File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0205, message 97


Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 20:47:17 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
Subject: Re: Differend Reading Group




All

devil's advocate... uhmmmm.

The difficulty with planning such an excercise and constructing a 
structure prior to starting is that the constraints may cause more 
issues than they resolve. The issue in my opinion is simply to begin and 
see where the discourse takes us.

In one of the earlier emails someone suggested three or four issues and 
concerns - those who have them should dispatch them prior to Monday so 
that 'we' can collectively think about them. For myself I'd suggest we 
email them out towards the end of the week....

regards
steve

Mary Murphy and Eric Salstrand wrote:

>All,
>
>I was very impressed at how quickly a tentative schedule and framework came
>together today. 
>
>Therefore, I would like to modify slightly Hugh's generous suggestion. I
>would welcome this discussion, and I know I might be the one who suggested
>it, but I have no particular wish to moderate, let alone set myself up as
>one with decision-making powers.
>
>Here is what I would like to propose instead. Would mnunes or anyone else
>care to take the lead on this discussion? 
>
>Here's the reason why. I know I will participate in this discussion and
>would like to be free to concentrate on making responses and comments
>rather than working on the outline, as I did in the Badiou discussion last
>year. If I could be a utility infielder rather than moderator, it might
>make for a livelier discussion. Here's a few other suggestions. 
>
>Steve might consider being the devil's advocate, giving an ongoing critique
>of things he finds problematic in the text.
>
>Hugh could help by listing some of the things he is having problems or
>issues he takes with the text. 
>
>Rod could interject with the kind of points he has been making about the
>body and the later writings of Lyotard in relation to all this, as he has
>been doing in his recent posts.
>
>This is just an attempt to brain-storm here.
>
>I certainly don't want to lay down ground-rules here and please take these
>comments with a grain of sea-salt. I am just trying to make some
>suggestions for ways we might be able to have a lively discussion.
>
>I would love to hear other's comments as well on this.
>
>eric
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: <mnunes-AT-gpc.edu>
>>To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>>Date: 5/20/02 9:42:07 AM
>>Subject: Re: Differend Reading Group
>>
>>>That's always a fun book to reread, should we not set up a schedule?
>>>
>>
>>I'm suggesting we read/discuss the Preface over a few (3-4) days, 
>>followed by Nos. 1-8 & Protagoras Notice. At that pace, we would be 
>>through the book by the end of the summer, but I'd be in favor of leaving 
>>the page/date pace open at this point. If it looks like we want to bite
>>
>off 
>
>>bigger/smaller chunks of text at a time (or spend more/less time per 
>>chunk) we can figure that out as we go along.
>>
>
>
>
>--- Mary Murphy & Eric Salstrand
>--- ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net
>
>
>


HTML VERSION:

All

devil's advocate... uhmmmm.

The difficulty with planning such an excercise and constructing a structure prior to starting is that the constraints may cause more issues than they resolve. The issue in my opinion is simply to begin and see where the discourse takes us.

In one of the earlier emails someone suggested three or four issues and concerns - those who have them should dispatch them prior to Monday so that 'we' can collectively think about them. For myself I'd suggest we email them out towards the end of the week....

regards
steve

Mary Murphy and Eric Salstrand wrote:
All,

I was very impressed at how quickly a tentative schedule and framework came
together today.

Therefore, I would like to modify slightly Hugh's generous suggestion. I
would welcome this discussion, and I know I might be the one who suggested
it, but I have no particular wish to moderate, let alone set myself up as
one with decision-making powers.

Here is what I would like to propose instead. Would mnunes or anyone else
care to take the lead on this discussion?

Here's the reason why. I know I will participate in this discussion and
would like to be free to concentrate on making responses and comments
rather than working on the outline, as I did in the Badiou discussion last
year. If I could be a utility infielder rather than moderator, it might
make for a livelier discussion. Here's a few other suggestions.

Steve might consider being the devil's advocate, giving an ongoing critique
of things he finds problematic in the text.

Hugh could help by listing some of the things he is having problems or
issues he takes with the text.

Rod could interject with the kind of points he has been making about the
body and the later writings of Lyotard in relation to all this, as he has
been doing in his recent posts.

This is just an attempt to brain-storm here.

I certainly don't want to lay down ground-rules here and please take these
comments with a grain of sea-salt. I am just trying to make some
suggestions for ways we might be able to have a lively discussion.

I would love to hear other's comments as well on this.

eric

[Original Message]
From: <mnunes-AT-gpc.edu>
To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Date: 5/20/02 9:42:07 AM
Subject: Re: Differend Reading Group

That's always a fun book to reread, should we not set up a schedule?

I'm suggesting we read/discuss the Preface over a few (3-4) days,
followed by Nos. 1-8 & Protagoras Notice. At that pace, we would be
through the book by the end of the summer, but I'd be in favor of leaving
the page/date pace open at this point. If it looks like we want to bite
off 
bigger/smaller chunks of text at a time (or spend more/less time per 
chunk) we can figure that out as we go along.




--- Mary Murphy & Eric Salstrand
--- ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net





Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005