Dear Rick,
thanks so much for opening a topic about this. I am very impressed on your
picking up on the comments around the facilitation of this string and
making it a topic for discussion and learning. I like your open and
inclusive style, and learn a lot from it, (and secretly hope that other
list owners who are on this string will learn from it, too!)
I am thrilled with different styles on this list, your facilitation of it,
and the discussion of these styles. In addition, though, I must say that I
am also open to criticism and flaming, the latter only if it is not
directed towards me, though, or at least not to often. I learned from John
Gunkler some weeks ago, how being able to challenge and being challenged
is vital for some of us, and also believe in the occasional heated
conflict as a part of diversity. Yet I am in favor of your wanting to
protect those of us from hurt, who might be less able to do that
themselves. As a whole I came to trust the participants on this list that
they have their best intent and are committed to learning, so I for one
would be for allowing a multitude of styles, including criticism and
defense. Maybe we should make a little code in the subject line: a "c" at
the end of the subject means that you are open to being criticized, a "cf"
means openness to criticizing and flaming with the right to temporarily
flame back.
Seriously, the deeper problem that I see is, that the decision of what is
hurtful and critical is a diversity project itself. Many of the posts in
my experience marginalize other cultures, men, women, other races, and are
unintendedly inflammatory. The US women and men and their views frequently
dominate as Phillip writes, etc. etc. The fact that we didn't react to our
colleague in Serbia some weeks ago at the beginning of the war, when he
posted something about learning and Nato interventions, will be seen as
very inflammatory to many people living in that part of the world. Where
to draw the line? Maybe noticing and discussing this will be more useful
for us than forbidding it. I am not sure about this, though. I believe
that openness to criticism and conflict, including heated conflict,
advances learning, especially in a group as capable as this, where many
views get balanced. I loved Maggis remark, because I had the same thoughts
myself at times, but I also loved those that came in defense of long
posters, especially Dan Chay's answer which balanced her post so well. The
overall discussion around the topic was very rounded, I thought, bringing
in a diversity of viewpoints, and in my view we did well around Maggie's
leaving the string.
I also enjoy being able to drop out for a few weeks, when I don't have the
time, and see the familiar names showing up in my learning org box when I
am on the road, to busy to read any of it.
I enjoy the philosophical posts, although some of them are more precisely
and briefly summed up by Woody Allen's philosophical course titles:
"Ethics: the categorical imperative and six ways to make it work for you.
Epistemology: Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this? The
Absurd: Why is existence often considered silly, particularly for men
wearing brown-and-white shoes?" Etc. etc. if you know what I mean.
I am grateful to you, for your commitment and service, and for everybody
who participates in many ways, through writing and reading, and through
leaving. It has enriched my life.
love
Max
Dr.Max Schupbach
2049 NW Hoyt Street # 3,PORTLAND,OR,97209
Phone/Fax (503)223 6548
Fax (801)365-9064
www.max-jytte.com email: max@max-jytte.com
--"Max Schupbach" <max@max-jytte.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>