OK. While I have been known to refuse a specific invitation, it is a rare
occurrence. Michael asks, with a kind word for my book, so I'll respond.
(By the way, it is a fair job of representing a portion of what's in the
book on this subject.)
I've changed the heading of this by deleting "inter alia" because I don't
know what it means in this context and can't imagine what it might add to
the topic of conversation. Each time it appears, I wonder how it got
attached to the subject line of communication.
> Terri wrote
> >I...believe that our language, as well as communication in
> >general, is an important (and often overlooked)
> >consideration.
> If we want to -think- a new way, we may
> need a new language to -communicate- that new thinking.
I would say that if we want new results we need to think in new ways and
if we want to think in new ways we need new language. Not necessarily new
words - more likely new phrases, sentences, relationships between words
and ideas, grammar, etc. (As in the grammar of building, or engineering
or manufacturing.)
I say that we need this new language for the thinking itself, not merely
for communicating with others. We might begin with much of intuition
unexpressed, feelings and images but we will need to progress to new
language if we are to develop rigour and to share the thinking
effectively.
To learn something new we first need to be able hear the new, then think
the new and finally speak it - and that is the order they occur in. One
of our problems of introducing new ideas is that we either have too much
new language and it can't be heard, too sloppy new language and it can't
be thought rigorously, or too little new language and the new turns into
something trivial and ineffective.
My reading of this list for the new language finds a great deal of old and
mainly a few words and phrases packed around them. The old language of
organisation, management, motivation and pyschology I find to be the norm.
> I wonder if this holds true also for a new emotional
> environment? If we evolve to -think- in terms of trust must
> our language evolve as well?
Or, I'd say, if we intend to evolve to a new level of trust, won't our
language change? There is not a simple, linear cause and effect here. A
mere change in words won't do the job. A mere change in intention won't
do the job. Changes in action alone will not do the job. Even
EXPERIENCES of increased trust will not do the job.
I propose that many failures to transfer learning from trust building
exercises such as outward bound experiences are a result of not learning
new ways of speaking to go along with the experience.
As trust builds, a difference in speaking and listening can be observed.
As language alters, a difference in trust will be reported. They need to
co-emerge and/or co-evolve. Awareness of the language issue will help to
maintain it. (In the moment, awareness is not needed so much because
someone, some community or some structure has provided the space of trust
and the experience alters the speaking and listening.)
Before anyone asks me for examples, make some attempts at generating your
ideas. I make this a condition of further response on the matter. Why?
Because this is a natural phenomenon that can be found in everyone's life
who has experienced trust. Don't look to to your theories. Look to your
life.
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
of the universe. Heraclitus
--Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>