Hello everybody,
Do already existing static patterns make us
perceive what we will see? I see a philosophical
understanding channeled through such an event, first
some static patterns to set the scene.
When I was a staff I perceived some supervisors
as being never around, they hung-out and didn't do
much, etc... It was a negative approach. Now, some
still are not involved as much as I think the
involvement could be, but... and this is key... it
depends on what they are trying to achieve and thus
encourage from staff. Keep in mind I'm a supervisor
now.
So, what is this "not being around" approach? As
a staff, 'being around' is very important. The job
centers around the relationship with the residents.
98% of the job, as a staff, requires a staff-resident
relationship, which means getting them to do routine
and participating with them, etc... Now, as a staff
this is highly valued, and when a supervisor doesn't
make themselves present makes staff wonder 'what the
heck are they doing all the time'. It makes staff
think supervisors are trying to hide, they don't care,
and they are purposely avoiding the rough, tough, and
'dirty' job of confronting residents.
As supervisors, this "not being around" approach
is very important, ah, but for different reasons. For
staff this "not being around" is seen as negative, for
one, due to the highly valued staff needs of being
there in the situation to help each staff out. Yet,
as a supervisor "not being around" to prevent staff
from being suffocated, disempowered, and therefore it
helps to cultivate staff that are leaders, creative,
and their role as staff is empowered and without a
supervisor around the residents would need to listen
to staff without the residents trying to go straight
passed the staff to the supervisor(s), thus, taking
away from staff their ability to handle events.
And now the crux, of these "already existing
static patterns". On the one hand staff devalue this
"not being around", and on the other hand, supervisors
value this "not being around" for supervisors see in
the long run how this "not being around" will help
cultivate leaders, thus, staff that will not depend on
supervisors and thus will make decisions, think on
their own, and help foster not robots but individuals
with different ways of handling events, yet, within
the guidelines of the overall facilities program.
Obviously, a balance helps. A supervisor that is
never around, or hardly around will not help teach
staff what those guidelines of the program are, and
that takes balance on the supervisors part. The
knowing by a supervisor when to step in and when not
to step in to help staff, and how that help will be
delivered, etc... So, I was once a staff and I saw
this "not being around" as purely negative. Now I'm a
supervisor and I see how "not being around" can be
positive. The static patterns where in place to
cultivate these perspectives by the staff and by the
supervisors. They already existed. For new staff
come in, they have these perspectives, and then
supervisors try to explain their positions, but it's
tough, very tough at times to explain what the goal
is. An already existing static pattern is structured
into the job place. It is cultivating, or creating
these perspectives - choose your analogy here.
To use this real life example in the arena of
philosophy, it comes back to what I once read here,
which was, 'Ham's thesis is similar to the MOQ'. I
read this was a comment Pirsig himself stated. Of
course it can not be, and is not exact, but I've been
repeatedly been able to use the MoQ to create an
analogy to explain where Ham's thesis is coming from,
at times. Thus, Ham, do you see why the 'butting of
heads' seems to occur at times? Does anybody else
notice that it seems once somebody tries to explain
one position, such as what static patterns are, then
dynamic quality is questioned for it seems so
different than static quality, so dynamic quality is
explained, but then that doesn't seem to fit what
static quality is, therefore, this one or the other
approach confuses the whole quality approach.
Ron, you keep stating the MoQ fits well with
SOM, but then I see the s/o terminology having too
many hang-ups that need explained over and over again
in order to get passed what already exists as an SOM
static pattern that cultivates certain perspectives.
These already existing static patterns of the SOM
perspective creates or channels certain perspectives
that need weeded out and clarified over and over again
to make a certain point. The MoQ by-passes these SOM
static patterns with a whole other perspective that,
yes SOM can lead to an MOQ understanding (Pirsig was
immersed in an SOM static pattern before he came upon
another way to clarify his perspective). Yet, once at
the MoQ understanding, the old SOM hang-ups disappear,
and we don't need to exhaustively explain oneself over
and over again.
So, the already existing static patterns need a
new voice, a new way to explain and reassure that what
one values as best is part of much larger static
pattern that is leading to these perspectives of ours
without all the hang-ups so what might seem
complicated and needs a lot of dialogue (as this
post), but shortens the explanation with precision,
thus, the negative hang-ups can be by-passed and a
better way of explaining reality can provide a clearer
view.
thoughts?
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the
Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
