E-mail is an opaque medium. I would no judge people's intentions just
based on their patterns of email communication. I have intended to jump
into lots of discussions here but I have not been able just because of
pressures from my life out of the internet. On the other hand, I guess
that not all of the topics matter the same way to everybody so I guess
it is natural that some "groups of interest" spontaneously emerge. I
follow most of them, but not always feel like I have something that is
really interesting to say. Last but not least, I know of several
"stalkers" which, while reading, don't use English as a first language,
so feel a bit shy about participating. There are several layers of
participation here, I guess...
Telefono (Chile): 56-2-3547174
De: White, Phillip [mailto:Phillip.White@cudenver.edu]
Enviado el: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 11:03 AM
Asunto: RE: hello, anyone there?
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