> I don't think we know yet whether relationships occuring on the net are
> different or similar to those carried on in other ways. ...
I'm compelled to tell of a relationship which began for me about 14 months
ago. I'll try to be brief! I Emailed a chap in the Netherlands after
seeing his webpage addressing Tourism/Hotel Management. I posed a few
questions to him and he responded with answers and suggestions AND a few
inquiries about what my work was, where I lived... thus we began
communicating; It was pleasant and rewarding to bounce ideas off him and
at the same time, learn a bit about Holland and his life. After about two
months of "pen-pal-ing" we determined that we should write a paper
together addressing strategic marketing on the Net. We did that, and I
eventually presented that paper at an international tourism research
conference in the US last July; the paper is also in review at a top
industry journal.
But Martijn and I continue to "talk" (though we still have never actually
talked nor met). He recently married and it was my pleasure to send a gift
to them; my husband and I are expecting the birth of our son any day now
and Martjin often asks how baby, dad and I are doing, and recently advised
me to keep my eye on the snail-mail box. Actually about 11 months ago I
miscarried a first attempt and Martjin was one of the few people I felt
comfortable talking to about that -- partly I think /because of the
cyber-basis to our friendship -- he isn't part of my everyday life.
Well, you get the idea. I consider ours' more than a "virtual" friendship
and/or working relationship, and look forward to meeting him someday.
Invitations have already been extended both ways. I wouldn't want ALL or
even most of my friendships or learning experiences to be electronic, of
course...
BC had also said:
> I am hesitant to give technology too much unconfirmed support, simply
> because, quite frankly, I do not believe it will solve many of society's
> ills, although it is useful for specific problems.
Is technology (and the Net) wothwhile only if it proves to be the great
savior of society's ills? Is that the only way it can be thought of as
"good"? Surely as Seekers and Learners, we reading this list in
particular should be able to see its validity and "beauty" not as some
Goal to be reached but as an evolving and ever-transforming path we are
on. We can learn both from what's good as well as what's bad. _If we
"learn how to learn." This to me is one of the best bits of rationale
behind the whole philosophy of LO.
> > Besides, I suggest that as usual the technology outstrips our very human
> > abilities to optimize its use. An example will be in education--where
> > technology will probably be shoe-horned into existing ways of doing
> > things...basically a bandaid type thing.
Well, again, imho the very raison de etre for LOs and Learning How to
Learn, is to avoid or minimise this via expanding and enhancing our human
abilities, (whilst deriving all the while all the good things that flow
from avoidance of shoe-horns!).
Kathryn De Lima-Turner
k.turner@mang.canterbury.ac.nz , or
--Kathryn De Lima <xtr13197701@xtra.co.nz>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>