I suggested [this is a bit weird, responding to myself here]:
> that the meta-stance, the shaping of our self-awareness and
>thus in some sense publicizing of our imagined views of the community
>from where we stand within it, may make possible some sort of mapping
>of the collective whole, envisioning of its effects on its different
>parts and thus, next step, on the ways its different parts interact,
>so that we can see how the thing continues itself as a system and
>imagine better ways, perhaps, to orient to it (and so change it - and
ourselves).
I assume that whatever stance we take to the community publicizes in
some way "our imagined view of the community from where we stand
within it," that meta-stances like irony may problematize/foreground
the nature of the community (from where we stand), and that meta-playful
stances (the Heyoka-like stance; the giggling Buddha) do something else,
though I'm not sure I fully understand how such stances get translated
into our own practices. I was imagining that at the level of the
Heyoka-like/giggling Buddha stance, resources are made available
for "collective formulation of (a view of) the system from its own
level" - but I don't now see how the view of the system from its own
level can emerge from a thousand - from a community-full-of - meta-playful
interveners. I'm way over my head here.
- Judy
Judy Diamondstone
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
.................................................