Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:34:09 +0100 From: Reg Lilly <rlilly-AT-skidmore.edu> Subject: Re: Long, Long, Long, Post Well, I'll try again, having accidently dispatched the last one prematurely. .. "Nathaniel I. Cordova" wrote: > > Dear All: > > I think it very apropos for a list/forum/BB on issues of subjectivity to > deal with exactly those kinds of issues. We could have a list to do just > that, or we could have a list that treats the issue of subjectivity broadly > enough to encompass challenges to whatever complicity allows it to be in the > first place, tackling directly those issues you mention. *My preference is > for the latter.* [A bulletin board system would allow for a forum or more > dedicated to those concerns, if those issues are seen as truly and vastly in > opposition to a possible "business as usual" approach of academic treatment > of subjectivity]. > I think devising a system, format, regime of practices, etcetera, that would be able to be a 'big tent' while providing some more 'intimate' or 'circumscribable' discursive spaces would be ideal. I think large lists can be great, but what I miss is the sort of thing that Shawn, Malgosia, Flannon and others have expressed a desire for, is some manner of preventing discourse from sloshing around and the general and evanescent level of big-list discourse, and spawning some for forcussed and intensive, more 'productive' activity. > > I apologize if I sounded dismissive or flippant. Let me be straight. We > all are members of lists. We've all experienced the moment in which we see > posts that are unrelated and just plain out of the focus, thematic area of > the list. Unless we want a list to discuss the interconnectedness of > everything, we do need to set boundaries. My example was no good, I saw that > after I sent it and re-read it. This is what I meant to say: I believe that > exchanges on micro-practices that do not relate those practices/experiences > to larger understandings, that do not stand in dialectical relationship to > theory (whether pre-existent, or newly formulated) don't help as much for > the efficacy or usefulness of the list. I don't say that members should not > post such exchanges as "Yesterday I felt compelled to buy Palmolive liquid > dishwashing detergent, the jingle in the commercial has been on my head all > day long, and I felt as if I really needed this product if I want to keep a > house well." Yes, all well and good, but what is the significance of those > assertions in relation to the list/forum thematic? So my point was that I'd > like to see a list that discusses substantively issues of subjectivity. That > it creates connections and consequences of those practices, and theories, > and accounts articulated. > No apology necessary -- I suspected there was more to your thinking on this score, but I wasn't very artful and getting at it. > > I don't see my response as a cop out. Ditto above. > > We could all go on, but let's not preclude the outcome of what the list > might prove to be. I admit the delicate balance to strike is between being myopically directed to predetermined results, and an openness to the chance and accidental. I think what I want to focus attention on is less the 'mechanics' of setting up a list, which is really quite easy, and it's technical management, to what one might call the cognitive work that is more difficult, more fun, and, I think, would mark the project as something more than 'nitch-listing.' > > It > might be that as I asked Malgosia, the Collective has a vision, stance, or > goals in mind regarding effecting change they'd like to promote, and that > further action on the part of the Collective on lists or anything else > requires filtering through such a vision. If so, I'd like to hear it. The vision thing is where the action is, or isn't. > > The same applies to the questions about what and whose knowledge is > generated, propounded, and shared. etc. I think those questions can and must > be addressed directly in the list/forum. We must be sure to ask them and > engage them, and encourage discussion about those issues. They are after all > integral to the issue of subjectivity. > > I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that I do not want to > answer any questions or challenges face on. Perhaps I have misinterpreted > what has been meant by "effecting" in this instance. No, Nathaniel, you've been more than forthcoming, and I appreciate it. What may seem like your being keel-hauled, is more a case of questions and issues that are constantly simmering below the surface and waiting for someone, like you, to come along and give us, or me, a chance to raise. them. reg
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005