>I have subscribed to this list for a couple of months now.
I have been subscribing for over a year and over that time I have seen
some patterns to the dialogue here and my attention to them .. there are
certainly times when there are a couple of conversations I am following
with great interest - recently the Wheatley dialogue started off well for
me and I had some great learnings in the Symbiosis one
One of the things I have learnt about myself whilst I have been
participating is that I like stuff I can connect with at some level even
if the connection is small - sometimes it is because the heart of the
message reaches me, sometimes because I agree with what is being said and
sometime because it triggers a thought about something I have been doing,
or sometimes because I disagree or have a different perspective. I am
beginning to connect this with something Meg Wheatley said about identity
and self-referencing .... I would not want to ask people contributing to
the list to be anything other than who they are with what they have to
say, connecting with what they can connect with .. I can only ask myself
why I connect with things and what I am learning about myself and
learning... I trust that if I do that then people might connect with me
and we might collectively learn something here....
In doing this I have found I have been less dissapointed in the list
overall and thankful for the threads I can connect with - and sometimes
because I am not connecting with any individual thread it releases me to
pay attention to the patterns between threads - which is of itself a
If there is
> intellectualizing, debate, and advocacy.
on this list, then I have a sense that it is because these have been part
of how we were educated and the organisations we have inhabited.. I am
also conscious that this is a place where people are working not to be
this way ... so how could we build on the opportunities for learning in
this arena? I have found it a great place to 'pay attention to my
intentions' and consider how and what I am saying before I post it and I
would be thankful for feedback about when I am being defensive or
advocative (is that a word??)
>Why is it so diffcult for us to deal heart-to-heart?
For me it depends on what we are talking about and why I have connected to
it to the extent of wanting to post...
>Isn't part of the attraction of LO that Senge and others have found a way
>to include the human soul in organizations?
When I read this part of the message I started to assume that you were
meaning that this was the only/main attraction of Senge. Then I noticed
that you said 'part'. At the stage when I was assuming only/main I was
troubled by the sense that this was a judgement of some conversations....
can you say more about what made you say this?
>Why do we become so threatened when the human soul bares itself?
I am not sure what to ask here... I would like to know more about what it
is that makes you say this.. but don't know how to ask it
>If this list, where the primary risk is to be publicly known for having a
>soul rejects or avoids that level of connection, how can we hope to create
>it in organizations where the risk is much higher?
I liked the challenge of this question, especially since I have grown to
value this list as a safe place to explore the things which would be
riskier with people who did not understand where I was coming from ...
how would we know we were 'baring our soul' and bringing it into the
discussion here - what would be the features of such a converasation?
What are the characteristics of organisations which include the human
>Causing trouble again...
Many thanks for a stimulating post...........
VISTA Consulting - for a better future
Julie Beedon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <email@example.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>