On 10 October, Clyde Howell wrote,
>Why do we seem to have difficulty using "common language" that
>everyone already understands to express these [LO] ideas and visions?
Is it perhaps less a matter of egoism or "in-group/out-group" intention,
and more that the very notion of "common language" [by which I presume
Clyde means what is sometimes called, "ordinary language"] is a construct
without demonstrable validity? It seems to me that the more I reflect,
the more I'm struck by the extraordinary difficulty involved in even a
small group of people engaging in dialogue about, and reaching at least a
modest vocabulary of, truly "common language."
For me, one of the most powerful learnings in the whole notion of a LO is
no longer to take "common language" for granted, but rather to use the
tools so elegantly provided by Argyris and others to unpack assumptions
and inferences, and step by baby step to create shared language.
Rick, if you like, I'd be willing to use this as the first warp of a new
thread, "Common language," and would welcome other contributions in the
spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of Sherri's dialogue project. And
given his ever-insightful contributions from old Scottish dictionaries,
I'd particularly welcome Michael McMaster's thoughts.
[Host's Note: OK with me... Rick]
Malcolm Burson<mooney@maine.maine.edu
Community Health and Counseling
Bangor, Maine
--"Malcolm Burson" <mooney@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>