Euan kicked off a conversation, as did I in my way. I understand Dave is involved too (I haven’t read the post yet).
I like seeing this in text, as an exchange of views, in a small towen square-like mental, visual and social space on the Web – a blog.
I found myself thinking hard – and stretching my skills in reaching for clarity, when I wrote an email earlier.
I think annoying one another on and via blogs is a good way to get to know each other well and develop mutual respect … and so much better than the right-left, blue-red, conservative liberal name and flame-throwing that passes for disagreeing with each other in many places …. and I think that you, and I and Dave Rogers are modeling why all this is very valuable. I think you pointed that out clearly, and I agree with Dave that it was unfortunate that the conversation has been perceived to be in terms of winner-loser.
That last sentence was carefully chosen, as in “has been perceived to be”. I think Dave over-interpreted, as given what his original thoughts, my riff on (off ?) them, and then your additionaI contribution created as context … I actually think we are adding to each others’ understanding and (as you and I have done) struggled to grasp fully the intent we want our words to carry and deliver. We’ve struggled with anothers’ words, our reception and understanding of what they’re expressing in our way, in our mental environment of all the built-up understandings each of us possesses, and what we’ve written in response. This is a powerful “engagement” mechanism, and deepens things quickly, as you and many others have pointed out many times.
Thank goodness for words, disagreements and this very interesting, marvellous way of going about conversing and offering each other information – enabled by the Save button, that remarkable and highly useful thing David Weinberger calls persistence.
I think that the interconnection IS causing and enabling conversations and relationships with people that are defined by the sharing of common understanding of what it is we see and experience, and we learn about each other’s perspectives by seeing on the screen our words, hence our thoughts, beliefs and feelings about those. This is a dimension of human intercourse that was not really available to us, and we use it differently than when we “talk” to someone person-to-person or face to face. We necessarily have to hold an idea and a target of some sort … a focus … when we write a public for-all-to-see post or comment.
It’s such a great way to go about deciding to agree, disagree or understand more. And because it’s public it’s better for that, or for group collaboration, than is email. This is the big opportunity, people and culture wise, that big organizations are missing. They will at the end of the line always complain about the time-wasting and lack of focus that blogs would bring individuals, but there is very little faith or understanding in the self-regulating group dynamics aspects of social exchange over the Web. I’m always surprised that John Seeley Brown and Paul Duguid’s stuff has never fully crept in to all the continuing conversations about this social phenomenon known as blogging.
Laisser un commentaire