Paul wrote:
>Can you see that [the limits of reflexivity/ bateson's double bind theory]
being applied to some of the difficulties we've experienced
>here?
Paul, I suppose it's obvious that this is relevant to the recent troubled
history of xmca messaging, and relevant from very different perspectives.
Kathy wrote:
>i can't say for sure what i was trying to do by asking about conversation
>about how we communicate except that one major "rule" for the double bind
>is that conversation about the contradictory messages is always forbidden.
>what would happen if the forbidden was talked about?
>what did happen?
>what is happening?
We seem to presuppose that reflexive thought is not mimetic. But there seems
plenty of evidence to suggest that a double bind will repeat itself through
different referential content, at "higher" levels of abstraction. What comes
to my mind is a commentary on Foucault somewhere, which says that power is
the unthought of thought. Would anyone recognize that & have the reference?
The recent trouble here was apparently over different construals of xmca as
community of practice. Speaking for myself, the trope of community would
seem to depend on an imagining of 'everyone' present as deserving to hear
and deserving to be heard. Often, xmca messaging affords the fantasy of
community, but when it doesn't, DO we (did we) learn from it? -- mebbe.
i dunno.
Judy
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:20:38 PDT