Post from the past...
Received two messages yesterday from someone named 'tim reynolds' (probably fake name) at oldguy_272001@yahoo.com.
First message had no words, just lines of dashes. Second message contained this post below, which is in fact written by me. I had posted this to an Organizational Learning listserv called Learning-Org, about 4 years ago.
Why spam me with my own listserv post at this time?
I'm currently participating in a community initiative, and have tried to raise issues around group facilitation, communication processes, etc. I also attend a weekly women's group, and had been talking to the facilitator last week about the challenges of allowing everyone a voice within a group setting. I then gave her copies of my writings about politics, activism, and surveillance.
The night I got this mysterious email, I was a bit wired and behaving very child-like (eg, talking to myself in a kiddie voice). Okay, I know that sounds crazy, but prolonged stress, going through a debilitating depression for several years, and social isolation can do strange things to people.
Anyway, the email sender's address is interesting: oldguy_272001@yahoo.com
Lately, I've been receiving increasing, yet subtle, hints that my life may be prematurely shortened. Too hard to explain right now.
But if the address has any meaning whatsoever, it's probably the 'oldguy' part. But why 'guy' and not woman? I've been called a 'ball-breaker' before, when really angry. On the night of my uncle's funeral, a guy deliberately hit me on the head and said, 'Oh, we thought you were a guy'. I happened to be balling my eyes out, at the time, yet he and his friend laughed in my face. (More info to come.)
I admit I've become increasingly aggressive and reactive towards people these past three years. (You'd be pissed off, too, if you were being illegally surveilled and harassed, plus feeling bogged down by constant social prejudice. Frankly, as a person of colour, one must constantly deal with hugely inaccurate and often negative assumptions.)
Anyway, if this message below isn't clear proof of internet hacking and surveillance, I don't know what is!
Check out it out...
(Have edited it for readability, based on my recent learning about the internet and websites over the past few months.)
-------------------------------------
To Learning-Org:
RE: Collaborative Online Learning
Right on, Bill! Thank you for putting into words something that I also feel, but have not been able to articulate. Your description of how a sense of balance and wholeness can be more easily achieved through in-person dialogue, and your questions about how this might be enabled online here at LO [Learning-Org list], really struck a chord with me.
I have had similar concerns for quite some time, but even more so afer a brief dialogue with someone offlist. We are missing out on the wisdom and treasures of so many out there!! More emotive or feeling people may be intimidated by the abstract, logical, hyper-intellectual, 'Socratic-style discourse' (Sajeela's apt description), and thus, feel indirectly silenced.
Other challenges:
- imbalances between introverts vs. extroverts;
- creating safe space for emotions vs. meeting practical timelines, etc.
Emotions take longer to gestate and are harder to express clearly. They also speak to one's sense of humanity, and don't always jibe well with people who want measurable outcomes and have practical agendas. And yet, both logical and emotional communication styles are invaluable and necessary.
...and it's not just conduct, but also human responses and levels of engagement -- be it emotional, psychological, intellectual, spiritual, etc.
When I read from others about how they will continue to actively listen, I cringe because I feel this may be a signal to others, who have the same self-effacing attitude, to humbly keep listening and absorbing -- *without* sharing their own personal discoveries, stumblings, and masteries with us. This lopsided dynamic is common and is nobody's 'fault'. However, it is a sign and an opportunity for us to try and learn more collaboratively, and to find ways to create space for all to speak AND truly listen, in order to achieve greater community wholeness.
How do we find balances that allow wise beings of all kinds (silent, loquacious, and otherwise) to come forth? Do people feel safe enough to share on here? Are there opportunities for people to plug in according to their personal strengths, wishes, or learning styles?
I find this overall topic quite interesting. In an online, 'virtual' discussion space, how do we find ways of reaching that place of collective wisdom, while ensuring as many people as possible are actively involved in the process? How is this done when there is such broad diversity of experiences and perspectives among us?
After a bit of a shake-up, like we've just experienced here on LO (a "creation with death" perhaps, as Jon describes), people usually rush in to re-establish order and structure, and try to re-define comfort zones and familiar territory. Some of this is useful -- ie, re-finding common ground -- but it's equally important to remain open and flexible, explore the social ruptures, and maybe even embrace confusion.
[To better contextualize what was happening on the list, the challenges were these:
1) How to bridge the gaps between the experts and those seeking information or advice;
2) How to balance participation and feedback (listservs tend to fall into a pattern of being dominated by a few);
3) How to make the material / theories relevant to those living in multicultural cities, since a fair number of active members are from the U.S., South Africa, Pacific region, etc; and
4) How to essentially 'walk the talk'.]
The advantage of in-person meetings is that it's easier to make connections and foster dialogue. There is a greater likelihood of having communications flow freely. For example, when people are vibing collectively, hearty 'talkers' sense when to withdraw and let others speak, and those who are less verbally inclined start to come forward to share their powerful truths. When this happens, everything just comes together.
But how do we create that optimal balance online, with such a large group of people (approx. 1800 members), in asynchronous time? It's much harder to gauge one's impact on people in an online environment, and to also know when to participate and when to withdraw.
You asked for ideas, Bill. I too feel that having focus groups is extremely useful. Maybe this could be done on the new site that Rick has mentioned is being developed. Depending on its format, there could be ways for topics to evolve. I don't know how that might be done...but it would be great to be able to 'vibe with one's tribe' (ie, according to topic, or learning styles, etc), while still connecting within the main LO forum.
It's important for different needs to be met, and even for project ideas or outcomes to be developed, for the mutual benefit of all or various participants.
Examples of focus groups might be: a) more theoretically-inclined discussion, b) business, c) HR, d) social development areas, like education, environmental learning, and 3) philosophical areas, like art, philosophy, and so on.
Or things might just subdivide according to current interests--eg, artistic expression, venting about various problems (damn those bureaucrats), etc. I don't think it's about overstructuring LO, but simply hashing out ways to make it more responsive and help create a participatory learning culture.
These challenges shouldn't fracture our community here on LO; they should encourage us to pool our resources, and develop new ideas and connections, or simply facilitate individual expression.
People have expressed concerns that the 'great ones' [highly respected organizational learning theorists]* have left and are no longer participating on this listserv. I say, no worries, we can 'walk our talk' by developing our own *greatness*, and also help one another to reach new levels of wholeness. I for one don't feel we all have to be Olympic Learning-Org types to excel on here. If that's how others feel about organizational learning, then I am definitely in the wrong place!
*[Note: These learning-organization theorists had left long before, mostly, it seems, because they found other learning pools that fit their expectations better. The difficulty with the Learning-Org listserv is that it uses a linear, 'threaded' format. This makes truly collaborative and holistic discussion, learning, engagement, and dialogue a real challenge. Instead of building information and progressing forward, many ideas and topics would get repeated constantly, which might be frustrating for high-level experts.]
Developing one's potential is the key point. Yet it's also about living optimally within a system. My sense of the world evolving around me is that of a dual pull. There's a tension between trying to reach new heights of individual achievement and simultaneously encouraging democratic community development. Finding a balance between individuality and community, freedom and responsibility, intuition and logic, unity and diversity, and so on, is incredibly difficult, and yet necessary -- especially, if we are to ensure a healthy, peaceful world and ecological sustainability for future generations.
Sachidananda Mohanty summarizes it this way:
Being one of the more long-winded types on here, I will try to listen more. But I just couldn't help responding to Bill's and Graham's messages. Graham, I wish I could learn to be as concise as you! Are you a Scorpio, by any chance? :-)
Warmest wishes to all.
------------------
******************
To blog readers:
Wow, hard to believe I used to be a nice person -- despite the severe depression I was suffering at that time. Please note: the distrustful, sarcastic, or antagonistic person you may encounter today was once a sensitive, confused soul, who was wanting to be understood by people.
If you've gotten this far, you're probably wondering why this post is relevant and why it's being sent (spammed) to me at this time? I personally believe -- and have sometimes told other people -- that the conservative 'powers that be' have been feeding off my ideas. (How self-aggrandizing of me, eh.)
Not only have I been spouting about organizational learning, socio-environmental change, community action, and so on, but these surveillers would likely find my analyses of social oppression quite accurate. Plus theres the added bonus of watching all my clumsy social encounters (frequently involving aspects of race, class, gender, etc). I'm an unfunded social experiment.
If I am right in saying I've been under surveillance for the past several years, they would've observed all the extreme situations I've been through -- including being a social outcast for several years. (I'm only just coming out of it now, but am still a loose cannon, unfortunately.) :|
I make a good case study for human behaviour and social dynamics; I've been to hell and back -- socially, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually. There is good reason to believe that security bodies like CSIS or whoever has been tracking much of this journey. And if that weren't enough, I also believe they're using my experiences as fodder for creating new strategies for Divide-and-Conquer. (examples to come...)
Sounds pretty crazy, eh?
For somebody to spam me at my recently created email address, with an email posting I myself had written 4 years ago, on a topic that is totally relevant to my current activities and concerns -- I'd say they were keeping a pretty close watch on me.
Who has these kinds of resources, authority, power?
First message had no words, just lines of dashes. Second message contained this post below, which is in fact written by me. I had posted this to an Organizational Learning listserv called Learning-Org, about 4 years ago.
Why spam me with my own listserv post at this time?
I'm currently participating in a community initiative, and have tried to raise issues around group facilitation, communication processes, etc. I also attend a weekly women's group, and had been talking to the facilitator last week about the challenges of allowing everyone a voice within a group setting. I then gave her copies of my writings about politics, activism, and surveillance.
The night I got this mysterious email, I was a bit wired and behaving very child-like (eg, talking to myself in a kiddie voice). Okay, I know that sounds crazy, but prolonged stress, going through a debilitating depression for several years, and social isolation can do strange things to people.
Anyway, the email sender's address is interesting: oldguy_272001@yahoo.com
Lately, I've been receiving increasing, yet subtle, hints that my life may be prematurely shortened. Too hard to explain right now.
But if the address has any meaning whatsoever, it's probably the 'oldguy' part. But why 'guy' and not woman? I've been called a 'ball-breaker' before, when really angry. On the night of my uncle's funeral, a guy deliberately hit me on the head and said, 'Oh, we thought you were a guy'. I happened to be balling my eyes out, at the time, yet he and his friend laughed in my face. (More info to come.)
I admit I've become increasingly aggressive and reactive towards people these past three years. (You'd be pissed off, too, if you were being illegally surveilled and harassed, plus feeling bogged down by constant social prejudice. Frankly, as a person of colour, one must constantly deal with hugely inaccurate and often negative assumptions.)
Anyway, if this message below isn't clear proof of internet hacking and surveillance, I don't know what is!
Check out it out...
(Have edited it for readability, based on my recent learning about the internet and websites over the past few months.)
-------------------------------------
To Learning-Org:
RE: Collaborative Online Learning
Right on, Bill! Thank you for putting into words something that I also feel, but have not been able to articulate. Your description of how a sense of balance and wholeness can be more easily achieved through in-person dialogue, and your questions about how this might be enabled online here at LO [Learning-Org list], really struck a chord with me.
I have had similar concerns for quite some time, but even more so afer a brief dialogue with someone offlist. We are missing out on the wisdom and treasures of so many out there!! More emotive or feeling people may be intimidated by the abstract, logical, hyper-intellectual, 'Socratic-style discourse' (Sajeela's apt description), and thus, feel indirectly silenced.
Other challenges:
- imbalances between introverts vs. extroverts;
- creating safe space for emotions vs. meeting practical timelines, etc.
Emotions take longer to gestate and are harder to express clearly. They also speak to one's sense of humanity, and don't always jibe well with people who want measurable outcomes and have practical agendas. And yet, both logical and emotional communication styles are invaluable and necessary.
"To administer a social organization according to purely technical criteria of rationality is irrational, because it ignores the nonrational aspects of social conduct." - Peter M. Blau (1956)
...and it's not just conduct, but also human responses and levels of engagement -- be it emotional, psychological, intellectual, spiritual, etc.
When I read from others about how they will continue to actively listen, I cringe because I feel this may be a signal to others, who have the same self-effacing attitude, to humbly keep listening and absorbing -- *without* sharing their own personal discoveries, stumblings, and masteries with us. This lopsided dynamic is common and is nobody's 'fault'. However, it is a sign and an opportunity for us to try and learn more collaboratively, and to find ways to create space for all to speak AND truly listen, in order to achieve greater community wholeness.
How do we find balances that allow wise beings of all kinds (silent, loquacious, and otherwise) to come forth? Do people feel safe enough to share on here? Are there opportunities for people to plug in according to their personal strengths, wishes, or learning styles?
I find this overall topic quite interesting. In an online, 'virtual' discussion space, how do we find ways of reaching that place of collective wisdom, while ensuring as many people as possible are actively involved in the process? How is this done when there is such broad diversity of experiences and perspectives among us?
After a bit of a shake-up, like we've just experienced here on LO (a "creation with death" perhaps, as Jon describes), people usually rush in to re-establish order and structure, and try to re-define comfort zones and familiar territory. Some of this is useful -- ie, re-finding common ground -- but it's equally important to remain open and flexible, explore the social ruptures, and maybe even embrace confusion.
[To better contextualize what was happening on the list, the challenges were these:
1) How to bridge the gaps between the experts and those seeking information or advice;
2) How to balance participation and feedback (listservs tend to fall into a pattern of being dominated by a few);
3) How to make the material / theories relevant to those living in multicultural cities, since a fair number of active members are from the U.S., South Africa, Pacific region, etc; and
4) How to essentially 'walk the talk'.]
The advantage of in-person meetings is that it's easier to make connections and foster dialogue. There is a greater likelihood of having communications flow freely. For example, when people are vibing collectively, hearty 'talkers' sense when to withdraw and let others speak, and those who are less verbally inclined start to come forward to share their powerful truths. When this happens, everything just comes together.
But how do we create that optimal balance online, with such a large group of people (approx. 1800 members), in asynchronous time? It's much harder to gauge one's impact on people in an online environment, and to also know when to participate and when to withdraw.
You asked for ideas, Bill. I too feel that having focus groups is extremely useful. Maybe this could be done on the new site that Rick has mentioned is being developed. Depending on its format, there could be ways for topics to evolve. I don't know how that might be done...but it would be great to be able to 'vibe with one's tribe' (ie, according to topic, or learning styles, etc), while still connecting within the main LO forum.
It's important for different needs to be met, and even for project ideas or outcomes to be developed, for the mutual benefit of all or various participants.
Examples of focus groups might be: a) more theoretically-inclined discussion, b) business, c) HR, d) social development areas, like education, environmental learning, and 3) philosophical areas, like art, philosophy, and so on.
Or things might just subdivide according to current interests--eg, artistic expression, venting about various problems (damn those bureaucrats), etc. I don't think it's about overstructuring LO, but simply hashing out ways to make it more responsive and help create a participatory learning culture.
These challenges shouldn't fracture our community here on LO; they should encourage us to pool our resources, and develop new ideas and connections, or simply facilitate individual expression.
People have expressed concerns that the 'great ones' [highly respected organizational learning theorists]* have left and are no longer participating on this listserv. I say, no worries, we can 'walk our talk' by developing our own *greatness*, and also help one another to reach new levels of wholeness. I for one don't feel we all have to be Olympic Learning-Org types to excel on here. If that's how others feel about organizational learning, then I am definitely in the wrong place!
*[Note: These learning-organization theorists had left long before, mostly, it seems, because they found other learning pools that fit their expectations better. The difficulty with the Learning-Org listserv is that it uses a linear, 'threaded' format. This makes truly collaborative and holistic discussion, learning, engagement, and dialogue a real challenge. Instead of building information and progressing forward, many ideas and topics would get repeated constantly, which might be frustrating for high-level experts.]
Developing one's potential is the key point. Yet it's also about living optimally within a system. My sense of the world evolving around me is that of a dual pull. There's a tension between trying to reach new heights of individual achievement and simultaneously encouraging democratic community development. Finding a balance between individuality and community, freedom and responsibility, intuition and logic, unity and diversity, and so on, is incredibly difficult, and yet necessary -- especially, if we are to ensure a healthy, peaceful world and ecological sustainability for future generations.
Sachidananda Mohanty summarizes it this way:
"No longer do we have the easier option, the exclusive choice. Today we must have environment as well as industry, learn to accommodate the search for an elitistic excellence with the quest for an egalitarian social order; we must combine internationalism with the demands of ethnic and regional cultures."
Being one of the more long-winded types on here, I will try to listen more. But I just couldn't help responding to Bill's and Graham's messages. Graham, I wish I could learn to be as concise as you! Are you a Scorpio, by any chance? :-)
Warmest wishes to all.
------------------
******************
To blog readers:
Wow, hard to believe I used to be a nice person -- despite the severe depression I was suffering at that time. Please note: the distrustful, sarcastic, or antagonistic person you may encounter today was once a sensitive, confused soul, who was wanting to be understood by people.
If you've gotten this far, you're probably wondering why this post is relevant and why it's being sent (spammed) to me at this time? I personally believe -- and have sometimes told other people -- that the conservative 'powers that be' have been feeding off my ideas. (How self-aggrandizing of me, eh.)
Not only have I been spouting about organizational learning, socio-environmental change, community action, and so on, but these surveillers would likely find my analyses of social oppression quite accurate. Plus theres the added bonus of watching all my clumsy social encounters (frequently involving aspects of race, class, gender, etc). I'm an unfunded social experiment.
If I am right in saying I've been under surveillance for the past several years, they would've observed all the extreme situations I've been through -- including being a social outcast for several years. (I'm only just coming out of it now, but am still a loose cannon, unfortunately.) :|
I make a good case study for human behaviour and social dynamics; I've been to hell and back -- socially, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually. There is good reason to believe that security bodies like CSIS or whoever has been tracking much of this journey. And if that weren't enough, I also believe they're using my experiences as fodder for creating new strategies for Divide-and-Conquer. (examples to come...)
Sounds pretty crazy, eh?
For somebody to spam me at my recently created email address, with an email posting I myself had written 4 years ago, on a topic that is totally relevant to my current activities and concerns -- I'd say they were keeping a pretty close watch on me.
Who has these kinds of resources, authority, power?
posted by outside the box... at
7:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home