Rick--
I'd like to take two messages to answer the message below.
This first message is one of gratitude to you for taking the large step of
dealing with me openly and publicly. Heretofore you have either decided
not to publish my messages--and there are folks here who believe we have
no hierarchy, no leader with power!--and/or written to me privately. I
think it took courage for you to decide to publish the piece, and to
disagree with it as clearly and forcefully as you have.
And this gratitude is genuine!
And: I am grateful to you for attacking me personally!
You have dealt with my comments in a way that you have not allowed me to
behave: you have expressed doubts about my motives, my intentions, and so
on.
For example: you decide that I have a "covert" motive for my message, and
you have concluded that my "real" target is "entropy," and, presumably,
At.
In other words, you have broken your own "rules."
I think that's the kind of step forward that some would call "learning."
Every LO has "rules," often unwritten, unexpressed, unrecognized.
"Learning" often begins with an attempt to make those tacit rules
explicit, so they can be recognized, evaluated--and transcended.
One way that LO can "learn," and become even more valuable than it is now,
is for all of us to learn what your "rules" are, to take part in
evaluating them, and suggest to you ways that you and LO can move beyond
its present form--if movement might be called for.
I feel grateful. And honored.
Steve
--Steve Eskow <dreskow@corp.webb.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>