Replying to LO24944 --
Dear At and co-learners,
The truth is that I simplify when I am frustrated. I am not against
complexity, and I certainly am for many-to-many mappings. But my sense
was/is there is not a holistic dialogue happening here, so on an impulse,
I threw in my two cents worth.
In a recent post (LO24861), Ray made a strong plug for complexity. While
much of his posts speak to me, occasionally, there are things that I
differ with--which is perfectly okay! That's diversity which, in turn,
leads to wholeness.
Here are just a couple of points, since I think they relate to our
discussion here:
>Frankly people have a rather miserable record at deciding what is and is
>not beautiful in the long run.
I believe there are a multiplicity of truths and realities here. Yes,
there is what is supposedly objective evaluation on the talent and
complexity of a work of art over the course of time (I think excellence
rather than just beauty is being implied here). However, there is also
what speaks to a person "in the moment," which should be no less
beautiful, although it could be less than excellent. Moreover, there is
the fact of group energy, the excitement of the crowd, or "herd
mentality". Just like the energy or expectations of a scientist can
influence the outcome of an experiment, people's current moods,
relationships, and perhaps even the placement of the planets which may
result in biomagnetic pulls, can co-create the response to an artpiece at
a certain time. Certainly people in Germany responded to the charisma and
passion of Adolf Hitler. It isn't purely peaceful detached awareness of
what is quality--it is also what feeds or nurtures the current state of
emotions. All these disparate things can influence what is and what comes
to be--individually and communally--be it art, ideas, popular interests,
ways of organizing, and so on.
It may be that I am more often negative about complexity over the course
of my contributions here. I can honestly say this is my frustration and
impatience with esoteric loftiness. I can't seem to help it. In my mind, I
am constantly rebelling like a plebeian on behalf of the people. I
personally feel there is sometimes equal excellence in simplicity. Perhaps
others, or even everyone, agrees on this. I may rant about complexity, yet
I believe both complexity and simplicity are equally good and wonderful
and useful!!
However, in co-creating dialogue amongst a large disparate group, which
is/was/has been fragmenting on LO, then simplicity might be a good place
to start. That is all I have been trying to emphasize in my recent posts.
At aptly describes it as "pleading". That is so like me--crying out and
wishing for a greater wholeness and harmony. Lack of mutual understanding
grieves me.
Ray Harrell also wrote:
>That is wonderful for me and healing but in the ultimate scheme of things
>does not rise above an exotic entertainment.
I sense a dichotomy being expressed here between art that is complex and
excellent 'versus' mundane 'exotic entertainment'. Ah, so I am not the
only one who simplifies to binary extremes. Personally, I find the word
choice--ie, 'exotic'--very interesting. I didn't respond earlier on this
because I am sometimes so de-energized by what I sense as a lack of
holistic dialogue here, that I just didn't bother.
This is exactly the subtle or not so subtle trumping (from my perception)
that makes it very difficult for me to even begin or maintain a meaningful
dialogue. Why exotic? That seems to imply somehow that flashy-seeming,
low-grade entertainment (of which many non-western cultures are perceived
as producing) is somehow cheap, simplistic, and sundry.
For myself, personally, I know that the more time I spend abroad
travelling, the more I realize how much I do NOT know. I'm slowly coming
to appreciate the artistry, beauty, talent, and intelligences--the nuances
and subtleties--in, say, performance art that is artistically or
culturally foreign to me. I am beginning to see/experience them from an
increasingly different and, perhaps, broader perspective.
I hope I am not being controversial or antagonistic. It is not meant
personally or perjoratively. Nevertheless, I do feel there may be a
dominant paradigm of learning, interacting, perceptions, etc, on here that
seems to make it difficult for me to listen, explore, contribute, and
co-exist--as both an individual and a team player--in complete wholeness.
I react to this and find the rebel in me responding.
These are my responses to the post on complex dialogue. I am posting
separately a message that I wrote in May which I never sent, but am
sending now in response to this discussion. I apologize however if I am
not consistent in my replies. I am seriously struggling in my studies and
LO is a full-time activity! It is often enjoyable, engaging, useful, and
so on--but can sometimes be a bit taxing and heart-rending, as well.
best wishes,
Lana
"Dibrai Torah B'loshan B'nai Adam." - The Talmud
("The Torah [Bible] speaks in the language of people."
- The Talmud)
I quote this from "The Healing of the Planety Earth" by Alan Cohen. I'm not
sure of the accuracy of the translation.
--Alternative Energy <ecospirit@mail.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.