On 2 Jan 99, at 22:05, Robert Bacal wrote:
> Replying to LonBadgett,
> I think you are missing the point here. There is a difference between most
> of the things you mention and symbols or artifacts that are held sacred
> (let me make that bigger - SACRED), by a culture.
(snip)
> To use a religious or sacred symbol for a mundane reason, out of context
> with the culture is not so different from using a holy book to...well..you
> put in your own ugly action).
>
> Using a talking stick isn't borrowing the IDEA - it is borrowing the
> symbol and the word, which have meaning beyond our understanding. Borrow
> the IDEA, but please have enough respect for the meaning of religious and
> cultureal icons to respect that those understanding them may want them to
> remain sacred.
Robert, this is an interesting distinction that seems to me to have
applications to learning and organizational life. If I read you
correctly, you're suggesting that ideas are open to all, but their
specific symbolic manifestation has a value (that you call "sacred") which
is somehow restricted to those who "own" it. Thus, in a peculiar way,
that which is represented (the idea of thoughtful discussion and
listening) is less sacred than the symbol in which it's clothed, which has
taken on the particularity of culture, religious values, ethnicity, or
whatever.
Isn't this something like what happens to the grand pronouncements of
vision/mission statements in organizations? So long as they are couched
in global, idealistic language, anyone is free to acknowledge them (or
not) as they chose. But the minute they move toward specific application
in the form of business plans, goals and objectives, etc., they become the
possession of whomever attached that specificity. And when two or more
groups/divisions/departments etc. each "clothe" the vision in their own
cultural symbols (mental models??), look out! Because the question of
"who owns this?" immediately appears, as do competing interpretations of
what this "really" means, arguments over which group "has it right," and
so forth.
So how do we simultaneously respect the "icons," honour the generative
ideas behind them, and move on? and how do know when the icons have
reached such a point of sacredness that they are hiding the original ideas
from us?
Just thinking out loud ....
Malcolm C. Burson
Management Solutions--An ODi Affiliate
Orono, Maine
(207) 866-0019
mburson@mint.net
"The 'silly question' is the first intimation of some
totally new development."
-- Alfred North Whitehead
--"Malcolm Burson" <mburson@mint.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>