations. What I find myself doing is being drawn
>in by an initial posting by someone -- I read all of the initial postings
>-- and then when it appears to me to be turning into "debate" I get bored
>with the thread and stop reading it.
<snip>
>
>I attended a Dialogue workshop run by Bill Isaacs and Micheal Jones which
>was a fascinating experience because there were 30+ people in the room
>attempting to create a "container" so that as a group we could *inquire*
>of each other as opposed to constantly *advocating* to each other. (This
>is a very basic description). I guess what happens to me is that when I
>sense -- through my own beliefs and interpertations -- that a particular
>thread is turning into advocacy and counter-advocacy -- I feel bored
>because for me we are not using the medium on-line to create something new
>together. For the people involved -- it could be a very different
>experience! They could be feeling that they are creating a new connection
>or understanding or whatever.
>
>So I wonder is it possible to feel the trust enough -- using this
>technology -- to really risk communicating in new ways? To be vulnerable
>or wrong and not have it matter? Really because we all need to learn new
>ways to connect -- not just communicate but to really connect with each
>other.
These words express a great deal of my own feelings regarding the
conversations taking place here. The moderation of this list tends to
encourage honesty among the participants, and to foster an environment
supportive of inquiry.
But dialogue - in David Bohm's sense, so ably interpreted by Senge in the
5th Discipline, difficult as it is to describe is far more difficult to
practice.
At last year's Systems Thinking Conference, Bill Isaacs attempted a
dialogue with Danah Zohar which quickly degenerated into a sermon... and I
was there to learn from a master how to practice this art! (Actually, this
session was videotaped. It would probably repay careful study as a
demonstration of the difficulty of maintaining dialogue).
I have reason to believe that this type of conversation (typing outside of
real-time exchange and somewhat anonymously) has attributes which will
improve the chances of successful inquiry; but it just ain't easy.
Is there anyone reading this who has had extensive experience in
practicing dialogue, who can comment on the relative strength of this
medium in pursuing inquiry?
--Jack Hirschfeld Where have all the young men gone? jack@his.com Gone for soldiers, every one! When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>