> Replying to LO9170 -- Jack wrote this
>
> I very much like the analogy to Open Space technology that I V N S Raju has
> described in LO 9170 in response to Rick's call in "Our Purpose Here on
> LO".
>
> Raju's conclusion is:
>
> >I think that the time has come for
> >us to check before we let the message go - believe me I did it twice
> >before posting this. ( I would like to go by the suggestion given here
> >some time back which reads something like this: do not post what you
> >prepared today; save, open and read it again tomorrow. Then decide -
> >this norm we must adopt when time permits). Any decision to post to LO is
> >a decision to reveal the Self. I have just now realised that I have
> >exhausted all that I have to share with you.
Dear Jack,
It is unfortunate that I was not able to keep this in the last
paragraph of my message. Therefore you missed it. Here it is:
"Taking cues from the meetings using Open Space (OS)
Technology, wherein - just like here - various discussion
groups would evolve naturally and discussions on various issues
relating to the Theme of the meeting take place and finally the
out put of these discussions are inducted into the Theme."
It is in this context that I made the above statements. If one reads
only the last few sentences of my message which you included in your
response as my conclusions, he/she gets a different meaning. If the
same persons knows the context in which these statements were made, I
believe, would understand differently.
> But it would sadden me to think that some of the learning here - which for
> me is often the product of an outburst and/or a hastily written reply -
> would discontinue because we all agreed to think twice about what we post.
There is a saying in my friends' circle. "If pelvic gyrations are
termed as Dance Movements, Noise can very much be called Music" (this
saying has its reference to the MTV and Chanel V programmes). All
that I want to say here is that the "product of an outbrust or a
hastility written reply" need to take place with reference to LO or
its related issues. I apologise if my words cause any inconvenience
to any one here. I have no objections in your point that from the Raw
ideas stems the natural learning. And there doesn't seem to be any
agreement to my proposal that we need to think twice about what we
post. This thinking twice is only to establish a relatively clear
linkage with the concept of LO and its related issues and not to
refine whatever is written. I hope that I have made myself clear at
least by now.
With Love
-- IVNS RAJU <IVNSR@ANAND.NDDB.ERNET.IN>Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>