XMCA Mail 2001_03: Re(3): different flavors of chat

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

Re(3): different flavors of chat

bill writes
>Diane,
>
>I like the idea of not trying to win an argument as one individual
>against another, but trying to develop arguments collectively -- The two
>senses of the word in that prior sentence being as 1) dispute, and 2) a
>subject matter development. I think for each of us this takes some
>suspension of what we hold to be true in order to hear each other. We've
>tried here several times in the past to move in this direction, and have
>failed. But there have also been successes -- although what those were
>seem to vary from one person to the next.

yes, absolutely - so what i'm suggesting is to begin with some sort of
frame for developing more of the differences we each bring to any reading.
>
>
>Perhaps this ideal develops a primary contradiction within many of us --
>the reasons we come to xmca. With our own institutional pressures to
>succeed fueling the fire, it is academic practice to push our own views,
>to get them 'out there'. And this militates strongly against hearing
>each other. It brings to mind the tragedy of the commons scenario
>described by Garret Hardin -- the personal desire to "get ahead" can be
>disruptive of shared conversational space.

ya!! it is precisely the 'contradictions' that we bring that reveal
cultural-historical activity - each of us benefits in that respect,
because we unravel
some of our own limitations at the same time as we consider the potential
of
conversational space.
>
>To echo Jennifer, must we contend with issues of power and privilege in
>the setting where we exchange emails?

absolutely - absolutely - i think this is the most significant limitation
of reading.
>
>The sense I am making of your post is that it envisions a way for us to
>conduct our discourses, and the upcoming LBE text could be a place to
>make some progress in this direction. Based upon what I have seen of
>academic mailing lists, I have a measured optimism for reaching the ideal
>immediately, but perhaps we can learn as we go along. I'd like to hear
>more of what you have in mind.

what i can do is post a preliminary framework of what i am trying to
describe,
one that is adaptive, really, not a structure for reading for a
perspective for recognizing the text as activity, and the LBE text would
be a fine site for developing a discussion
that is more exploratory, conversational, and so on.

**********************************************************************
:point where everything listens.
and i slow down, learning how to
enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.

(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
***********************************************************************

university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
==================== ==================== =======================
university of colorado, denver, school of education