after reading all the postings thus far from so many silent xmca
participants, i'm struck again and again by the thread of the affective
domain - from Vera to Katherine to Tane, the referencing to the
importance of feeling heard - or being supported - of the anxieties
associated with writing to a list and being ignored - and i think back
to the first time i read about someone asking that their ideas be accepted
as half-baked.
and the metaphor then meant to me that it was hoped that one's postings
were recognized as an offering, a sharing of one's self, so that the
reception would be one of nurturing support.
one could offer up a brioche that one had recently followed in a Julia
Child cookbook - and not know why it was too spongy, the center too
moist, the crust too dark - yet put it out there hoping for some support.
if the response is - Too bad you don't read Bernard Clayton, jr. Julia
is far too weird the way she yodels in the pantry, and besides she's so
commercial. Clayton's recipes for brioche are rooted in Le Havre, where
they're braided and have raisins - so much more complex than Child's.
however, i base my work through Honfleur where the mousseline brioche is
so much more elegant, taller, and spectacular. Are you sure you even
understand the term _brioche_?
so, the half-baked methaphor was put out there in hopes that instead of
the response above, one might read instead:
Oh! what a lot of work it is, struggling with brioche recipes! tell me
about how it went when you were testing your yeast. it is surprising that
the crust is so dark and the inside is so moist - that has happened to
me when my oven temperature gauge was off. what do your find the most
troubling, and what was your original goal? what kind of brioche do you
want? how can i help you? by the way, i loved the coffee - how did you
get it so rich yet not bitter?
of course, in the second response, one isn't able to demonstrate one's
expertise and history and and and and - the attention is on the
half-baked offering. which was why it was put out there in the first
place. for it to be responded to.
> I'm sure
>that the metaphor is provocative enough for you to play with as well.
>Being
>meant as a metaphor, not as an analysis, its a question of expressive
>expansion not instrumental application.
i've not a clue what you mean by this. i've always thought that a
metaphor was one way of analysis through comparison - what have i missed?
and hey! thanks for your response - it helped me further remember
earlier conversations on xmca about this metaphor. thank you.
phillip