The following was offered as a French literary theorist's offering that
writing preceeds speech. My response concerns that theory, not the author
of the previous note.
> The culture and experience in any culture, including preliterate culture,
> "write" their messages on the group and on the individual psyche, leaving
> "traces," as in dreams.
Wow. I didn't expect the French acquisition :) (no disrespect
intended)
How does the following apply to learning organizations? To the
extent that literary theory actually achieves something, it involves
learning and developing a theory about experience.
When I was an English major, through some process I came across the
deconstructionists. Maybe it was because they were news in Literary
Theory at that time. I learned more about how Paul de Man wrote and
thought than Jacques Derrida, though the two men were friends.
Following any number of de Man's statements through the course of
known and unknown, from insightful reference to what seemed to me a
confident inditement of scholarly knowledge, I became persuaded that
he was the most brilliant writer that I had ever encountered. It
seemed like his consciousness of how I'd take the parts of his
sentences when I followed the thought prompted his choice of words
and eventual conundrums.
Derrida I avoided because I didn't know French, yet more importantly
because it seemed to me that there was a sensuousness to his prose
that pulled at me in ways that (even then, even though I may not have
had the language to denounce it) I perceived. In addition, his
findings did not offer as much in the way of noteable perception as
De Man's did. (Trace, ecriture, difference, presence - what about
"the following quote says X".)
Let me add a note here about what I mean by "sensuous". That word
does somewhat account for my experience of yielding to the
declaration and reasoning in the quote above. Of course, part of the
mentality is not present in the statement. I have additional
experience of part of what Derrida has said (though not much
experience). As a different entry to the "alarm", when the recent
movie "Air Force One" was being advertised at movie theatres, one
view of the plane was from above flying through the clouded sky.
Rightly or not, I wondered about how many cases in literature or
other imaginary work, the recipient is offered a humanly impossible
point of view and what the effect of such a view may have. For
example, a view from above (unless we have planes or satellites
doing it) could be taken as a view that only God could have. What
effect does it bring when we share it? Is God watching? Is he taking
care of the plane? Is it merely that the understanding of what is
happening is heightened?
The potentially undue element in the quote above is the certainty
that X is what happened. Maybe part of the seductive part to me is
that (from my memory) the offer is basic Derrida (my perception of
his theoretical writing), yield obeisance to my declaration, putting
your reasoning aside. Yuk. (At the same time, offense is not
intended, and I could possibly be wrong.)
So, to counter the input of Derrida's offering, let's see whether
the version above has as much sway in more deliberate (and
slowed-down) terms. In the following, I am imagining earlier human
cultures.
Individual and shared experience offers considerable input for
members of a culture.
Part of the input may be quite evident. For example, the moss-covered
rocks near the cliffs are slippery after it rains.
Part of the input may be less evident. For example, people often
make passionate declarations that they don't follow (espoused theory
and theory-in-use :).
Part of the use of that input may be commonly voiced. (There he goes
again talking about the power of the cerullian rose.)
Part of the use may be unspoken. (I am not all "at one" with nature.
Without defense, I may not live. Hear what another may say.)
Part of that input is received before talking about it.
Eventually, we could say. How do we know what early human experience
was? More pertinently, how do I know? Do I know? (No, not really.)
It seems likely that we see things before we talk about them, yet the
learning stage ("deer", "path", "arrow", "food", "singing") is not
what we meditate on day and night. (Yeah, I remember when they taught
me the word "train".)
When I sit at a quiet desk mapping out the functions of a computer
program or trying to figure out the main point in a book, I'm more
influenced with my experience of quiet desks than with mental images
of hungry lions outside of fire-lit caves.
And, when things get provocative - say a leaf blows in my direction
while I'm walking (literally) - when I jump, it's more likely based
on what I was thinking then than memories of life in the jungle.
So shared learning (I don't believe that that should be identified
as writing.) is part of life (when I receive it), and personal
experience is part of life and knowledge (in part when I reflect
upon it). Neither is completely before the other. Though it is
likely that simpler things preceed the more advanced. (We need the
simpler things to reason about other things.)
Have a nice day
John Paul Fullerton
jpf@myriad.net
--"John Paul Fullerton" <jpf@mail.myriad.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>