Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:35:42 +0100 Subject: Re: after PMC >>>> Eric: >>>> I have been enjoying the current level of activity at this site. The >>>>posts are thoughtful and provocative. However, it also seems that >>>>there has not been that much actual discussion of TPC. > >I unilaterally began outlining TPC because it didn't seem we were >actually discussing the text here as planned. >-------------- > The guidance of your posts has really kept this project from falling >apart altogether, Eric. I'd like to think that that is all the >discussion needs though, more individual consciousness of what we're >trying to do, and a reminder from one another once in a while. > I'd like to apologize from my past and future distracting outsider >outbursts. I don't consider myself a part of the discussion really, but >an interested spectator. > A casual structure is best though, in my opinion. If I wanted to >speed or focus the process, I would try to do it with effective posts >rather than with time limits and rules. >Ed Atkeson Whether structure is necassary for out discussions of Lyotard's work or not is debatable--and a matter of personal preference. My personal opinion is that we provide a guideline for posts that would prefer structure (not time limits and rules that we "enforce" through moderation, but a structure for those who prefer this model) and encourage other forms of discussion of the work also. This is helpful for novices like myself. PMC is a rather slim work in comparison to The Differend, and we may find ourselves out of the bath tub and into the raging ocean if we dont have something to float on as we head into it. It is common practice on other listservs I am a member (both literature and philosophy based) to have a structure when discussing a work. If the group wants a differing approach than this (and if we cant do this on this list, where can we?) that is fine by me. We do need to be somewhat pragmatic, imho, on this decision to maintain and improve the quality of our discussions. I see this as a fairly new list comparatively, and we are just starting to build an identity and a consistent practice of quality posts. I recall that prior to having a focus on this work and what little structure we have currently, there were few posts.I would be pleased to have us keep the dialogue growing and our discussions of Lyotard's work vibrant. There is a lot more to explore and learn from Lyotard's work and from each other.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005