norm,
these are very nice statements of the premises of good communication and
they are well worth remembering, even within this list
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Norm Sheehan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dhuulu yalla "MIGHT BE SOMETHING"
Hi All
i have not read posts for a couple of days...so i thought i might add
some comments on the principles & a few basic concepts of Indigenous
Dialogue.
Respect (as a first step in all communication)
Suspension (of judgement of others regardless of their words)
Listening (seeing beyond the words to the human context of each speaker)
Speaking (speaking from (self) rather than about (others))
Seeing (the whole movement of communications and interactions over time
as a patterning of relations -some going in some directions others going
other ways...suspension and perception at the meta-communicative level
... seeing and being mindful of where our communications are taking us
as a whole group in communication)
Acceptance (there are times of agreement, conflict & mutual invigoration
(and many other communication events) in dialogue...all these are
necessary and crucial elements of human communication ... these events
MIGHT BE SOMETHING significant in the whole sometimes and MAY BE
SOMETHING significant for an individual sometimes)
Responsibility (each partner in this communication process is
responsible for the continuation of the conversations through enacting
these principles in their own sharing of communications...this is the
individual responsibility to instigate "rules" lower down the system
rather than relying on an applied overarching set of sanctions.
Dhuulu yallangaline
Speak well and be true
Norm
At 04:10 PM 12/10/2004 -0700, you wrote:
Talk about a hit and run...
If you all plan to resort to those types in interactions, please keep
them off list!
The last time interchanges like this heated up the list received at
least
10 requests to unsubscribe with who knows how many just fading away.
Remember that group hug from last week?
John
On
Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Rosan Chow wrote:
> Cindy - thanks for bringing me back. ... for a few seconds. could i
ask you a
> very personal question?
>
> did you go to kindergarten? i would love to imagine when you were a
lovable
> little girl singing twinkle twinkle little stars!
>
> sorry that i can't contribute for a while.
>
> bye. rosan
>
>
> Cindy Jackson wrote:
>
> > Rosan,
> >
> > Your latest post is not entirely accurate. You write,
> >
> > >of course, all the practical concerns raised are valid and need
> > >attention. i am not opposing any of those, and i don't think i
have.
> >
> > I beg to differ.
> >
> > You specifically opposed the protection of privacy rights, writing,
"i
> > suggest that under all circumstances, we should name names."
> >
> > >i, as usual, was experimenting with different ways of looking at
things.
> > >and i have acknowledged that Rogers' recommendation was a utopian
ideal.
> >
> > You've skirted the issue here, as usual.
> >
> > Ken's explanation of the Rogers view did not point to a simple
utopianism.
> > It clearly pointed to Rogers' concern for individual privacy rights.
> > According to Ken's story, Rogers actually resigned his professorship
rather
> > than accept a policy violating student privacy. So, no, Rogers
wasn't being
> > utopian. He took the position that some issues are private and ought
to be,
> > always. The exceptions are exceptions people carve out for
themselves, not
> > the exceptions that occur when others decide to name names under all
> > circumstances.
> >
> > You're famous for spinning questions to the list and shifting themes
when it
> > suits you, but you haven't answered the questions others have asked.
> >
> > Instead, you side-step with a coy comment, telling us that you "feel
> > extremely rewarded that my little comment provoked such interesting
> > responses." If I could get half a dozen senior scholars to respond
to a
> > question, I'd feel rewarded, too, and I'd have the courtesy to
respond in
> > turn.
> >
> > >like Rogers, i am thankful for the discussions. but i am somewhat
> > >disappointed that no one was willing to ride the imaginative train
with
> > >me, and pump some fresh air into our at times suffocating
intellectual
> > >highways.
> >
> > Comparing yourself with Carl Rogers reminds me a little bit of the
1988
> > debate between the two vice presidential nominees, Lloyd Bentsen and
Dan
> > Quayle. Quayle compared himself with Jack Kennedy. Bentsen answered,
> > "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack
Kennedy was
> > a friend of mine. You're no Jack Kennedy." I didn't know Carl Rogers
or
> > speak at his university, but I have seen his books, and one thing
Rogers was
> > famous for was taking the time to answer questions.
> > Pump some fresh air? Sounds like grinding smoke to me.
> >
> > No one refused to ride imaginative train. Erik, Michael, Ken,
Kari-Hans, and
> > John got on board. But you're a little naive to think that they are
obliged
> > to see things as you do. They imagine things their own way, and they
have
> > every right to do it.
> >
> > If you ask questions and people answer honestly, you can't complain.
You
> > asked the questions. You posed the challenges. They answered.
> >
> > When they ask questions, you duck and weave.
> >
> > If you're concerned about suffocation on the intellectual highway, I
suggest
> > you transfer to a school where you get the challenges you need. If
you can't
> > recognize the quality of response that you've had here or see that
anyone
> > else deserves an answer, then I can sure name one name of a design
research
> > student who doesn't meet my standards of serious behavior.
> >
> > Cindy
> >
> > GK, I know I'm being judgemental here. Sometimes, rude is rude. The
last
> > time I got peeved, you analyzed my style. I can be as open-ended as
anyone
> > in a struictued encounter. There is no structure here: everything
blends
> > together in a fudge of mixed metaphors and unclear phases. In this
stew,
> > it's fair to stir the broth. Rosan asks questions when she wants,
answers
> > when she thinks she's right, begs off when she can't provide an
answer.
> > Yeeeeesh! Last time you offered to clarify things in an interaction
between
> > Rosan and me, I said I'd be willing to hear more and Rosan said she
didn't
> > want to be managed. If you can find a way to make this list work
without
> > Rosan's kind of rudeness, I'll welcome your suggestion.
> >
> > To me, Rosan's diatribe about disappointment and intellectual
suffocation is
> > just rude. If Rosan wanted to say thanks and farewell, fine. She
decided to
> > get in a last dig and I decided to call it.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from
McAfeeŽ
> > Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
<http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963>
>
|
