To respond to Kent's communication opens a new line of inquiry, I
think.
Kent says, "I'm deflated by Michael's statement that he doesn't have
a deep affinity for much of the postings." I don't mean anything
personal (that is, individual) by it. I also do not take it as a
statement of disinterest in the larger community or the various
intention of its members. I think this is the nature of a rich
community.
I am not much interested in dialogue only with others of very like
minds. I participate with the Santa Fe Institute community and do
not share deep affinity with many of its members. After many years
of "preaching to the converted", I eventually noticed that such
communities lacked richness and, probably, long-term viability in
larger societies.
Yes, I have experience deep affinity for some. I experience
sufficient affinity with others and, most often, with some others at
some times. I also expect that many on the list - even those who
recognise some leadership or appreciate some rigour in my
conversation - do not always appreciate what I say. And I know by
direct report that some don't appreciate it at all. Far from being
deflated by that, I welcome it as part of a rich community.
What attracts me to this list and continues my participation is the
shared area or domain of practice. That provides a forum in which I
can get rich contribution to my own development from unexpected
sources.
For instance, I do not experience affinity with the conversation on
Christianity and Learning Organisation (it's not a matter of authors
or personality) BUT I will be delighted to find that something is
raised in that conversation that draws me in - and not disappointed
if it doesn't.
I am not bemused and detached on this list. I do not maintain my
participation in any community where my relationship to it is
"bemused and detached". I am passionate about my participation,
about my own development and about contributing where it seems to
express me and/or seems appropriate.
Kent asks, " Can't LO be part of one's inner circle? " I'm not sure
and I don't know if it matters. John Seely Brown of Xerox PARC and
his group have developed ideas of community and use as a core concept
"core and periphery". That is, each community has a core which is
not fixed but is recognisable. Each also has a periphery which is
the source of its variety, vibrancy and ongoing viability. What's
more, we may be core at some time and periphery at others in the same
community. This is the flavour of the LO list that I like very much.
I did misread "object" as you used it and appreciate your pointing it
out making the distinction clear in your response. It is one that
I'll use in my work with groups and communities.
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/>