Dear Isabel,

Thanks very much! Yes, I've felt all too keenly aware of the scarcity of 
female voice (Cherryl's being a notable exception) in this forum so far. 
Perhaps in my way I've been trying to make up for this lack (some of my 
alpha male colleagues have been prone to equate me with a woman! Oh, and I 
too was a child in Africa and suspect that I absorbed much 'African 
Cosmology' into my 'inclusional awareness'. Moreover, my non-Darwinian 
evolutionary ideas, my interest in art and non-literal verbal expression, 
my technical naivety etc have also made me very much a child-like outsider 
to my biological colleagues, whilst my 'academic' disposition alienates me 
from many who I long to be able to communicate with).

I feel in much sympathy with your concern that 'the revolution has not even 
begun and is the same old story of power of one person over another': my 
concern about this danger lay behind my note to FoW (it was not intended as 
a criticism aimed at anyone in particular, just a voicing of concern and 
suggestion about how the danger might be circumvented).

I actually agree very much with Karl's view that we should 'rather aim our 
efforts at creating a discursive forum (or pluralistic space, so to 
speak)where wisdom can emerge and flourish, without anyone claiming to have 
a monopoly on truth and wisdom. We should let the goddess Aletheia speak 
for herself.' The 'sailboat leadership' I was speaking of (though 
'leadership' may not be an apt word to use in the circumstances) is very 
much about this kind of co-creative cultivation and learning. To my mind, 
however, there may be a distinction between the kind of pluralism that is 
based on the 'live and let live' of mutually contradictory alternatives 
(not necessarily a 'bad thing', but offering limited possibilities for 
synergistic emergence), and that which emerges from recognizing the 
commonality of receptive space (the 'welcome home') underlying distinct yet 
complementary expressions.

Anyway, I can feel myself being drawn into hot water again, so I'll retreat 
from the kitchen whilst I may, having stirred the cauldron.


Best

Alan



--On 30 October 2006 11:17 +0000 Isabel Adonis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> Dear Alan,
> I'm not even supposed to be in this conversation and bob my partner
> doesn't really want me to be in this conversation: perhaps he is a little
> bit ashamed of me and perhaps he is not.  I am outsider - a writer,and my
> thing in life is that actually I don't fit in anywhere.  Every now and
> then I read stuff on this site - the stuff I'm not supposed to: and it is
> very reminiscent of being a child in Africa and hiding behind the chairs
> and listening to the grown ups talking, the academics who are talking
> together.  There is my mother hovering, running back and forwards to the
> kitchen and looking after everyone because the servants are off. And this
> is a male conversation and the woman is not really part of it. Have you
> really considered that?
> I really liked this piece and I really liked the passion and energy of
> Karl, though I don't read all the pieces.  The fact is that if you lot
> want to change another lot of people - the academics, then you have to
> see that it is 'wrong' in the beginning and is in fact the same old
> problem of power and domination.  I think I know something you don't know
> and I'm going to teach you, for your own good. And then there are the
> ones who are talking and they are frustrating the ones who are frustrated
> and the ones who want something and cannot get it. Then they see their
> own frustration projected outwards and so on and so on.
> So really the revolution has not even begun and is the same old story of
> power of one person over another.  Isabel.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A.D.M.Rayner
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 11:20 AM
> Subject: [FRIENDSOFWISDOM] What is wise leadership?
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> When Tony Blair sought the backing of the UN for the planned invasion of
> Iraq, it seemed to me through the rectangular frame of my TV screen, that
> what he was wanting was not a careful, creative and reflective discussion
> of possibilities viewed from all angles, but rather agreement with the
> plan so that he and GWB wouldn't have to bear the responsibility of going
> it alone. In the event, in the absence of such agreement, he and GWB
> carried on regardless with the action, convinced in their own minds that
> it was the 'right thing to do'. As good, wise leaders, elected by
> democratic majorities (or perhaps not), they knew what was best, and by
> doing it in spite of much opposition they demonstrated the strength of
> their authority, as historical narrative would, they imagined, in due
> course affirm. But events didn't exactly turn out as predicted. The real
> life and death situation on the ground was far more complex and
> non-linear than envisaged. The effects of intervention in this complex
> situation weren't so certain in the long run.
> This is a style that I think is all too commonly the sole form of
> leadership recognized in human organizations, as a product of
> prescriptively definitive (rationalistic) thinking and action that places
> deterministic power at their control centres or hubs. It amounts to what
> might be called authoritarian, dictatorial, proprietorial or, as my
> friend Ted Lumley puts it, powerboat leadership (leadership towards a set
> destination of a fleet of individuals that have declared themselves
> independent of their natural situation by dint of strapping an outboard
> motor of technology on their backsides, which creates one Hell of a wash
> of collateral damage for those caught up in their turbulence). It is the
> kind of leadership provided by some so-called experts and gurus whose
> actions primarily serve individual self-interest, whereby an individual
> or elite lays down the law  or 'codes of conduct' for others to follow,
> regardless of context. Personally, I would hate to provide, or be accused
> of providing this kind of leadership, even though I have found it to be
> expected of me as a professional academic responsible for initiating
> students and non-academics into 'good theory and practice'. Apart from
> anything else, I have always suffered from a profound lack of certainty,
> perhaps associated with my 'obsessive-compulsive disorder', in the
> correctness of my own knowledge, and I can feel no definite sense of
> 'achievement' in my life so far, apart from having lived it. My resultant
> refusal to lead students and others according to doctrine, and instead
> encourage a questioning attitude, has got me into considerable trouble
> with colleagues and external examiners. I have also found it impossible
> to play the competitive and sycophantic games required to ensure
> promotion to 'full Professor' beyond the position of 'Reader', which by
> some miracle I was placed in over twenty years ago when I was only 35
> years old and (on a 'good' day) rather more sure of myself.
> There is another style of leadership that I personally do, however, feel
> more comfortable with and indeed aspire to, as a cultivator of creative
> space for myself and others to air our views and benefit from shared
> experience. This is what might be called Arthurian (after King Arthur and
> the Knights of the Round Table), co-educational, non-possessive or, as my
> friend Ted Lumley puts it, sailboat leadership (leadership based on
> learning through experience how to attune with natural processes, in a
> way that others can learn from). This is the form of leadership that,
> like Harvey Sarles, I do try to bring to my role as a University
> educator, which I have found through experience that all students except
> those relatively few most fearful for their qualifications and future
> prospects come to love and greatly appreciate as a source of guidance for
> their creative and critical development.
> Now, as the 'United Nations' of Friends of Wisdom contemplates its 'Next
> Steps', this question of what is wise leadership seems very important,
> and indeed it has been mentioned directly or indirectly in several recent
> messages. It is not a question necessarily of 'which is better?' in an
> 'either/or' sense, but how can these styles best be balanced? I accept
> that PRAGMATICALLY, given the currently predominant mindset of our
> culture, there may need to be at least some 'powerboat' leadership to
> help us on our way, so long as this doesn't become exclusive and is
> balanced by a good and perhaps increasing dose of 'sailboat' leadership.
>
> How does Nick see his role? Is he a founder and co-cultivator of FoW as a
> creative space for Wisdom Enquiry? Does he see himself as Director and
> Proprietor of FoW? Maybe a bit of both? Is Wisdom something definable
> that we can be instructed about via the 'right kind of training' in a
> real or virtual University? Is Wisdom perhaps identifiable with Love,
> some indefinable essence that we can open ourselves to and co-cultivate?
>
>
> Best
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>