Eva's comments on Paul's poignant question concerning the safety of xmca=
also made me pause. It is important to keep making xmca 'safe'. Why? I=
don't think the reason why need be asked. This is one of those things=
emerging from the limbic system: a feeling in one's gut that this is what=
the community is about. We need not rationalize it, but rather find the=
ways to manage with it and evolve it in dynamic balance with our other=
principles. We have no safety police, no safety rules to violate, just=
some norms that are more or less shared, and some ways we have each=
developed to preserve and violate the norms. =20
Of course, there are always tensions, contradictions, if you will. Some=
mode's of expression, some writing strategies, will extinguish others. =
Scizzors, rock, paper. Safe one moment, crushed the next. Our=
perception of conflict may result in our silence or relinquishing our=
subscription. It's never really safe for everyone at any one time, is it?
People disagree. We irritate each other. We fall in love with each other's=
writing, or despise it. We envy others. We wonder what others are about. =
We become combatants and adversaries, even though we band together, here,=
in our interest in the intellectual activities surrounding the compelling=
problems of distributed cognition, having accepted the difficulties of=
integrating disciplinary ways.
Paul reminds me of the dangers of one person's view. Christoph Clases=
recently told me of Raeithel's thinking on de-centering and re-centering,=
and the richness in bringing together the multi-voicedness with a=
theoretical view. What are our theoretical views of 'safety'?
I remember being a newcomer and being very concerned about the norm's for=
this list -- and posted, asking about them. There wasn't much of a=
response. I won't ask for people's opinions about safety on this list,=
even though I am keenly interested in what people think, from lurker to the=
most productive contributors. One knows better now than to ask.
In her emergence and decay paper, with which I have keen interest, Eva write=
s:
"This power law pattern results largely from the dynamic stability in the=
subscriber collective. Over a timespan as long as a year it is mostly=
contributors who
have been active in the mailinglist ecology across the whole period who fall=
within the most productive categories. Contributors who post very few messa=
ges
in a year often make just this one transient appearance in the whole=
archive. "
Her graph shows an interesting pattern in the postings by participants. =
Some are 'heavy hitters' posting frequently, many many more others send=
just one message to the list. How is it that WE, day to day, engage in=
these multilogues and focus our attention on the words of others, and=
develop these patterns? Does 'safety' enter in as one of the dimensions to=
be concerned about?
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790=20
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]