Yes, I agree that its the "personal investment... in the worth of (one's)
own ideas" that motivates the "pounding" of an argument, in your own
well-chosen words. As if there were no vulnerable people behind the
personnae we assign to messages.
I like "critical re-direction" -- I wish we were better at doing it.
Judy
>the difficulties here - while i applaud the idea - is the personal
>investment so many have
>in the worth of their own ideas, couched in "specialization" criteria that
>legitimize the
>"pounding" of an argument, yes?
>
>separating the individuals from the interaction strikes me as a bit false
>- as eva points out,
>this is not something we do - part of the appeal of longterm participating
>in these venues
>is the familiarity with names and modes of writing.
>
>in any event, i do think we might add critical re-direction to your list:
>not criticizing and separating, but reflexive re-interpretations, that
>might re-direct the dueling discourse.
>
>>Which leads me to try to articulate what CHAT does entail
>>axiologically [i.e., relationally/ value-wise], which might be considered
>>relevant to a discussion of LBE.
>
>here i think it might point towards that 'gap' that has been mentioned,
>between the crisis and the learning, the multiple zpds that overlap and
>interlace, the learning that bridges between crisis and a new
>understanding - that is, for example, what's a 'wizardly' gesture here -
>or a reflexive re-direction that introduces recuperating from the initial
>loss of a crisis, and points towards a value, i.e. a motive for learning
>something particular?
>
>diane
>
>"my doctor says i wouldn't have so many nosebleeds if i would just keep my
>finger out of there. "
>Ralph Wiggums.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:07 PDT