Thanks Elizabeth, that's very helpful. If your answers on your comps are as
good as your answers here, you will have no problems. If the communication
between the husband and wife in the jokes posted earlier was antilogical,
there would be no joke. Or would there? We can find ways to exaggerate and
ridicule almost anything.
Mostly people who don't know me or are angry with me call me Donald. I would
be pleased if you would call me Don ( but not now, you should
study)............djc
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth A Wardle [mailto:ewardle@iastate.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:53 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: What to do? Antilogic
At 09:41 AM 1/29/2002 -0500, Donald Cunningham wrote:
Elizabeth, help me out here. How would I disagree with some of what you
have proposed in an antilogic mode? Would I, instead of disagreeing, state
my view? Then each of us individually would decide to keep or revise our
views or decide to work toward a merged model together? That seems to me to
have characterized the dialogue on XMCA for the most part. True, there are
some who write as if they are speaking from the mountain top to the ignorant
masses below, but I think they are the exception.
Well, I knew I could not so easily escape back to my studies... :)
First, let me say that I have seen both antilogical/dialogical/multilogical
approaches on xmca, and I have also seen dialectical approaches. Certain
posters seem to me to be more on one side than another. And, saying that,
how can I say that I see xmca as dialectical--especially because I often see
Mike Cole as actively working toward dialogism? I guess I say it because any
given poster won't know what sort of response they can anticipate. So a CHAT
newbie can't post a "hey, I need some help here" with any certainty of what
the response will be. Just speaking from my own experience, if dialogism
can't be guaranteed I usually won't participate until I feel I can prove
something: "I have credentials, I know all the lingo, and I can defend my
position til the death." So maybe the reason I say xmca is dialectical is
because we never know which way the winds will blow. Dialogism is not
insisted upon or enforced. The dialectical approach seems to me to be marked
by a certainty usually limited to experts or the blissfully ignorant. In
other words, to read some dialectical postings, you would be tempted to
think the author had spoken to god herself. Those of us who don't feel quite
that certain (or who don't feel willing to pretend to be that certain) are
silent. Take, for example, Jerry Balzano's posting earlier today where he
said he posted with his knees knocking. I don't think knees knock much in a
dialogical discussion. At least mine don't.
In terms of how to respond dialogically/antilogically. Maybe I could cop out
here and say, "I'll know it when I see it"? But I'm sure you all wouldn't
let me get away with that. So how about if I give you some examples of types
of responses that FEEL dialogical to me:
*Disagreeing in a way that demonstrates the poster has heard the person's
original position and considered it before disagreeing. As an example,
Alena's recent posting: "Elizabeth has posited X....That may be the
answer...But in the past..."
*Building on the postings of others (i.e, Kevin Rocap's earlier posting
responding to me and Mary) to bring up other questions and move forward
together
*Not posting simply to show knowledge but to engage in conversation. Ie.,
not posting 5 screens' worth on a topic and then not engaging anyone else
who responds to it
*Sometimes asking real questions rather than always having the answers
And then, these, my own personal favorites. I'm sure Protagoras would never
have thought to request them:
*Acknowledging postings by newbies
*Acknowledging people by name
*Responding to the questions people ask, even if only to say, "That's a
really interesting issue and I'd love to talk about it but don't have any
time" or "I've read your questions and have copied them to read and
consider" (thanks, Phillip :)
I am by no means a master on how to really convert to dialogical models. But
perhaps others (especially non-posers) can think of other more practical
ways to engage in antilogic and dialogism. What would make you want to post?
What would make you feel safe posting?
But to be more concise, your response did seem dialogical to me, Donald (can
I call you Donald?). You addressed me by name, indicated you heard what I
was saying, and asked me a relevant question that you seem to want to really
know the answer to. Of course, on email it's hard to know whether people are
genuinely interested or being sarcastic, which is perhaps one reason why
dialogism works better f2f. But anyway, I took your response to be genuine
and, as such, it seemed dialogical to me.
Now, I really need to be studying for comps. If I post again before Feb 15,
someone write to me and tell me to get back to my practice exam. Really.
Elizabeth
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST