File spoon-archives/list-proposals.archive/list-proposals_1998/list-proposals.9807, message 16


Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:54:58 -0600
From: Wynship Hillier <whi-AT-wenet.net>
Subject: Re: Wynship's proposal


Shawn P. Wilbur wrote:

> Wynship,
>
> I guess i need to know more about how you envision this list functioning,
> in terms of organization and goals. As i believe malgosia said when you
> first approached the collective, we are most interested in lists of
> limited duration and with fairly clear - if open - goals. We're also
> concerned to see some thought put in in advance about the "rules of play"
> and any special needs that we might have to provide software tools for.

I'm a rank beginner in the area of
running e-mail discussion lists and am
hoping that you will, being experienced
enough at this to be tired of it,
have some suggestions.  One thing I
would like to do is require that the
entrants read a list of works and submit
an essay demonstrating some
appreciation of them before being
included in the list.  This list would
include some "basics" as well as authors
more closely devoted to the subject
matter.  That would deter
misunderstandings based on sheer
ignorance which
occur so often on these lists, and would
hopefully contribute to the quality
of the discussion.  I think that the
list would have to be advertised for
some time before it started, such that
enough interest could be found to have
an adequate constituency at the
beginning, and that it would be
thereafter
"closed" to new membership, at least
until the next "round".

> I'm afraid that, as opposed as we are to certain contemporary regimes of
> utility, we still have to ask "why this list? what do you expect it to
> accomplish?" And we have to ask you to do a bit of engineering of your
> anti-engineering list.

Let's call it desoeuvrement, rather than
anti-engineering, firstly.  The
latter smacks of a sort of Neil
Postman-style Luddism, and, as you
pointed
out, has metaphysical connotations.  I
see one of the major possibilities of
the Internet being that of a sort of
penny university, where people can
attend lectures and become educated
without the exorbitant monetary
expenditure entailed in formal
university study.  Therefore, I would
see this
list as approximating a graduate
seminar, where the participants can be
expected to have appropriated a
particular body of work in common, some
of
the participants have completed advanced
study, and those people meet
regularly over a specific period of time
to discuss a certain work or range
of works.  Because of the egalitarian
nature of e-mail lists, the discussion
might have a more Frerian nature,
meaning that we would be learning from
each
other and not just from an acknowledged
authority.  But the idea entails
assigned reading and the completion of
an assignment.  In a discussion group
I attended at Stanford University, each
participant was asked to lead the
discussion at the beginning of one of
the meetings, by providing a summary of
the material read that week (during
which they would have devoted
particularly careful attention to it),
and formulating at least two questions
about the work.  Perhaps the focus
should be, as it was there, on a
particular work rather than a particular
topic, which would dispense with the
problem of misunderstanding the topic
and arguing about its meaning or
validity, which seems to have consumed
much of the discussion on this list.
So, rather than desoeuvrement, a reading
of _The Space of Literature_ or _The
Inoperative Community_ or _Visions of
Excess_ or even _The Malady of Death_
would be the subject of the list.  I
know this has been tried without
success, so again I defer to your
greater experience as to how it might
better work.  I think that, if as much
work were put into its production and
advertisement as an academic seminar,
that it could work.  It would work even
better if we could find an actual
professor to head it up.  Perhaps all of
these ideas work against the dynamic of
the internet, but I think it is time
to exploit some of its more banal
properties (i.e. very cheap
telecommunication).  In fact, we might
want to compensate for the excesses of
the Internet by allocating "post-points"
each week.  Every week, everyone
gets a fixed number of post points which
are used up when messages are posted
to the list.  Every week, you start over
again.  This will require that
people economize in the number of their
postings.  They could also be used to
incent people to economize on length. 
Perhaps some participants would get
more points if they can demonstrate
knowledge of more of the relevant works.
Perhaps others would be cut from the
list if they fail use a number of their
points.  Naturally, this would entail
screening the messages, but I would be
willing to do this once per day.

> I also have a few specific concerns about how your fairly specific
> reading of quite a number of texts and hegemonic discourses will

> translate into a discussion dynamic for the list. I can't say that our
> little proto-discussion here has been a smashing success. Can you tell us
> whether you're looking to create a space where the possibility of
> something like "anti-engineering" is put on the table for the full range
> of explorations, or whether you have in mind the joint exploration of
> some much more limited thesis?

Judging from the results that the "full
range" approach has produced on this
list, I'd prefer the more narrow context
of discussion, as described above.
At Stanford, we were given 50 pages or
so to read each week from a book, one
book per quarter.  That seemed to work
well enough.

Wynship Hillier, Incorporated
by Wynship Hillier, President

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005