J. Bryan Blundell wrote:

> I guess I do not really understand the point here. Is this a general
> point or a specific point? If specific, be specific.

I'm throwing it out for a response, which is what I got, and will probably get
more of. I'm looking for context in order to understand a specific situation, but
would rather keep it general at this time. We had a conversation some time back
about control of public events and flawed plans and after reflecting on the topic
I was responding further. I started out specific, and then thought better of it,
and decided to post it on BP in the general. So far the responses have sharpened
my perspective and shown me where I may not be expressing myself accurately, as
well, where there is sympathy to the idea of open communication at public events.

I agree with Ilene that I do not care to have papers read to me. Ilene is a very
fine presenter and always informative. Mary Krugman voices the pleasure of mixing
formal presentations with open discussion. I'm particularly caught by the
perception that preservationists feel they have to put forth a monolithic front.
What is the cost of putting forth one message? I think the cost is that other
potentially valid messages get left out. The cost of too much control is a loss of
creativity, the cost of no control is anarchy. I think what I was trying to
express is that there is a range between total control and total non-control. Mike
Edison expresses both the need for selection of speakers, but as well the value of
open discussion.

> Are you saying that no requirements is the best democracy? And democracy is the
> test of value for all efforts and events?

No, democracy has requirements, the requirement to not allow the tyranny of the
few. Democracy as a test value... no, not exactly my taste. First off, I believe
in the effectiveness of a benevolent autocracy any day over the meandering of a
consensus. I've spent too much time at too many meetings seeing nothing get done
but a search for the mailbox key. In a benevolent autocracy the leader follows the
group, listening, then acts to assist the group in believing they have formed a
consensus -- and gets on with the project. The leader needs to act upon their best
judgement of the group's needs in order to realize a benefit to the group. If this
does not work then they are no longer the designated leader. Lead, follow, or get
the hell out of the way is what the Marine bumper sticker says. I am also of the
persuasion that all formal groups embody a particular psychosis that is unique to
the group and an aggregate of the groups combining otherwise very sane
individuals.

> Also that the content of an event is meaningless and it is the one-on-one
> interactions that make or break an event?

Well, it may have meaning for you, for me it is a bit too abstract. What I mean to
say is that what is BEST remembered is the one-on-one encounters with people.
Maybe I am the only one who values meeting people and finding out about their
lives, their dogs life, the cat, the children and their funny neighbor that shoots
rabid racoons or the cousin that hunts renegade emus at night in the Mississippi
woods. Despite any other ideas that are relevant, one aspect of a conference is
bringing a bunch of interesting people together where they can have one-on-one
encounters. If we are not to have one-on-one encounters then why not put it all on
television and let us stay at home in individual isolation? (My immediate plan is
that I am going to drop out of the preservation movement and go to the Monroe
Institute in the Blue Ridge Mountains next summer and learn astral projection.
They are going to lock me up in a sensory deprivation tank with only my own head
to worry about. Await my midnight visit.) What I think is really needed at
conferences is something that is quite difficult, we need to cultivate the art of
conversation. The events, for me, give a context for interaction, the events are
props to bring people together where they can encounter each other and have
conversation. Some props are better than others and we should endeavor to make the
best props that we can muster.

The idea of planning a conference, any conference and nothing specific, ahead of
time and trying to steer the event is what I started talking about. You can either
have very strict controls in place which prohibit any time for people to talk with
each other or to discuss what is really important to them, or you can loosen the
controls and try to generate an emotional climate free of the fear to talk openly
and candidly. I'm not into the idea of telling everyone what to think or how to
speak, I'm into the idea of giving over the media to the participants so that they
can provide their own sense of context, meaning, and control.
--
][<en Follett
SOS Gab & Eti -- http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5836