Replying to LO26318 --
Hi Gavin,
thank you very much for your mail. I take it as a request for some
meta-communication, ok? (Specifically based on: "This has been going on
quite some time with you and me. What is specifically bothering you about
my messages? I am rather curious.")
There are several ways in which I participate in this wonderful space
called LO-list, for example browsing, knowledge sharing, skipping, idea
sharing, enjoy reading, questions asking, studying, exploring while
writing, connecting threads in my mind...
For me, your mails play a quite unique role in this spectrum of diversity.
It is not agreeing or disagreeing or wanting to understand deeper. It is a
flow of thoughts which usually start while reading and I try to condense
this flow in a sketch of sentences, raw as they will be.
There is one special temptation, which I hardly can resist: Sometimes when
I read you mails, especially replies to mine, I think: "It sounds as if
Gavin is talking about my walk, but it looks as if he as walking his talk
self." Let me take this mail to which I reply now as an example. You
wrote:
> Did I mention any point of wisdom, or maybe this is your interpretation.
The direct answer could be: Well, I refered to your
>>I have reached the limits of organisational theories and have realised
>>their frailties in application, method and soundness. Once one sees the
>>underline pattern and association with most business models then one has
>>reached the place where I have to say I don't know. And I don't know, but
>>I don't get fooled anymore by slick talk nice saying and cute theories.
and yes, I interpret this as a point of wisdom. This 'I don't get fooled
anymore...' reminded me again of Hosokawas pottery and modesty. I brought
it in again mostly because we had a "non-western-leadership"-thread before
and this thread "psychological aspects of LO's" seems to me to deserve a
brush stroke of that colour too, so I added it. When I reread, I felt that
contrasting your writing with the quoted paragraph was totally out of
proportion. So I ended with
> > Just wondering what you may be doing, now that you have reached this
> > point of wisdom ;-).
meant as a joking apology for the misfit of proportion. At least I hoped
that the smiley showed that I didn't mean it as a serious question. So far
the direct answer to your
> Did I mention any point of wisdom, or maybe this is your interpretation.
Now the example of how I think that you are walking this talk: I read your
question
> What is specifically bothering you about my messages?
and I think: "bothering? why does Gavin write 'bothering'? What is he
reading in my mails? How does his interpretation work? Wait a moment.
Interpretation. Didn't Gavin use this word? Let me see, where was it - ah,
here: did I mention any point....is your interpretation." And the
temptation is nearly unresistable to play with this discovery. I could
answer for example: "Did I mention any bothering, or maybe this is your
interpretation? Gavin you seem to really read into things in a rather
interesting way and interpret messages that are not there...." mirroring
your words back. It is a game and hopefully obvious enough not to be
unfair. Yet I can imagine that such a reaction might reenforce exactly the
interpretation which is rejected on the surface: "This Winfried must
really be bothered by my messages - this guy must be taking everything
personal."
> I said organizational theories this does not include social, technical,
> material, psychological, linguistic, semantical, spiritual, scientific
> theories and a thousand others etc.
For the sake of wholeness, missing of any of the other theories in
organizational theory would indeed be a weakness.
> Winfried you seem to really read into things in a rather interesting way,
> and interpret messages that that are not there. This has been going on
> quite some time with you and me. What is specifically bothering you about
> my messages? I am rather curious. There is nothing personal in my messages
> I speak about models and theories and my interpretation of them. If an say
> certain models has weakness that is because of my experience and use of
> them this has nothing to do with anyone on a personal level. I am not my
> model or my theories they exist outside of me. I use them as tools only.
I like the way your messages make me think, provoke me, excite me, may be
bother me, confuse me, all but bore me. You make me learn. (Should be a
compliment, not statement of what you do ;-).) Not learn by information
but learn by creating interpretations rich in entropic forces and creating
messages as entropic fluxe.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--KiWiDressler@t-online.de (Winfried und Kirstin Dressler)
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.