Replying to LO24384 --
Hello Winfried,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and bringing to light a few
co-related issues that crossed my mind recently:
you write:
>It is about a tendency I have noticed within me in connection to this
>list, in particular the way I browse through the messages. I am skipping a
>lot of it. It feels for me more and more as if I have read before most of
>the stuff that comes up; the words may have changed but the topics and
>content remain more or less the same. Am I mistaken?
A tendency I'm well acquainted with: not having time to read all the mail
(not only from this list), and frequently finding, in those few i manage
to read, repeated ideas or information.
If this is what happenes to you - you can not be mistaken - no way.
Moreover, I guess many others, all over, share the same tendency. I
wonder what's wrong with it - it happenes everywhere and all the time -
plenty of information at hand: rephrased, rewritten, quoted, applied,
related and critisised... sometimes enriched with a fresh insight, and
rarely providing a real breakthrough. As consumers (of knowledge, IT,
etc.) we develop our ways to cope with all this - not to be drowned by
the flood - each and everyone according to taste, experience, talent,
preferences... you know.
But, you say much more (till now, I myself was rewriting old, trivial
ideas - known to everybody):
>I also notice that I have less and less to contribute to most of the
>ongoing discussions, because I feel that I only would repeat myself too.
>And what would be the point of that if everything already can de dug up
>from the LO archive? I also want to avoid that I become a teacher instead
>of a learner.
I strongly sympathise with most of this statement of yours: "most" - just
because I rarely go out of my way to dig up materials from archives, and
therefore enjoy reading reminders that are well put, witty,
interdisciplinary and colourfull - and this can be found frequently in the
LO list - many by those contributors whom you listed later in your mail.
Let me use this opportunity to thank them.
Finally I'm getting to the point: I would also like to be able to
contribute more to this list - more of ME. But then, till I make up my
mind, and find the words, the interpretation, the association - more mail
accrues in my mail-box, ideas I had in mind are already covered, related
ideas make me re-think, I find answers to questions I heardly finished to
utter ... the train left the station.
>What might cause this, I wonder.
Me too - I wonder. No doubt it's the FLOW control, as you describe in your
next lines (I'm a new organlearner - not familliar with the history of the
list), and no doubt that this kind of development occures frequently (very
very frequently) in Organizations of all kinds. Moreover, the concept of
Organizational Learning (theories, methodologies, applications... ) is an
attempt to decrease such natural tendencies, and make room (place, and
TIME) for ideas and thoughts to emerge from as many sources as possible,
and only then to crystalize.
What happened in the LO-list, till now, is nothing but a FIFP (First In
First Published) game's outcome (excuse me Rick if i skipped those
valuable maintanance opperations that you perform - I appreciate them and
find them neccessary to have a PlayGround / GameBoard - keep the good
work). It's a well known rule in many games ;-) (am I laughing alone?).
Is Someone here providing Anyone from adding more rules?
For example: I'm playing successfully (started shortly after joining the
list) the 3Day-Game - I don't reply an LO-mail before three days passed
since it was sent. Till now, I'm pleased with the outcomes of this rule, I
violated it only once and I have a good excuse for it.
Thanks Rick for letting us play,
Shalom,
Judy
--Judy Tal <judyt@netvision.net.il>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.