[Xmca-l] Re: The manologue

[Lplarry]

Mike,
I will offer a brief personal sense of experiencing ambivalence as I sense my way within the etiquette of xmca.
I wonder about the *place* of personal dis/closure (1st person) as a way of proceeding.
I sense being pulled (grasped) to turn towards legitimizing the systemic approach ( eco-systemic) and away from the symbolic (mother earth) feminine figure (as) ground. The archetype of *anima* is a different figuring gestalt from the archetype of *animus*. The anima as *folk lore* while the eco-systemic (dynamic systems) approach is preferred. Relegating the truth og mother-earth symbols to feminine folk wisdom moved to the margins (of) literature.
How we collaborate and communicate as  symbolic *marriage* inclusive of differing (forms) gestalts of figuring phenomena. 
The insight that the personal is political.
But also  re-cognizing eggshells underfoot.




Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: mike cole
Sent: April 22, 2016 9:33 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue

Thanks Annalisa for bringing back
​I​
he issue of XMCA as manilogue.
It brought back memory of Eva Ekblad, who gave up on academia and was a
weaver last I heard, and news of Phillip's memory of humping elephants.  It
is all in the archives. 30 years of tangled threads of discourse, data for
the picking.

​Those interested in Eva's discussion, and other views of MCA at different
times in its history, can find the relevant material at ​
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/archives

I am not so sure discussing the communicative behaviors of fellow members
is a hot idea given the ways such discussions tend to reduce to
identifiable individuals whose behavior is subjected to moral evaluation.
​In any event at the sole continuously active participant except for Bruce
Jones (is that true?)
male, white, and elderly I am disabled in such a discussion. No efforts of
mine have been sufficient in this regard. As a first responder, I take
comfort in the fact that the worst Phillip can remember is an "almost
flaming" event. I hope we can keep it that way. If people can figure out to
make this discussion more inclusive, there is no "one" stopping you. It
would certainly be a welcome outcome.

I note in closing how many women have joined any of this discussion.​

​mike​


On Thursday, April 21, 2016, White, Phillip <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>
wrote:

> Annalisa, this is a topic that has circled around several times here on
> xmca - and i'm pleased to see it appear again.
>
> i've been a member of xmca for perhaps just over twenty years  -  and the
> first time that i remember the topic appeared was when a woman participant
> on the list described the men's activity of participation as, if i remember
> correctly, bull elephants mounting each other.
>
> that provoked a huge uproar, close to flaming one another.
>
> and Eva Ekeblad who lives in Sweden(i may have misspelled her last name)
> and a fellow from Boston did an analysis of female and male participation
> on xmca, and, again, if i remember correctly, pointed out that men wrote by
> far the most postings, as well as the longest and most immediate
> responses.  so that men dominated the list-serve with the swiftest, longest
> postings, along with the greatest number.  and it seemed to that the men
> who wrote the most postings also wrote more to each other, ignoring the
> more peripheral  participants.
>
> i have my own ideas regarding why a few men regularly dominate xmca
> through multiple, long postings.
>
> i don't know if the list serve is up to analyzing our own behaviour.  or
> even if the topic is actually worth analysing.
>
> phillip
>