Replying to LO23719 --
Dear Organlearners,
Both Doc and Jan have sent interesting mesgs on this subject. Both show
how ample is the angle of focus of this discussion. Going from ET
intelligence to brain functions.
I would like, though, to go a bit further on the discussion on form and
content. I provocatively asked if rhythm of form is not a meta-rhythm and
got a good answer from Leo on the subject. One of the images he used I
liked the most was the one saying that rhythm of form was like the
movement of the chest while rhythm of content was the movement of
breathing. At least that's how I interpret it:
> Obviously, it is more a matter of feeling than seeing. Rhythm of content,
> is a rhythm of the process. So in an organisation/company a rhythm of
> content could be the fluctuations of workload, the dips and peaks , like
> the waves of blood which is pumped by the rhythm of the heart. So Bruno,
> the content-rhythm is a pattern of the process of movement. That is how I
> understand it. But I agree with you that this rhythm of content could
> trigger or interact with a rhythm in form, like the movement of the chest
> when breathing.
I think that is a very clever metaphor. But I'm worried we are working
with very distinct terminologies.
I was thinking it this way:
It is fairly difficult to distiguish form from content because one
includes necessarly the other. One could hardly imagine human breathing
without a chest, nor the point of the chest or the lungs if breathing
wasn't needed. Yet, instinctively, we get there. We can recognize form
and content apart. But this becomes more and more difficult as we get
more abstract.
When we say 0 or 1, are we showing content or form? Actually, we're
showing form. 0 means nothingness and 1 means a unity. Right? We don't
know of what yet. But it could be content if the «what» is abstract like
in your usual theorectical mathematic equations. 0 is nothingness as
abstract concept and 1 means unity as abstract concept.
We use general abstractions when we communicate (please let us not get
into Wittgenstein!) because we are so different and our perceptions are so
diverse that we only communicate by accepting the margin of error that the
most basic constructions (words or numbers) intrinsically have. So, in
fact we have limited control over rhythm of form when focusing on content.
The most basic form of representation of content is still not merely
content, it is also form. Which means that basically, content has its own
uncontrollable pattern, and thus its own uncontrollable rhythm.
Now, form is a pattern we run over content so to use it one way or the
other. In communication, the form is used to better... communicate. The
best form should be the most effective pattern of content we can find to
communicate. So, we can use long sentences or short sentences, depending
on what works better to communicate what we want. The same way we choose
videos or slide shows in a conference room.
One thing remains, though, whatever rhythm the content may have, form is
still a pattern used to manage that rhythm. Form is a pattern provided to
the rhythm of content. So, rhythm of form is actually a rhythm of the
rhythm of content. A meta-rhythm. The same way the rhythm of the lungs
regulate the rhythm of our breathing. We use form to control the rhythm of
content.
Lets think of writing: we can opt between words as «dead» and «deceased».
Two different forms used to create different feelings from the same basic
content. No? And with two different rhythms.
In organizations: how do we define workloads? Sales? Units produced? Good
way to measure it, but what exactly is the WORK? And when we measure it
aren't we giving it form? Ooooo, very fine lines we're walking here, very
fine lines.
But... does this mean that we can only control rhythm of form, not rhythm
of content? Good question to think on.
This made sense to me as I wrote it. Makes sense to you?
Abraços,
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>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.