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. 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 can sometimes be equal excellence in simplicity as
in complexity. 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 a call for simplicity might have
just been a good place to start. It may not work for all, which is fine,
but certainly there were other voices calling for a new paradigm of
relating to one another on the list--or something. That is all I was
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 found the word
choice--ie, 'exotic' --very interesting. Why exotic? That seems to imply
somehow flashy-seeming entertainment (as opposed to 'high culture').
Exotic is usually perceived as something foreign. The email was written in
response to Sajeela and seemed to emphasize that ultimately excellent
complex art is best. Overall, the comment above struck me as a subtle or
not so subtle form of trumping (from my perception).
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 better 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.
**By the way, does anyone have specific approaches to building and
maintaining meaningful dialogue, either in person or online? I'd be
interested in hearing some practical pointers or having a list of steps
These are my responses to At's 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 replying to anyone's emails. I am seriously struggling
in my studies and LO is a full-time activity!
best wishes,
Lana
PS - Complexity is equally wonderful and beautiful and important and
useful! I think in past emails I was simply making a suggestion for
initial simplicity in order to start finding common ground among people on
this listserv, so that we can try have a similar starting page and learn
and grow together. Not mandatory, just my persnoal feeling. This quote
captures my sense of all this:
"Dibrai Torah B'loshan B'nai Adam." - The Talmud
("The Torah [Bible] speaks in the language of people."
- The Talmud)
Quoted from "The Healing of the Planety Earth" by Alan Cohen. I'm not sure
of the accuracy of the translation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wander. There is no path.
You lay a path in walking.
- Antonio Machado
--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.