| 21 Feb 2012 @ 19:46, by Heiner Benking|
UNESCO - strengthening languages in education
DRAFT IN PROGRESS ..
Today is a special day for me, we looked not only into terminology research and preserving languages, diversity of terms (see knowledge organisation) but also cultural and natural diversity.
But this was not enough today, it was being approached by young interviewers with a simple question: Are you “whatever”? I asked now?, in the morning? As I am in-between, and it always depends, not only on my and others times and contexts, but often also on who is asking and his/her assumptions and objectives. So I refused to answer: YES or NO – which they insisted upon.
I left by telling them: Meaning is a spectrum in shades or a spectrum of in-between word, lines, situations,…
Why this long introduction?
I feel we are pressed into nominalistic thinking into opposites and labels and their respective frames or boxes. And the work of Warfield has much to do with going beyond words and definitions we cherish but nobody has a clue.....
And I was “pulled” into this recently by the agony of the “Introverts” versus the “Extroverts”, or the creatives in the group by the creatives insisting on their space and solitude to be a “well” or “source”.
Here this about this new book: [link]
we have to discuss her NEW GROUPTHING further down.... see [More]
Please see also the German translation - publihed monthes ahead:
"Still: Die Bedeutung von Introvertierten in einer lauten Welt" [link] and do check this!: [link]
I was recently asked to write a book review about “ QUIET - The Power of Introverts” [link] which is about a “New Groupthink” and the creative introverts being lost in society of ego and vanity, and shut down by collective shallowness and . I was surprised that it was published already last Year in German: Still: Die Bedeutung von Introvertierten in einer lauten Welt
A very interesting constellation for me as creativity on the individual and collective level is of much interest to me since long.
Checking back Groupthink in the Wikipedia I am shocked and feel bad, I knew the term from John Warfield, who has an entry on my list of friends and colleagues [link], and for whom I always wanted to write an eulogy, as I feel he did not make it to the public eye, and naturally Alexander Christakis, but how come? Groupthink is a systemic term can not be found in Wikipedia ! Interesting !!
A very well documented and described term. But who is using it for what !?
Maybe used only in the field of psychological, social, behavioural sciences and fields, and not really understood or adopted in the fields of the political, systemic subject areas ? like governance or mediation (in the WIKIPEDIA?) I wondered how that could have happened. Why are terms not subject to general scrutinization? / and research/application??
I just decided to add to the terms groupthink – but also spreadthink, clanthink, linkthink,…as these terms are not Orwellian “newspeak” from “out of the blue” – but something meaningful and applied, making sense if you care what people say, mean and do – and share ! So here we are back on preserving and honouring language !
I recommend to come back, check Wikipedia and my page for John Warfield. [link] Maybe check next week !? meanwhile check there the MINDBUGS: [link] !!