she then selects out only a few of those parts for articulation
and publication. As a result, the final philosophy has many wholes
or ommissions or silences. It is through these Moles that the spi-
rit can shine through. Or, to put it another way, it is precisely
these silences that invite the reader to complete the gestalt; to
discover the implication. It is through these ommissions that the
reader comes to be a co-creator and, ultimately, own the philosophy.
This process can not happen, however, if the authorship did not de-
rive from a single point of view or a common vision. If the origi-
nal philosophy is an aggregate (as opposed to a harmony) represen-
ting unrelated and conflicting points of view than the silences
will be empty and sterile. So, when it comes time to make a dec?
sion in the face of recently emergent factors we look in vain for
guidance from our philosophy... the situation wasn't anticipated,
so the philosophy has nothing to say. The decision is held in abey-
ence while we seek clarrification and guidance from the committee
above or below us... who, after a time consuming process will write
a policy, set up some guidelines, or add to the philosophy. By
the time that has happened the situation it was designed to deal
with will have long ago been transformed into some new emergent
situation. So, what we get is a proliferation of rules to deal
with our environment in place of us dealing with our environment.
Why have we chosen to follow this latter course? Because it
gives us the appearance of being active (doing something! ) when,
in fact, we are merely being busy. It reminds me of whistling
in the dark. Finally there seems to be this inordinate fear and
anxiety about interpersonal conflict. As a result differences of

opinion are feared and no dialectical processes evolve to resolve

those differences. It is only through those dialectical processes