Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:25:56 -0330 (NST)
From: Walter Okshevsky <wokshevs-AT-morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
Subject: PLC: Re: Phronesis in Cyberspace: The BWC


Friends --

Surely we must begin this Symposium with a title. Posterity expects no
less. I propose:

"Phronesis in Cyberspace: A Philosophical Symposium on the Nethics of the
Virtual Academy, 1997.

I wish to thank Denis, David and the newly formed "Advisory Board" for
the interest and good-naturedness that is displayed by their willingness
to discuss a matter the importance of which extends beyond this List to
encompass all Lists engaged in virtual scholarly exchange. I find here the
seeds of a new beginning.

I also wish to thank Brian C. for his introductory comments on the Bad
Writing Contest. I share many of his concerns, of course. However, before
pursuing substantial matters regarding the ethics of the Contest, I am
compelled to raise a small procedural point having to do with the justice
of this Symposium. I find it odd that a matter implicating all members of
PhilLit should be discussed only by the selected members of the newly
formed Meta-Phil-Lit. While I realize that this topic qualifies as
"meta-commentary," I also think that members of PhilLit who either give
tacit consent to this Contest, or find their association with it somewhat
embarrassing, or support it whole-heartedly, should not be silenced by the
pursuit of this debate "behind closed doors" so to speak. I am sure many
would not wish to be positioned behind a "veil of ignorance" - to mix my
metaphors. 

So my request here, a small one by liberal standards of equality and
procedural justice, is that our Symposium be open to all members of
PhilLit. I would also like to see members of the "rebel" List Phillitcrit
participate - be they in the "excommunicated" or 
"resigned-on-matters-of-principle" category. Many people are already
"cross-appointed," of course.

Again, thank you for your generous spirit here, and I look forward to an
open and inclusive Symposium.

All best wishes,
W

Walter C. Okshevsky
Faculty of Education
Memorial University
===================  



 On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Brian Connery wrote:

> Forgive the repetition of David Myers's announcement.  I was in the middle
> of writing this when I received it.
> 
> The phil-lit advisory board has received a request to consider the
> discontinuation of the annual Bad Writing Contest:
> 
> > >I was wondering whether the time is now ripe for the
> > > Advisory Board to consider discontinuing the Bad Writing Contest. As
> > > you no doubt know, I believe such sport to be beneath the dignity of
> > > any academically sponsored List-serv. And there are others who feel
> > > the same way. I would appreciate it if you would submit my request
> > > to the Board for their consideration. If you and/or the Board wish
> > > to open up the discussion of this matter to the List, that would be
> > > fine with me.  Discontinuing the contest would go a long way towards
> > > making your List a genuine community of inquiry and learning.I thank
> > > you for your consideration of this request.
> 
> Denis's initial response to the request was an indication that the Bad
> Writing Contest will continue in the journal Philosophy and Literature,
> regardless of whether the list continues to be involved:
> 
> > Many people cherish the Bad Writing Contest; I have a large file of
> > messages thanking me for mounting it.  It goes out to newspapers,
> > broadcasting networks, and wire services internationally.  It started
> > on PHIL-LIT, but now appears in Philosophy and Literature (including
> > the issue to be mailed in a few days) and many other magazines from
> > Lingua Franca to the Economist.  I did a BBC interview on it just
> > three weeks ago.
> >
> > If the new Advisory Board decided that it shouldn't go out on
> > PHIL-LIT, I'd abide by the rule--but then send it out on every other
> > forum on the net I could find, which I do anyway.  The press releases
> > for it also go everywhere.  In any event, I'd be surprised if the
> > Board wanted to can the most famous single exercise PHIL-LIT has
> > produced.
> 
> This seems to me like exactly the sort of issue that meta-phil-lit was
> designed to discuss.  So let's start.
> 
> [I take off any official hat that I might have been perceived to have been
> wearing.]
> 
> My objections to the BWC are primarily as follows: 1.) It's rigged, and 2.)
> My side always loses, i.e. wins.
> 
> The submerged implication in the contest is the questionable assumption
> that clarity and grace of prose reflect excellence of thought--and it
> consequently runs the risk of maliciously making fun of someone's ideas on
> the basis that he or she dresses funny.  But the contest and its organizer,
> because of the name of the contest, maintain a sort of plausible
> deniability--i.e., we're just talking about style, right?  I'm not sure
> that this is particularly honest.
> 
> Nor am I very trusting of the contest procedure.  I don't remember that
> we've ever seen the full field of contestants nor have we been informed of
> the names of the full panel of judges.  If this is a PHIL-LIT event, then I
> think PHIL-LIT members should be more openly involved.
> 
> But, if I recall correctly, Denis admits as much himself, at least
> privately.  In the few public/print releases I've seen, he never denies
> that the whole deal is rigged--but the implication, because of the
> contest's sponsorship on PHIL-LIT, seems nevertheless to be that Denis is
> acting as the spokesperson for a larger group.
> 
> This seems to me to be the crucial issue for us here.  In many ways, I love
> the BWC.  But I'm not totally comfortable being associated with it.  Though
> it represents, in a way, my idea of fun, it doesn't represent my
> philosophical stripes, as someone recently put it.
> 
> It's really Denis's show.  He thunk it up, and he (literally) stages it
> annually.  He uses PHIL-LIT as the platform.
> 
> To the extent that PHIL-LIT has rededicated itself to inviting a plurality
> of perspectives into the conversation here, I'm not sure that it represents
> the list well.
> 
> Some solutions occur to me: Denis could continue to use PHIL-LIT as the
> platform but admit more of the personal responsibility and de-emphasize the
> affiliation with PHIL-LIT when he writes his press-releases and gives
> interviews.  Other contests could be staged--representing other
> perspectives.
> 
> Obviously, the list wouldn't be here without Denis--and we owe him big
> time.  But I'm not sure that having the list represented by the BWC is the
> way that I want to repay my debt. Denis points to the great publicity that
> the BWC provides.  At the same time, if others, like me, don't see
> themselves represented in its perspective, it runs the risk of dividing the
> list here at home while it goes out to recruit new members, by suggesting
> that those of us on the losing (winning?) side aren't really the sort of
> people that the list wants.
> 
> --Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Brian Connery
> connery-AT-oakland.edu
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---