Re: [xmca] Access to articles and discussion

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at>
Date: Mon Dec 01 2008 - 15:30:16 PST

Thanks Tamara.
Yes, I think the acknowledgment of new voices, when they
speak, is vital. Mike always does this, but I think it is
quite wrong for the rest of us to just leave that role to
Mike, who has enough to do. So, thanks!


Tamara Ball wrote:
> My humble suggestion is this:
> that those of you more experienced and comfortable with the XMCA
> discussion forum keep vigilant watch for new voices whenever they do
> emerge and then respond. Use the response also as a space for your own
> assertion, to be sure(perhaps one you would have made anyway), but even
> the notation of "re:" as the slightest acknowledgment of that new voice
> is alluring and validating. Any thoughtful response will do - but in my
> opinion, better if it is not only "sweet", encouraging or gentle but
> rather truly responsive and generative. In my own novice experience,
> intimidation is linked to a feeling of irrelevance which comes with the
> frayed edges of a thread that is not continued in some way or another.
> As Andy suggests, workload is always an issue of course, but I do
> understand that there are ways that participation in the parlance of
> this forum can actually *decrease* workload by creatively and
> expeditiously negotiating ideas or problems central to the work each of
> us has in front of us.
> For instance I am in heat of writing a grant proposal that I hope will
> lead to a multi-year post-doc position that will allow me to expand the
> work I am already involved with at the Center for Adaptive Optics (
> electro-engineering, astronomy and optometry research center with a
> strong education component). I can imagine exploring more powerful ways
> to shape the structure of that work through conversations here that are
> also linked to the more central debates at hand.
> Tamara
> On Nov 30, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>> Well I'm not one of those who vote and don't discuss but I am willing
>> to have a guess at issues here, and maybe people will be provoked into
>> correcting me?
>> I have had brief discussions with several people either offline or via
>> FaceBook who have expressed an interest in xmca discussions but say
>> (basically) they are not clever enough to contribute. Having been
>> assured that this is absolutely not the case, they later go on to
>> become contributors. For some, it is that fear of speaking up and
>> maybe getting their heads bitten off. In other cases, I am sure, it is
>> a simple matter of the insanity of academic workloads already driving
>> people to the edge.
>> I have racked my brain and failed to come up with a viable means of
>> resolving this, other than being civil and respectful in discussions.
>> When I asked about Bobath, someone who had never spoken before spoke
>> up saying "At last something I feel qualified to speak on." Likewise,
>> when I asked for help for my brother with his daughter's maths
>> problems, loads of really helpful and knowledgeable people spoke up.
>> But the general debate, people seem to find intimidating. And yet, in
>> my experience, unjustifiably so.
>> Andy
>> Mike Cole wrote:
>>> I fear that at present the article to be made available free for
>>> discussion
>>> at Taylor and Francis
>>> has not been released. The ever-lengthening duration of Thanksgiving
>>> holiday
>>> has probably not
>>> helped matters. Consequently, many, probabaly most, members of xmca
>>> do not
>>> have access to the
>>> article in question by Stetsenko and Sawchuk. We are working on it.
>>> The issue of discussion of article in MCA that are not made available
>>> free
>>> is even more difficult and we
>>> are working on that too. We have a situation where often two or more
>>> articles are ones that people want
>>> to discuss but we are unlikely to get T&F to offer the journal for
>>> free. So
>>> we are discussing with them
>>> the cost of electronic versions so that acces to people without the
>>> financial means to get access can
>>> be handled in a viable way.
>>> Simultaneously, I would not that more than 30 people voted to discuss the
>>> Sanino article, but to date, very
>>> few people have availed themselves of the opportunity they obtained
>>> for the
>>> group by their votes. I take
>>> this to be a problem and would appreciate suggestions for making XMCA
>>> a more
>>> multi-voiced forum for
>>> discussion. Might the overwhelming majority of people who voted for
>>> discussion of this article but who have
>>> failed to comment on it help me and others understand what is a foot.
>>> Is it
>>> amplification or amputation, perhaps some productive transformation,
>>> that is
>>> required
>>> The academic semester/quarter draws to a close in the United States. The
>>> stock market is open in Asia. The people of Mumbai, Peshewar, Ramadi,
>>> Eastern Congo, flood raviged Brazil and elsewhere bury their dead.
>>> The polar
>>> bears, I hear, are enjoying a cool winter, but word is sparse from
>>> that part
>>> of the world. The future beckons. What is that she is holding in her
>>> hand?
>>> Or is it behind our backs?
>>> mike
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> <>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
>> andy.blunden
>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> <>

Andy Blunden +61 3 9380 9435 
Skype andy.blunden
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Dec 1 15:31:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 06 2009 - 13:39:38 PST