[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Thirdness and its various versions


Throwing flowers from this side of this conversation, I would like to vote on the Greatness of We-ness. 

To be a "we" there must be a commonality otherwise it's just me and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and…so on!

At the same time, surrendering to we-ness shouldn't mean giving up one's I-ness or subtracting another's you-ness.

For this reason, I don't feel clear about third-space, but I will remain open to it as an idea. I'm just not sure if a third space is necessary if no one is being forced to give up anything one doesn't want to give up, or no one is being forced to take anything one doesn't want to take. If each participant has relative freedom to choose, then it seems the "great we" will prevail.

So I wonder if third space is more what is necessary when there is contention? That distance of the third space is manufactured to create a starting point of discourse and exchange? Or maybe I have that wrong? 

Kind regards,


P.S. I like that Vera evokes of the Great Margaret into the mix of our virtual space! Margaret apparently means "pearl." Given that the pearl begins as an irritant, that in time becomes a precious gemstone, this may illustrate how age and wisdom may be aspectual consequences only understood in time.