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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005