As this and some other recent discussions have evolved, I'm struck by the
parallel between the content and tone of the conversation, and the
difficulty we seem to have on this list in maintaining a commitment to a
balance between advocacy and inquiry. As a long-time listener and
occasional speaker, I would observe that as a topic begins to warm up, we
as respondents sometimes don't seem to listen as carefully, or take the
trouble to be certain we have understood the nuances of what another has
offered -- we stop exploring to see if, indeed, we are working from mental
models in common. Many "regulars" are exceptions (particular kudos to Doc
in this case, as can be seen in his exchange with Sherri). And isn't this
at least part of the dilemma in which Sherri finds herself--that
democratic practice seems to have lost its interest in exploring the
"common weal" of shared values in favor of individualistic assertion of
rights?
To me, this list is most valuable when we can apply the disciplines
that informed its foundation to our conversation, and this seems
particularly apt at a time when we are being "observed" by our
colleagues in Australia. So let this be a modest plea for a few
minutes of reflection on matching our process to our stated values.
--Malcolm Burson mooney@maine.maine.edu
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>