Replying to LO24880 --
On 14 Jun 00, at 21:05, Heidi and Dan Chay wrote:
> ... What tickled me initially about replying to "Anonymous" was
> curiosity with regard to authenticity and sureness
> (identity-categoricity), re the person behind the original message.
> Could I have a dialogue with "Anonymous?" ...
Could I have a dialogue with 'anonymous'? This question seemed so
interesting that I was motivated to reflect on it and share my reflections
here.
** Summary **
It may seem that a dialogue with 'anonymous' is not only impossible but
also a conceptual oddity. However, it also seems that it might be
necessary and sometimes quite fruitful to engage 'anonymous' in some kind
of a dialogue. This may of course call for some special tools (e.g.,
communication protocols) and techniques (e.g., rules of hermeneutics). It
further seems that 'dialogue with anonymous' might be a required skill for
the 21st century.
** End of Summary **
Elaboration
----------------
1. It may seem that a dialogue with 'anonymous' is not only impossible but
also a conceptual oddity.
In some sense the anonymous is not fully there! How can I have a
dialogue with it? It is unclear how 'anonymous' behaves under a
dialogical situation! It is like having your face blindfolded, being
made to sit in a dark room, and asked to talk to someone who
might not be there!!
2. However, it also seems that it might be necessary and
sometimes quite fruitful to engage 'anonymous' in some kind of a
dialogue.
Well, while dealing with bureaucratic/insensitive organisations,
talking to adoloscents, transacting with unscrupulous traders, and
even while discussing with witty thinkers, sometimes it may seem
that you are dialoging with an 'anonymous'. It might be quite
frustrating because you never know 'where they are coming from'.
And, need I mention the frustration of interacting with an
intransigent computer!
If there can be some special aids designed to improve upon such
dialogues, it would be quite useful indeed!
3. This may of course call for some special tools (e.g.,
communication protocols) and techniques (e.g., rules of
hermeneutics).
I am thinking of two types of aid: (i) Those which allow the
protection of anonymity in some sense (e.g., protocols, mediums,
etc.) and (ii) Those which facilitate mutual understanding,
collaboration, co-ordination of thought (and action), etc. (e.g., rules
of interpretation, rules of communication, and rules of interaction).
4. It further seems that 'dialogue with anonymous' might be a
required skill for the 21st century.
As I understand it, the 19th century opened our eyes to our
similarities and the 20th century opened our eyes to our
differences. The 21st century demands of us new ways of living,
working, growing together despite our differences. In this, one of
the recurring obstacles is our deep differences in terms of values,
ideals, cultural practices, etc. I tend to think, if there can be
meaningful interactions by temporarily keeping at bay these deep
differences, a number of old problems can find new solutions. In
other words, if 'anonymouses' can dialogue, what a strange and
interesting thing it would be!!
Love.
DP
[Host's Note: I am willing to distribute messages anonymously. I think
there are a number of circumstances in which anonymous posting might be
justified. Just make the request for anonymity clear at the top of each
msg. But, "Anonymous" who triggered this sequence has left us. ..Rick]
--Dr. D. P. Dash Xavier Institute of Management Bhubaneswar 751013 India <dpdash@ximb.ac.in>
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.