Thread: Content and Practices for this list
Dear LO list members
On 20 Jul 99, Robert Bacal wrote to me off list replying to my message:
"Content and Practices for this list" --LO22280
Greetings Robert,
I personally think that although most people might have already resolved
their thoughts about these issues (and therefore find this boring), there
still may be some who would engage these issues. I think this interaction
between you and I is an example of being able to have disagreement and
have the disagreement in such a way that it can lead to learning (more
will be said about this as you read my responses) which, as I understand
it, is the purpose of this list.
You wrote:
>Stanton, I wish we could be having this discussion publicly even if
>the comments might be negative about my post(s), but
>unfortunately, it appears that the unpredictable censoring of
>messages isn't going to allow that. So here's a private response,
>and you can post what you would like publicly including excerpts
>from this message.
I have had no such experiences as you have described. I have had several
"public" discussions on the list where disagreements were evident yet
there was no censoring. Based on my experiences, I don't believe the
monitored nature of the list is "censoring" disagreement actually; but
rather, the realm of pronouncing judgement. As an example, you refer in
this post, to the monitored nature of this list as "unpredictable
censoring". I stumble over this because embedded in your description is a
judgement that seems to condemn. Instead of indicating that "the list is
monitored in a way that I am yet to understand" (which would lead to
further inquiry), you make a pronouncement which suggests that you are the
"knowing one" in this matter which leaves me in the position to either
side with you or not (and in siding with you I adopt a "slantwise" opinion
of those monitoring the list; and by implication, all who condone the
list by their continued participation -- on the other hand if I side
against you, I am one of "them"). Rather than "either/or", I would rather
choose "and" which allows me to expect legitimate perspectives from both.
Now, I recognize that what I've just written is a description not only of
what you have written but also how I internally processed what you have
written. Therefore, without polling others, I speak only for myself.
Then you wrote:
>First, you are assuming that I was unaware. [snip]
I tried very hard, as I wrote my earlier post, to speak to Stan
Schellenburg's responses and to no one else's. This is what I actually
wrote:
"I think your post did to Robert Bacal what I believe you were upset about
Robert doing to others. But, I think the saving grace of your message is
that you were aware of what you did. You used the post as a learning
opportunity by encouraging readers to reflect on what you and Robert
wrote."
I actually did not read the post that he was referring to so I could only
comment on Stan S.'s response to it when I wrote, "I think your post did
to Robert Bacal what I believe you [Stan S.] were upset about Robert doing
to others." Stan S. felt you had shut some people down (and based on the
tone of his post disapproved of that) and then he wrote in such a way (at
least how I received it) to shut you, Robert, down. That was just an
observation I made (if he thought you were wrong in doing a particular
thing, then my issue was if he knew something to be wrong, why did he turn
around and do the same thing?). He went on in his post (and post script)
to acknowledge this and open it up for others to examine. This is where
my "But" fits in when I wrote, "But, I think the saving grace of your
message is...". I was NOT saying, "the saving grace of YOUR message (as
apposed to the message that Robert wrote)" or "Robert Bacal's post had no
merit, BUT Stan's does." What I WAS saying was, "The very thing you do not
approve Robert Bacal doing, you have done [that to me has no merit or
instruction]; BUT, the saving grace of your message (this message, with
comparison to nothing else) is that you recognized the inconsistency and
then used that awareness to invite others to inquire and learn."
I do not know of your awareness (one way or another). I do know of Stan
S.'s awareness, in this instance, through his reflection revealed in his
post script.
Next you wrote:
> [snip] However Stan's
>reaction, I think makes my point, that we DO understand that the
>behavior of a few people can set a tone (for the good or the bad of
>the community)...whether it be the tone that Stan objected to, or
>the lengths and language that some others object to (but are not
>permitted to express publicly).
And my point is only in this: you "objected to" something and Stan
"objected to" something; you both required (in order to satisfy your
objection) that someone else change to make your assessment of the
situation better; you both felt that if that someone else made the change
then your learning (or the learning of those you speak for) would be
improved. My sense is that there is a learning that can occur by working
through this with the desire for mutual benefit. I want to learn more
clearly why you believe the "lengths and language" styles of some
individuals is a detriment to the list. And I wonder, EVEN IF the
"lengths and language" styles of some individuals are a detriment, whether
the members of the list might be better served by being allowed to develop
the capacity to discern the difference between "crap" [as you phrase it]
and knowledge for themselves (I tried to develop this image in my earlier
post -LO22280- when I spoke about where the "strength" of a tree comes
from: the growth through struggle produces strength. Sometimes making
things more convenient or easy may not have the benefit we suppose).
Next you wrote:
>I won't try to contradict your belief about my level of awareness. I've
>learned that those who will form such opinons without knowing
>somebody generally don't alter their perceptions.
I think I spoke to this a little bit above. I don't know what your level
of awareness is.
You then wrote:
> [snip] ...but you DO realize that
>this list is "protected" by its moderator? I'm not saying that's good
>or bad...just that it is so.
Asking individuals to speak with respect toward one another "seems"
appropriate to me. Asking individuals to speak to topic "seems"
appropriate (especially since they are free and encouraged to start a new
thread with their thoughts if it is off topic). And sometimes, there
simply is "the way things are". That doesn't mean that inquiry is
avoided, or prodding shouldn't occur, or boundaries shouldn't be pushed,
but it does mean that baseball and football are different. If I don't
recognize that I am in a baseball game, I may become terribly frustrated
when I invest myself in trying to make us a good football team. This
should not be understood to mean that if you don't want to play our game
get out; but rather the realization that "it is a baseball game" and
enjoying it the best one can (There were many times as a boy that I wanted
to play football but the rest of the kids wanted to play baseball. I
could have chosen to go home in anger, or I could have kept pushing the
issue until I got everyone frustrated, or I could have fully stated my
desires and then, when it was clear that the game was going to be
baseball, go home and get my glove and enjoy the fellowship -- I chose the
latter). This list, as best as I can understand it, was a concept that
Rick nurtured and eventually launched. It seems to me this list has been
highly successful and beneficial to many (but this should not be an excuse
for not looking for improvement or wanting to learn in order to be
beneficial to an even broader audience); does this mean that it fits
everyone or that it is comfortable for everyone? Probably not. It's not
the way that I'm best suited; yet, I have benefited greatly as I've
ventured out. There may be opportunities to participate in other forums
and "venture out" in them as well. (I just thought of something)...
As I was writing this last sentence, I remembered that there was an
announcement of another list. I went back in my saved mail and found this
message. I also discovered that it was from Robert Bacal, I assume you:
This message is about the formation of a new list:
>From: "Robert Bacal" <rbacal@escape.ca>
>To: worklearning@egroups.com
>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:19:30 +0000
>Subject: [worklearning] Why this exists? Why the need/
>
>I created this work partly out of frustration with the LO list. While
>it apparently is useful for some, it wasn't for me, and after
>discussions with Richard over the years, it became clear the LO list
>wasn't going to change (which is fine). What amazes me is the
>response to a SINGLE message letting people know about this list. In
>less than 24 hours more than 40 people signed up. That's unheard of,
>and I think indicates this should be worthwhile.
I was one of those people. I received messages from this list briefly.
Is it still operating? Has the "unheard of" initial responses continued?
How is success and benefit defined? How should we understand "failure" (I
would like to speak to that next).
In my earlier post I wrote:
>> Is it possible to share with others on the list how something affects me
>> without demanding that others must change because of how it affects me (or
>> affects those I am trying to protect)?
and you responded with:
>Yes and no. This list will handle agreement or expression of
>positive, bland expressions of feelings or emotions. It
>intellectualizes emotion and its expression. It does not tolerate and
>will not permit certain kinds of disagreement or expressions of
>feelings. As such it it is a failure as a model for learning. Several
>others have attempted to broach this subject, but their messages, I
>am told were rejected.
>
> So I agree it SHOULD be possible. But if only positive things are
>expressed, negative comments supressed, and strong expressions
>of emotion (or use of real language - how people speak and
>express themselves is used, that will not be tolerated.
Again, I think this gets us back to something I touched on earlier; I
don't think the discriminating quality is whether a comment is positive or
negative, but about what the "negative" is intended to do. "Negative"
information can be used to disqualify or negate someone or something; but,
it can also be the basis (the energy) for learning, improving and growing
(and yes delight)-- when it is understood in light of a developmental
process, where what currently "is" is not the defining statement but only
a snapshot among many. You provide an example of the former in your
statement above, "As such it [this LO list] is a failure as a model for
learning." This list IS a failure. It *is* disqualified, invalid, wrong
because... . But, if this "snapshot" is seen as one among many and my
vision is for "what it WILL be", then I can use the current snapshot to
celebrate where we've come but also to look forward to (even long for)
what it will BECOME and participate in the process of "maturing it".
When I look at the pictures of my children, I see a progression of their
lives developing into fullness. I fully enjoyed my children at each stage
of their growth, and yet I realize as I look back, that at least part of
the joy came from knowing that there was "a fullness of growth" yet to
come (what I mean is this, if I did not believe that my child was going to
grow and develop, there would have been a sadness as I watched him crawl;
there would not have been delight if I knew that when he turned 20 years
old he would still be crawling). Maybe you can see how this works. If I
assume that the snapshot I see of a person (a particular post that is read
at a particular time) IS that person then I might be tempted to address
that person as "You CRAWLER": CRAWLERS have no place on this list; or at
the very least, if you CRAWLERS want to participate you *must* WALK (which
of course excludes them).
If I'm not thinking in terms of a developmental process, I might miss the
magnitude of the potential "yet to come" (the very one I scorn because the
snapshot today reveals him crawling may be the very one who becomes the
subject in a snapshot of a marathon runner later on). When I was raising
my children, did I do so for the purpose of seeing them mature into
healthy, productive people? Yes, I wanted to see them walk and run and
fly! If that was my goal, then how could I celebrate their "attempts" at
crawling, or their first faltering steps, or their first distorted
attempts at language? In my household, each of these events were met with
profound glee. Why? These "attempts" (as snapshots) could be categorized
as failures and the basis for disqualification; but, they are absolutely
transformed when seen as "growth" or "development". Is it possible to
consider ourselves on this list or even the list itself as part of
something growing and developing? In this, I think we can identify
opportunities for growth, items that would provide further benefit, etc.
all these things fall into the category of "negatives" when taken as
single snapshots.
Well, I've probably gone on with this illustration too long and have
become redundant and tedious. My apologies. But, I hope you can see the
picture I've tried to create and maybe see how it affects my interactions
on and with this LO list.
I'll close with this: maybe it's not disagreements that are being
"censored" but rather what we are trying to accomplish by our
disagreements. What am I trying to do with this disagreement? toward
you? toward the list? toward my own thinking?
What do you think? Is it useful to speak of these issues placed into this
framework?
The best to you,
Stanton
--Stanton L. Berberich e-mail: sberberi@uhl.uiowa.edu University of Iowa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>