I care about the concerns you raise in your post. On a person-level scale,
I am interested in learning what I can do to participate well on this list
- perhaps there are some things I can do better. I will certainly pay
close attention to what you say.
On a larger scale, I am currently reading a paper by Eva Ekeblad from 1999
that analyzes xmca (and its predecessor, the xlists) for a 10-year
period. She deals at some length with the way what she calls "multilogues"
emerge and decay, as well as many other aspects of how discussions on a
list like this develop. Occasional "meta"-level posts like yours are also
a part of the ongoing process. You touch on some ongoing problems xmca and
any discussion list faces, particularly a scholarly one. Sometimes posts
do get ignored. Why? What should be done when that happens?
My motivation for reading Eva's papers is to work up a proposal for some
kind of a poster session on xmca for the Seville ISCRAT conference next
year. Some xmcaers have expressed interest in doing this - and have raised
some really interesting ideas - and all are welcome. Everything is still
just being considered - absolutely nothing is "decided". Mike Cole is
supportive of this poster session idea but will only be able to provide
some guidance, and attend it. So it is a pretty open-ended discussion at
this point. I'm trying to do some homework. A motivation for me is to
promote the next xmca course, which will probably commence shortly after
the ISCRAT conference in September. I found the international
participation in the last xmca course - and xmca in general - to be very
important, and I wanted to help promote that.
The papers by Eva are at:
Contact, Community and Multilogue
But on the more specific questions you raise, Phillip - a few guys talking
to a few guys, people being treated as if they don't count, etc. - these
are very important problems to be aware of, whether these results are
intended or not, or even whether these results are under the control of any
particular person. Please share your thoughts. Thanks.
At 08:02 AM 10/13/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> hello, everyone - i found Judy's email posting fascinating, both
> for the lengthy reference to Bateson, who i admire, and for the continued
> silence in response to her posting. i went back to Bateson's "Steps to
> an ecology of mind" and refresh my memory about his take on
> communication. in the chapter on Double Bind, Bateson points out that
> messages carrry multiple meanings, and that while one of the meanings is
> found in the content of the message, another message is about the
> relationship between the communicators. it's my take that the message
> about the relationship in regards to the silence regarding Judy's posting
> is that she doesn't count. looking at the pattern of communication here
> on xmca, with a few exceptions, such as Mike who nearly always responds
> to each person, the pattern is a few guys talking to a few guys, and
> ignoring those who .... who what? i can only observe the silence, and
> the way the relationship is constructed - the whys i've not a clue about.
>From: Judy Diamondstone [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Tue 10/12/2004 8:39 AM
>To: Xmca@Weber. Ucsd. Edu
>Subject: hello, anyone there?
>I am egotistical enough to wonder if it was my last message that brought
>this list to a resounding silence....
>If my version of GBs attempt to bring the sacred to center stage in science
>as an object of activity induced any response, I'm curious to know what it
>was. Perhaps I (mis)represented the project, or perhaps the project
>misrepresents the do-able, or misses the practical altogether? I ask because
>I am still thinking about the curricular questions...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:06 PST