Communication inter alia LO8752

William J. Hobler, Jr (bhobler@worldnet.att.net)
Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:00:08 -0400

Replying to LO8699 --

Michael I like what is developing in your dialog with Rol and must take a
middle position. Forgive me I have not read your book(s) so I may be
somewhat off base.

Rol stated

>> understanding where the "processing" is occurring in the process. When I
>> think of it in that sense, I am still stuck with the notion of sender and
>> receiver as the only places where value or information is added.

and your response was

>I hear you wanting to locate processing, value and information in
>physical, identifiable locations.

Some good stuff snipped out

>We will always find that nothing occurs in the solid, physical
>location but it actually occurs only when there is space. So might
>it not be better to make the fundamental shift in our thinking to
>think of things occurring in spaces? If we make that shift, then we
>begin to look to creation or design of spaces in which things can
>occur and from which things can emerge.

I side with Rol that understanding takes place in the minds of the people
involved. It emerges out of the dialog that challenges old beliefs and
builds new ones. If there is a space to be created or designed I think it
is the space that encompasses the relationships of the people involved.

This is a current subject for me in that I am creating a workshop for
facilitators. One of the most critical goals for a facilitator is to
create an environment in which creative dialog can occur, and (s)he must
do it quickly. Rick recently commented about this environment with
relation to our recent 'lurker' thread. Here in this sterile world of
mechanically reproduced words on a computer screen we have narrow channels
of communication and long periods between the offer and response of
thoughts. What emerges is creative but it emerges in my mind or yours.

You refer to the insight of a city planner

>(An interesting reference for this work is C. Alexander in his work
>on Persian Carpets where he explores the nature of centres in
>compelling patterns. This work provides wonderful insight on
>design.)

Alexander is one of the first to recognize the efficacy of creating space
for humans as the key to good design. But it was not the space itself but
the intended use of that space that mattered. It is what people could and
would do there.

Rol had commented
>> Ultimately, _responsibility_ for understanding must reside with these
>> sender/receivers. This is my central and only point, and was my answer to
>> the question originally posed.

To which you responded
>The focus on "ultimate understanding" isn't the only focus for
>communication - even in an environment of coordinated action and
>responsibility for results.

I interpret Rol's meaning to be that the people involved have a
responsibility for coming to some understanding of the subject under
discussion.

You continue

>The major purpose of communication, in
>my view and interest, is generation of something new - something
>which didn't exist in any of the participants before.

Doesn't this assume that the people involved have arrived at some
understanding? Even if the thought is new, the dialog was creative, they
must have some shared understanding of the subject.

Again you comment

>I'm not sure "responsibility for understanding" can be usefully
>(let alone accurately) located in a single individual. When I coach
>individuals in communication, I suggest that each person take
>independent responsibility for communication and understanding.
>That is, if I'm coaching you, I suggest you "be responsible" for
>ensuring your own understanding and for ensuring the
>understanding of others.

I am not sure that we can attribute the 'responsibility for understanding'
to anyone at all. Personally it took three different tries at
differential calculus before I understood it. That is before I could
visualize what a partial differential equation tells one about the
behavior of a system.

IMO our responsibility is to expose the elements of the ideas under
discussion to the best insight we can bring to bare. Laying this insight
open to the others in the conversation for their consideration we allow
iteration of the thoughts by several minds. If my partners in the dialog
are unable to understand and I am unable to articulate any more clearly
then we must settle for what we have.

To do this we must have the atmosphere, or space, in which we feel able to
be open to criticism, to counter intuitive thought, to making connections
that are 'unthinkable.' The space is the relationships among us.

As for my responsibility for understanding the subject, I dispare about my
ability to judge accurately whether I understand or not. I cannot think
of a subject about which I considered myself expert that didn't have
someone like you or Rol come up with an insight that just knocked me off
my feet.

-- 

bhobler@worldnet.att.net Bill Hobler

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>