Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:45:01 -0500
From: rlilly-AT-scott.skidmore.edu (Reg Lilly)
Subject: Re: PLC:LA: Re: [Fwd: Re: Defining Philosophy: First "thank you"] (fwd)


Walter forwarded
>
>In the meantime, it will help our work if you can encourage us, and not
>focus on the past, or the awkward mistakes we and others are making during
>this time of experimenting with META-PHIL-LIT and other changes.  We are
>well aware of them and are taking them seriously, even personally, now that
>we are implicated in list governance.


        I actully feel sorry for the board members; I might suggest that it is precisely the governmental structure they have and are presuming is the problem.  Apparently they thought they had no responsibility towards preserving and encouraging the quality of the list until now that they are members of the board.  And of course, the concept of discursive space they had was one which imposed that presumption -- administration is not part of the list, it is external to the list.
        Well, we've seen a big shake-up over there and what do we see?  Not the internalization of moderating forces into the list itself and their dissemination to all members, but they have created literally list external to the list -- a meta list.  One list is to regulate the other list.  But what do we see know, there is a meta-meta-phil-lit-list, namely, that list which is active -- where? -- again behind the scenes; a few more and decent people involved, but really not much different.  This is, I think, a little mis-en-abime, n'est ce pas?
        I will suggest -- and I think the value of my comment has no so much to do with phil-lit and their list-proliferations, which I really don't care about beyond learning from their mistakes (and they're great teachers there!) -- that the real 'rub' is not so much people as it is the modus legis, the manner in which that discursive political unit called an elist goes about governing itself.  So, I would like to *begin* to make a theoretical statement about what *my* vision of governance is, and it is one which comes closer to a communitarian notion of social arrangement than the corporate hierarchal structure that seems endemic to the 'list founder-owner-moderator' scheme that phil-lit is pursuing as do many other.
        I know that there were some ungenerous comments made about how phillitcrit members were 'patting themselves on the back' for having handling some difficult exhanges some time ago.  The point is, it worked far better -- and in the end actually produced some real gains -- then does the administrative structure that existed or still exists at phil-lit.
        I don't want to beat up on phil-lit -- good luck to them.  I only keep them in mind as a contrast to something I think a list would better be and which I would hope phillitcrit is and will be.  It is concerning the latter that I would *really* like members to comment on.
        I've some materials along these lines in my computer at school, but as we're having a snow day here and I'm stuck home building snowmen with my kids, I won't be able to pass them along till later.  But I'd like to hear what others may think about the question of discursive self-regulation both theoretically and practically.

Ciao,
Reg




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