File spoon-archives/list-proposals.archive/list-proposals_2000/list-proposals.0001, message 49


Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 16:50:49 -0500
Subject: Re: At week's end
From: "Nathaniel I. Cordova" <cordova-AT-wam.umd.edu>


Hi Folks:

    Sorry for the silence for a couple of days but I wanted to listen to as
much of the feedback as possible. Thank you all for the comments. I don't
think they are hostile, just challenging, which I agree is what is required
for anybody making claims to scholarship and knowledge - or schemes thereof.
So far the comments have opened up doors and windows that seem to me better
open than closed. 

    I have to admit I am concerned about some of the things voiced by
Malgosia. Given that the Collective finds itself with no time or "creative
energy..." how is the Collective then to engage in exactly the kind of
creative experimentation it desires? As has been voiced, the real
experimentation that pushes the envelope requires thorough commitment, time,
enthusiasm, and sustained willingness, and probably not from just one
person. I gather that those qualities might be able to be generated for
smaller duration, high intensity projects that can function to push the
envelope and as tightly-focused experimentation (Given where the Collective
might find itself at present). I'm not certain that experimental
"incursions" (even with how much potential they can have) is how I want to
proceed for the list. At least not that solely. I would prefer a more
sustained conversation, one that could be complemented with alternatives
(experimentation), that could squarely face and deal with what Malgosia says
in point one of her email the: "transformative potential of collective
thinking" or more. It is that more, those alternatives, that I think you
want defined, and perhaps in the way of as Malgosia again stated: "directed
proposals, fueled by this critique, to try specific experiments to achieve
specific goals having to do with this potential."

    As much as I would like to achieve that transformative potential, and
not fall within the "tried and true," "been there, done that," "same ol'
same-o" trap, I also remain a bit unclear as to what kind of transformative
potential we are talking about, and about best practices to generate the
same if the Collective is looking for a Platypus and me for a Duck.

   In the last email Malgosia writes:  "circling around the concept of a
list just like other Spoon lists, only dedicated to the topic of
subjectivity, and perhaps coupled to something Web-based like a bulletin
board, though without at the moment any very definite vision why." Perhaps
we should ask *for what have we not answered a definite vision why?*  Is it
that we have not answered a "vision why" for a list on subjectivity? Because
it has seemed to me that the hardest answer to come by has been about what
type of experimentation is the one to come up with to explore that slippery
transformative potential. Yes, I hold on to the possibility that such
experimentation can be worked on from within the boundaries of a list, as
long as we have a sense of what we'd like to see as a result of the
experimentation. Maybe we need to develop a better sense of those outcomes.

    So, what kind of possibilities? These options might be in the "been
there, done that" category, but many folks find them potentially useful: 1)
a list sponsored online conference? Real-Time in a MOO-like environment? 2)
forums: virtual roundtable, with position papers posted on web, with short
duration discussion on central theme, 3) an electronic journal (web based)
4) an online course [formal or informal] 5) an actual graduate student
conference, 6) a Spoon Collective Subject Calendar... :)  All time and
energy consuming, and perhaps not dynamic enough.

    Well then, what next? Perhaps it is best that the Collective does not
engage in projects of this sort (at this time) for which it might not be
able to devote the necessary resources. In which case, I am again deeply
grateful for the time and consideration you have provided. Maybe other
palatable options remain for the Collective? Anyway, thanks for the comments
folks, I've really appreciated being able to discuss this further with you.

Best Regards,

N. Cordova
cordova-AT-wam.umd.edu




on 1/25/00 4:26 AM, Reg Lilly at rlilly-AT-skidmore.edu wrote:

> I find Malgosia's comment to summarize pretty closely my own take on the the
> question of the list.  At least from my
> point of view, I don't want you, Nathaniel, to feel you would be entering a
> hostile environement at all if you were to
> go ahead with the list.  I would hope, though, that there would continue to be
> some critical and creative reflection
> about the character and direction of the list, so that it doesn't turn out to
> be just a version of an H-Net list.
> 
> reg

on 1/24/00 4:56 PM, J Poxon at poxon-AT-saclink.csus.edu wrote:

> So far I have the same impression, although I continue to like lots of
> what you say you want from your "list", Nathaniel.
> 
> Judith



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005