Hi Bill and everybody--
Let me comment on Bill's message,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@mail.lesley.edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 2:03 PM
> To: XMCA
> Subject: RE: rules proposal
>
>
> At 11:22 AM 2/25/00 -0500, Eugene Matusov wrote:
> >I'm joining Mary to say that self-reflection is very beneficial on xmca.
>
> Agreed. However, Eugene, at this point in time, I do disagree that is
> sufficient.
And neither do I.
>We are neither able to insist that all participants be
> self-reflective, nor to hear this plea.
Moreover, I'm not sure it is desirable to be always self-reflective. I found
it is important sometimes completely to dissolve myself in a moment. This is
what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi would probably call "flow experience." As a
little boy, I was always perplexed by the fact that when you start thinking
about your breathing the breaking rhythm gets disrupted.
>
> Rules are not necessarily oppressive: when they are developed by the
> collective who will refer to them, the participants have
> ownership over the
> rules, and may amend them. Ah! Friere.
Granted! Nicely said!
>
> I think of 'our rules' as mediational, and shared on a web site, they are
> available for reference in times of need, and do not require a central
> authority. Mike's off the hook. For example, you might write to me with
> this: "Bill, I think you are being very sarcastic and we agreed to keep
> that to a minimum". And if my memory needed to be jogged, you could refer
> to the website.
Yes. That is why Mike and I propose to have special button on the xmca
website named "Speaking of Rules" where there will be our discourse on rules
that can be added, modified, and referred to.
>Speaking personally, I would be compelled to comply,
> apologize, or at least to explain if I had agreed to such a set.
..or you could insist that I was wrong in interpretation of your words as
sarcastic.... :-) Bill, I love to be a devil advocate, sorry.
> But one does not necessarily need to think of these as rules by which we
> will oppress ourselves, but something also to liberate ourselves. We can
> frame the context out much differently -- a charter that explains our
> purposes, guidelines for interaction, our principles and privileges.
> "Mind as distributed" being among the first.
I agree.
>
> Here is a list of a "Bill of rights" (Acckkkk! NO pun intended)suggested
> only as a stepping stone to something more multi-authored and
> comprehensive. I'd like to think of them as applying not only to
> center-stage interactions, but in response to one of Nate's posts, to the
> private interactions among xmca'ers.
>
> We have the right: to say stupid things, to ask dumb questions, to explore
> genres of writing and interaction including poetry and fantastic prose, to
> protest when our sensibilities are violated, to post field notes, to
> violate the rules of punctuation, to mispell, to grammatically be
> incorrect, to inject humor, to express sadness, to be respected
> for what we
> know, to be aided in what we do not know, to care for each other and write
> in an other's behalf, to be free of ad hominem -- interpreted widely to
> include one's work achievements and field of study as well as
> one's person,
> not to be manipulated, to be women and men and all things in between and
> outside these two categories, to be teased and to tease in an
> alphanumeric-appropriate way ;-) (TBD), to be able to express our beliefs,
> to explore and re-present our multiculturalism, to express theories that
> compete with the prominant ones, to write half-baked notes, to post in
> multiple languages, to trust in each other, to be silent, to be
> students of
> theory and apprentices at writing and reading together...
AMEN! I love your list. I think it can be very useful especially for
newcomers.
Mike, technically speaking, who is going to add the button "Speaking of
Rules" on the XMCA website http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/index.html
and when? I think we can put Bill's, and Bruce's rules on the website right
there. I also think that it can be useful to put Philip C.'s and Judy's
concerns about having rules. Did I forget any other important messages to be
added to the "Speaking of Rules"? Please feel free to add rules or concerns
about rules.
What do you think?
Eugene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:13 PST