Artur F Silva <artsilva@individual.eunet.pt> yesterday (Thu, 15 Jul 1999
07:20:37 +0100) wrote a most comprehensive response for this thread.
Good afternoon, Artur:
My colleague and I, here at DeSA, have been dismayed, as you so well point
out, by the possible implications of applying constraints to the
conversations that occur on this list. Our understanding of the learning
process has grown tremendously because of the wide variety of expression
so many of you have made. To curtail this variety would (may) have
unfortunate consequences.
Artur, you said:
"At lo-list we can have threads to discuss more theoretical questions, and
threads to discuss more practical questions, like the use of LOs at work.
Provided that there is people interested in both questions, that a good
thread with a good initial mail is created, discussion will happen."
We've all experienced - both through contribution and listening - threads
of both types. I agree with you that we need them both. Some contributors
brilliantly can combine both theoretical and practical content in the same
message. I'm awed and most appreciative (as well as respectful) of this
talent to express complex issues in a way that, if I give the discussion
the necessary dwell time, will reveal startling insights.
It's unfortunate that our culture encourages us to look for the "book of
answers", that font of wisdom that, for a while, makes us think we know
what we need to know and need not go beyond to explore for the surprises
that are just around the corner. As to why this has occurred would be an
important thread in itself.
The fact that we're dealing with asynchronous communication in the lo-list
permits complex issues to be discussed much more effectively than if they
were discussed orally. Even though some messages pass each other "in the
night", most benefit from reflection in construction and in reading (the
scroll bar on our computers was designed just for these issues, as is our
ever-growing hard drives).
I happened to be off-list for a few weeks and when I jumped back in, the
issue of Content & Practices had been born and drawing lots of attention
and emotion. Still, I'm not sure exactly where the flash point occurred,
but this thread has touched the core of many participants (me being one).
After cooling off (I was particularly bothered by the apparent disrespect
given to certain types of contributions not appealing to some persons), I
suggest that this dialogue offers a potentially tremendous look into core
issues of a learning organization - issues, looked at (how would you say)
more "objectively", may benefit our reason for being here in the first
place.
As opposed to "fixing" what some believe to be problems, i.e. for some:
long contributions and a skewing of who contributes, I'd like to ask our
community of participants (us) to see if we might not have some new clues
on how to work together in a collectively more satisfying and productive
way as would be commensurate with a LO.
Best Regards,
Terry Priebe
Decision Support Associates, Inc (DeSA)
mailto:insight@de-sa.com
http://www.de-sa.com
--"Terry Priebe" <insight@de-sa.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>