I appreciate the direct response from Michael McMaster. It gives me some
more material with which to develop 'the object' further. That's unusual,
which is my point.
When I say 'object', I mean that a question has been opened that two or
more share. Each agrees to pursue an answer together, and to not be
content with initial opinions, which are always available for achieving
closure. Sharing opinion is different from shared pursuit. Shared pursuit
need not arrived at an answer, only move toward one. An object is a
little different from an objective. With an objective, we are going to
fill things in, achieve closure according to criteria we can state at the
outset.
We share intentions in LO, and out of this threads are spawned. I'm
talking specifically about the development of threads. I can think of a
few signs I would expect to see if the interlocutors were pursuing a
shared object within a thread:
- Rewording of another person's statement in a direction that the other
person would recognize as an advance (rather than direct quotation).
- Extension of one's thoughts in a way that one had not previously
considered (rather than linkage to a familiar thought).
- Risk of appearing foolish, ignorant, eager, or other embarrassing
aspects of openness.
I agree that the list doesn't need need a common purpose or objective.
Instead, every once in a while, a thread needs a common object that
persists and develops over a couple of weeks.
Do I want "Depth"? I'm too uncertain about that word to apply it.
Statements don't need to be any smarter or more informed that they are.
They could be more responsive and self-forming (in some threads, some of
the time).
I'm deflated by Michael's statement that he doesn't have a "deep affinity"
for much of the postings. Does he have it for some? He has become
recognized as the leader and tastemaker, and if he says he is a bemused
yet detatched guest at a party, then that will have a lot of influence on
the party.
I like a party too, but all the swirling is not conducive to long-lasting
conversations that make a difference. Perhaps he is suggesting that to
modify the pattern of speech, even in a corner of the room, is to ruin the
party. On the other hand, he suggests that the party IS a kind of
sustained conversation and can achieve something. But how good is it? As
we all do, he conducts sustained conversation elsewhere, among those ideas
and people with whom he has more affinity. Can't LO be part of one's inner
circle?
I don't know if it is possible for these two patterns of speech (which we
haven't completely clarified) to coexist within one listserv, or whether
it is possible to have adequate sustained conversation in any listserv.
That's the question I opened myself to, and decided to keep working on.
Kent Myers myersk@us.net
Alexandria, VA
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>