Replying to LO24753 --
At responds to Conrad's comments on authentic communication/dialogue with
the following:
> Your "imposing, instructing or commanding" let me think of
> declarative, interrogative and imperative sentences. How can we
> avoid simple sentences like statements (declarative), questions
> (interrogative) and commands (imperative)?
>
> One way is to say or write nothing -- to let knowledge remain
> tacit.
>
> Another way is to use body language and sounds like the Namas
> do or even to use complex music and dancing without any explicit
> wording.
>
> A third way is to weave statements, questions and commands
> into a response. Is the ultimate not to do this in every sentence
> which we use? When a sentence is for example a question, but
> actually becomes a statement or command on reading it, will
> fellow learners know not to handle it superficially?
Here, At poses a question, which becomes a command. "Is the ulimate
not...." reads in the left hand column: "the ultimate is...." and,
because of At's next sentence, "...will fellow learners know not to handle
it superficially?" we are shamed into thinking it is not At's intent to
command (although instructing is cognate with commanding) but to make us
think. It is just this linguistic ploy (and many like it) that creates in
me a distrust of the collective wisdom of At. Not the content of the
teaching. Not the authenticity of the teacher. The structure of the
delivery system, the 'slight of mind', the illusory transition is more
Svengali than Gahdhi. To me, it feels abusive, oppressive, and counter to
authenticity.
SNIP
> A fifth possible way is to express the feelings giving rise to our
> expressed thinking rather than expressing the actual thinking.
>
> Can we recommend that any one way such as the few listed above
> will lead to better authentic dialogue than the other ways? I do agree
> that inviting is a powerful way to initiate Team Learning. Do you not
> think that since it is a powerful way, it can also become abused? Are
> there not poems (like "Lorelei") and dramas (like "faust") in Western
> literature warning us about such abuse?
>
> I keep on asking myself: What do make mental behaviour in
> individuals (members) and communities (organisations) authentic?
> Can we asume that what apply for communties in the USA should
> also apply for communties elsewhere like the Namaqualanders in
> South Africa?
If we remember the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis of lingustic and cultural
relativity, we can put Namaqualanders of South Africa and Polaks of the
Pennsylvania coal mines (such as myself) on level playing fields by
explaining the cultural taboos and avoiding the ladder of inference. But
there will be misunderstandings. The two cultures are different. I would
approach it by finding first the common ground and walking on it, then
through practice, spreading the commonality. Once again, the model is not
the map is not the territory....
> I want to use myself here the Hebrew word for "let this be" -- amen.
> Perhaps Judy can tell us more about the "amen".
>
> I think that the Namas also have a body language and sound for it,
> but I will first have to clear it up with my friends Jasper Nieuwoudt
> and Oom Andries Coetzee who lived many years with them and
> not a few weeks like me.
These closing paragraphs imply an authentic approach to collaborative
learning. No tricks. Or are there? Perhaps, I think too much......
John F. Zavacki
jzavacki@greenapple.com
OR (depending on my location in the space time continuum)
systhinc@msn.com
--"systhinc" <systhinc@email.msn.com>
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.