[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: The manologue
- To: mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue
- From: Lplarry <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:57:24 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date:importance:in-reply-to :references; bh=UARJi+69rH4HK9evE5RuU0EsHcPZM7oGSF0OYvArXYo=; b=pLli+yk+42bVrDk2T/NERwaICIMDqRi409xQyW2ebdTTToG4WmriLGl/iW1g2MunXC cQzL26jmFnG0zhuIDiWyg227WscExOvZIvI/sOEIwDwxqtq5+1mBAjqfiZleejirwNog Sqgz6XsmjgkOHaQmnieJ3iRHVedN7NTt0yosFzmprK++3T10sH4NWkgx3fGQssbKZAni QupFOEoDPRN/QrlFXh3DlToiraGBnYSYL5MM+9y6nxzFhPwDs0j/JBzCGOkhWSMMkD/x QwTkgiQRutxvBPcRqbDjRrNHFFRmFqQbPWqiTNt7RWbA26lVJXkynw9CrSm1af02hGX9 y/wQ==
- In-reply-to: <CAHCnM0ABp7X8Ybd5Eh=mPStdBje8ZY5mGYPLy7PkbC_3W8jUHw@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <BY2PR07MB107B128B85628CF18A24BEEC16E0@BY2PR07MB107.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DM2PR05MB5107CFF8EFE468A4A18DAD0996E0@DM2PR05MB510.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAHCnM0ABp7X8Ybd5Eh=mPStdBje8ZY5mGYPLy7PkbC_3W8jUHw@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
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
Those interested in Eva's discussion, and other views of MCA at different
times in its history, can find the relevant material at
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.
On Thursday, April 21, 2016, White, Phillip <Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu>
> 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.