Replying to Bill's and John's posts, LO24897, LO24896
Hi Bill, John, others,
John wrote:
> One of the most satisfying things about dialogue for me, is the sense that
> it's happening. When a conversation or an argument turns the corner to
> becoming a true (or shall I say authentic) learning experience in which
> there is group participation resulting in synergy and an altered state of
> consciousness resulting in a lack of defensive reasoning and a resultant
> win-win attitude towards the learning process, I think you might have a
> dialogue going on.
John, you've described this so nicely, I'm sure others will respond to
this too. Yes!
I'm not surprised, and I like the way you link dialogue to synergy and
interaction that cultivates shared, positive-sum learning.
What leaps out to me in your comments here are your words "defensive
reasoning." I often think of overcoming defensive routines (mine and
others) as an important element for achieving dialogue. By defensive
routines I'm thinking of defensive reasoning, defensive behaviors,
defensive communicating styles, etc., inclusively. I regard aggression as
a form of defensive routine, as well.
I was having a conversation with my brother-in-law, a medical student, a
couple of days ago that took a couple of interesting turns. We were
talking about stress. Kevin and I were thinking aloud about the ways
stress impairs healthy function in people -- and yet how some levels of
stress are valuable (spareness: quantity-limit).
Later we touched on the theme of optimistic and pessimistic world views in
the context of talking about global and national growth curves and
thermodynamics. Kevin made the connection "pessimism = stress." And my
immediate thought, then, was "Aha," simple optimism might be a defensive
routine.
This is kind of a side bar to what you were saying. I wonder, John, do
you feel like you have acted out defensive reasoning or defensive routines
in participation (or not participation) on this list? I think my
quietness for years here on this list has been a kind of defensive
routine. Do you suppose, as I do, that defensive routines can serve
positive value as well?
Last thought. John, when you read Bill's comments:
> Dialogue means (to me) waiting for an invitation to speak or for an open
> inquiry seeking a response. Disscussion means taking the inititative to
> speak, uninvited, for the purpose of arguing or advancing one's view on an
> issue or topic.
>
> If everyone waits for an invitation to contribute, the list would be
> filled with questions. Answers would always end with more questions.
> Exchanges would constantly expand. We'd be seeking the broadest or largest
> view of what interests us, not the best view or the view with the greatest
> merit.
Do you suppose you and he were in alignment about dialogue? How about
when you wrote the following?
> Pontification is not dialogue. Sophistry MAY be dialogue. Withdrawal from
> engagement could be dialogue. Sitting zazen is not dialogue but it is
> dialogue.....
BTW, what's zazen? How could withdrawal from engagement be dialogue, I
wonder?
What do you think Bill? Others among you, any thoughts?
Grins,
Dan Chay
chay@alaska.com
--"Heidi and Dan Chay" <chay@alaska.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.