[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Cultivating Minds
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Cultivating Minds
- From: HENRY SHONERD <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:42:46 -0700
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAGaCnpyS0MNUuboitTHwLB85ShxJydMYp5_VvfM9tFcX0n-3Rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHCnM0DZnZmGwSVYLXE8VpR9RFyRS-nkpz_1aAzULESwc9KtTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGaCnpx22oiFWvwooXXhm3RO=UbC5kKUJhS9OQZfLW0VG5KXnw@mail.gmail.com> <8B149B89-CFAC-46CA-BD5C-C83A28E2C4DE@gmail.com> <CAGaCnpx96NA5=HnL6_CTKRrzWf-ozrcQXA0ZJVeJKbEjLr64RQ@mail.gmail.com> <8FF4CB36-A23B-4301-903A-E59FAD369C6F@gmail.com> <CACwG6Dt2O+Gmk2U7Y_1Lao47wMmD90tmnYM7qW53swV6Rt5yag@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <DDCD624F-6155-4643-BAA1-2B49035B75A8@gmail.com> <email@example.com> <, > <CAGaCnpwCYGs-p-5ofpU9WGAEhjgprQwgsYA+_4D6Y9UZ2mxcZg@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Now I’m really lost. If my contributions to a thread are equal to David’s, things are even worse than I thought. Should I join a club that would take me as a member? I yearn for single answers, but am working very hard at appreciating complexity. So, I try to avoid self-righteousness when talking about truth, again a work in progress. What I’m saying is don’t encourage me. And stop making sense.
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:15 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Larry, Henry and esteemed others,
> I very much responded to what you wrote here:
> [Now the question of "authenticity" [living in truth] leads to the question "who gets to judge the authenticity of a person "living in truth" Is it tied to living "free"?? [and this concept opens the meaning of freedom as
> "autonomy/negative freedom" OR freedom as "expression/positive freedom" OR
> "third spaces/situated freedom" .]
> I value the discourse around what you point out above, Larry, and the question itself allows for a plural contribution, because I don't think there is a single answer. What I'm interested in is not finding that single answer, but hearing how Many Others answer the question (for themselves).
> For example, speaking to style and authenticity combined, I would say Valerie's response to this thread to be equal to mine which is equal to yours which is equal to Henry's which is equal to David's, etc. And yet they are all different, all authentic, each with a different style, and all true.
> (I can't imagine why anyone would (intentionally) post something that was not true, because that doesn't make any sense to me. I am also taking as a given that everyone on the list is free to express themselves –even if that expression is silence– perhaps that is my prefigurative stance and where I'm operating from that we are all free.)
> I'm not sure there needs to be a job description for an authenticity judge necessarily, as people seem to select themselves to do that job and usually break up the party, if only because they break the spell.
> In any case, given all that, should we stop discussing because we can't come to a single, qualified answer?
> I hope not.
> It would be like going to an art gallery and seeing multiple versions of the same picture on the wall, even framed the exact same way.
> Kind regards,