Dear Barry,
Your answer was so kind. But please let us continue this discussion for
you raised very interesting points.
>You write that "rhythm is simply a pattern in movement." Simply? Would not
>the theories and reveries of great musicians inform your own thinking
>regarding rhythm? Surely they have. For me, rhythm is something so
>profoundly basic to my humanity, but which connects me further with many
>other forms of life. When I hear rhythms in music I react. When I discern
>rhythms in writing and speaking, I also react. Because of my experience,
>my background, I am conscious of the former and latter.
Let me disappoint you a little bit here. I do think that rhythm is «simply
a pattern in movement». I think that rhythm is a simple study concept. The
real fascinating fact is... movement. But movement is very elusive and in
great variety, and so we use concepts and tools to study it. Rhythm, as
far as I can see is the most basic idea of a pattern in movement. Is the
last shred of order before total chaos (or, in other words, total
movement). Time itself, in my view, is a measure of movement, but time
wouldn't even be measurable without rhythm (and vice versa). Woow!
Radical, no? But I know you know what i mean.
>You write:
>>"If we have a system of communication, where we are trying to create
>>movement within the other person's bag of concepts, our best hope of
>>avoiding chaos, of controlling the movement, is to control the rhythm so
>>that the movement/reasoning we are emiting is in harmony with the
>>movement/reasoning the other person is able to process. Thus getting a
>>higher chance of communicating."
>Hmmm. Is that necessarily true? I agree with you in some ways, but I also
>think that our rhythms should generate a certain provocation, too,
>polyphonic at least some of the time, rather than monophonic. At the level
>of ideas, we write so often about how many people retire into the status
>quo rather than consider new, sometimes disquieting thoughts. It's
>natural. But the Academy, this list, Speaker's Corner, etc. are ways to
>mix the rhythms, so that they are no in harmony.
Yes, well, it depends on the objective. If what we're looking for is
communication i do believe that going too fast, even in provocation, as
you say, could create bumps in the process we really don't need. Going too
fast is instintively understood as a menace by the other partie, thus
he/she gets immediatly defensive and it then takes lots of time and energy
to get him/her to listen again. If you go in harmony with the other's
rhythm, your ideas should do the trick of disquieting, and you both will
be in better position to listen to one another.
On the other hand, you could do exactly the opposite. If you believe in
emergent concepts (I do too actually), you could simply storm away through
pacific concepts and then drop the little bomb of a new idea, but then you
will have to slow down tremendously to give the other the time needed to
process and absorb. And if you get a fast agressive answer you will need
the time yourself, no?
But I do believe that most of the time, it pays off to go slowly. But,of
course, sometimes you can't afford it. And sometimes motivation comes from
provocation. There's just no one formulae. It depends on the objective.
That's why rhythm is so interesting to study. know what I mean?
>I enjoyed reading your thinking about the rhythms in writing.
Please read my other msg on the subject, Barry, I developed it a little
more and would love to get your input on it.
I identify «rhythm» with «feeling», and if one thinks of movement as the
study object, this can get us much further, no? (well, well, I'm thinking
it as I'm writing it and I'm loving it!)
>Interestingly, I brought to my company a format called Information Mapping
>which has become a template for the twelve hundred or so ISO 9001
>documents which define what we do to serve our customers.
Great, Barry! Do you think you could make it available for me, or at least
some of it, or some main ideas? I've been working on the subject and would
very much like to write something on it and it would be of great help to
get whatever I can on writen business communication.
>I don't think you need a hand, Bruno. I think you have stated your ideas
>most beautifully; that others will respond will demonstrate it so.
Oh, Thank you Barry, you're very kind, but I do think you overestimate me
and in truth, I really think I need to discuss the subject much more.
Which is why I'm glad for your help.
I loved the Rumi quatrain, and i hope you don't mind, but I intend to use
it in the future:-)
Muito Obrigado,
Bruno
--"Bruno Martins Soares" <bmartins.soares@mail.EUnet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>