See, I stepped in some. (grin)
But what of the "rest" of the post?
Expletives, in writing, are used to /draw attention/, to /open/ the
eyes, to /awaken/ the spirit to another's need for someone to listen.
Polite society can be a veneer. As polish on a table top, it can
illuminate the beauty underlying; or it can cover the imperfections
hiding there. It may show us, by reflection, not only what we *wish *to
see, but that which we do not.
I was taught that written expletives were followed by an "!" mark as I
have placed, very specifically, in other posts. Generally, I have found,
expletives are uttered in frustration first (although not only). Often
frustration ensues from being ignored /politely/ and /thoroughly/. As if
the thoughts presented are "of /little /or /no/ consequence to the
discussion"; whereupon the *intended chance for dialogue* is ended. An
/attitude of rebuke/ in this manner can be as hurtful and denigrating as
"an /expletive/". Yet, that, apparently is considered an appropriate act
because it is done in a "/civilized /and /tasteful/ manner".
To me, writing with no emp*has*is is merely 1-dimensional and shows no
spirit. It does not show what the writer may believe, /in a passionate
sense/. Thereby the writer protects him or herself by not showing their
innermost feelings on the subject at hand and the reader (or list-ener)
is left to guess what the true sense of meaning may be.
Science devoid of spirit and cultural understanding becomes
1-dimensional; no matter what science is being discussed. To break out
of that trap, one must learn to use the keyboard as one learns to use
one's voice. School's of /science/ discourage that in favour of the
1-dimensional approach to /fact/. The spirit of the writer *and* reader
become subdued and the 'veneer of *that* culture' becomes clouded.
Dialoguing across such boundaries becomes almost impossible
Ideas are not /facts/ and may not even appear to be derived from /facts/
in one or an other's base of education or culture. Should this mean they
are not worthy of consideration? Ideas may become the "cultural veneers"
we live under, but only if they are from the spirit contained within the
individual offering them and only if they show clarity */from all angles
of examination/*/*!!*/ *That* is an expletive! But it does not
necessarily indicate /*ANGER*/. It merely indicates */passion/*. Our
keyboards are wondrous tools of communication but, perhaps only for
those of '/artistic/' training or process.
Yours in Good Faith,
Darryl
Happy Thanksgiving to All Those Concerned.
On 11/25/2010 8:54 AM, Arthur Cordell wrote:
I am trying to manage things so that a core group of interested people
can contribute in a civilized way. I happen to think that Bullshit is
inappropriate and is an expression of anger. How about saying: I
think you are wrong. Or how about saying nothing. Not every post has
to be responded to. Too often it seems that people feel compelled to
respond in one way or another. While in the law silence is consent on
the FW list silence is just that. Silence. I often open a posting,
see that is of no interest or it is something that is strictly opinion
(which I have heard before) and gently delete.
Imagine that we are a group of people who have gathered outside a
lecture hall where a lecture on the future of work had taken place.
We are informally chatting and offering up suggestions, ideas and
thoughts. Informal. Gentle. And then someone angrily offers an
expletive. There may be a temptation to walk away from the group and
find a more congenial setting or just walk away and devote time to
other pursuits.
Let's give things a week or so to sort out.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *D and N
*Sent:* Thursday, November 25, 2010 11:41 AM
*To:* Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
*Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and
away from pushing and shoving
Keith. I, as everyone in this world is confronted by or offered
bullshit every day of our lives. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. From
politicians. From Big Business. From teachers. >From down-and-outers
on the street. It's a fact of life. It's in the dictionary. We even
step in it ourselves all too often and pass it around as we walk
through life. Not everything that comes from "lettered folk" is
/AWE/some. All too often, in retrospect, ideas are shown to be
ill-conceived or just plain wrong. *But*, bullshit, once worked
through the "filters" of the world, can be the fertilizer of the mind.
Is it that the cradle is still too tight around you that you
continually slip back to it?
Darryl
On 11/25/2010 7:39 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
Arthur,
When I wrote my very careful description of what I thought to be the
relevance of the new discoveries of epigenetics on the perseverance of
culture from generation to generation -- to which REH responded with
"Bullshit" -- then I wish I had had Oliver Wendell Holmes's amazingly
prescient quotation to hand. In poetic language this describes exactly
what I was attempting to discuss.
I won't be writing to Futurework again until there are clear signs
that REH and Christoph Reuss understand and observe the normal rules
of courtesy. Or you can delete me from the list. I won't mind either
way. I have had enough of both of them to last me for quite a long
time to come.
Keith
At 10:03 25/11/2010 -0500, you wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0046_01CB8C88.0B442F90"
Content-Language: en-us
Lots of good and constructive responses to how to nurture the health
and integrity of the list.
This morning up popped this sobering Thought for Today
*A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
*
We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the
record may seem superficial, but it is indelible. You cannot educate a
man wholly out of the superstitious fears which were implanted in his
imagination, no matter how utterly his reason may reject them. -Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Sr, poet, novelist, essayist, and physician (1809-1894)
-----------------------
So like the myth of Sisyphus we continue. And where possible we try
to recognize what is going on in us and what is going on in the world
around us. And we try accept that there are filters that we know
about and filters that we dont know about that cause us to interpret
the world in one way or the other.
arthur
*From:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Gail Stewart
*Sent:* Thursday, November 25, 2010 12:36 AM
*To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
*Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and
away from pushing and shoving
Hi Arthur and all,
I'm uneasy with the notion of excluding people from the list,
especially long-standing participants. On their behalf, I'd like to
suggest that it is at first distressing and then perhaps increasingly
irritating not to have one's perceptions or deepfelt convictions
addressed, especially when the issues raised are clearly related to
issues of work and hence the FW list, e.g. predators, on Chris's
part, and cultural perceptions, on Ray's.
While I don't pretend to have read everything everyone has said, I try
to keep up with a general sense of where the discussion on FW is
going. I don't recall seeing any sustained attempt to address Chris's
"predators" whether psychologically, politically or economically (for
example). We seem to have treated the matter more as a conspiracy
theory personal to Chris. The theory is surely more prevalent than
that in our society, although under a variety of names and is not
irrelevant to "work and working." Maybe we could give it a more
thorough going-over than has been done.
Similarly, I think we have been rather dismissive of Ray's attempt to
illuminate our understanding of his culture, tending often to see it
as merely a variant of our own. (I hope I'm not being unfair -- it is
at least my impression that we are not treating his participation as
coming from a different (forgive me but the term may be more familiar
as denoting radical difference) "paradigm."
If I'm not mistaken, it is near impossible for those of us immersed in
conventional Western culture to perceive the world as I suspect Ray
must perceive it. Making a couple of guesses, I would suggest that,
rather than seeing the environment as we do, as "out there," he may
see it as context, so that all of us are "in here." I've known very
few persons non-native to North America who can even glimpse that
perspective, let alone sustain it. (My own glimpses of life lived that
way around, which involve a Copernican shift in my "Western" outlook,
have been few and unsustainable.)
Similarly, human relations are perhaps perceived differently by Ray,
his culture possibly being far more accepting of us (i.e. other
persons) than we who are of Western culture are of other persons.
Indeed the FW list is so biased itself in terms of the gender of its
participants that dialogue with Ray comes heavily from the odd angle
of male rather than Western culture more inclusively. (The list would
of course be enlivened, made more intelligent and empathic with more
balanced participation from both genders. But perhaps I'm biased
myself. <grin>)
A wise woman I knew insisted, "we are enriched by our differences."
Rather than, on this list, trying to argue each other into abandoning
other outlooks in favour of our own, perhaps we might re-embrace our
current "transgressors," avoid an "our way or the highway" approach,
value our differences -- and get back to discussing "work."
Ray, would you please say something again about the perception of
"work" in the community in which you grew up? A friend of mine, an
aboriginal elder, shocked me when he insisted that, in his village,
they didn't have an "economy" but only "a way of life." As an
economist it took me a while to understand how it was possible not to
have an economy, let alone the important implications of this for our
Western concept of work. In a very practical way it seemed to me these
implications might be used to strengthen the arguments for the basic
income of interest to Sally and others -- and indeed could helpfully
affect a number of our policies.
All this said, I do deplore the decline in civility which has occurred
and have been surprised and saddened by it. I hope that era is behind us.
Regards,
Gail
P.S. Apologies for all the Western culture talk -- I wish there were a
better term. Any candidates?
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Pollard <mailto:[email protected]>
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and
awayfrompushing and shoving
My experience, Mike, is that when restrictions are placed on a list to
make it better, it tends to disappear.
We must be careful about any actions we take.
Harry
From: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael
Gurstein
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:38 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and away
frompushing and shoving
Arthur,
What you seem to be suggesting for list governance is rather more of
the "hidden hand" market place--bad actors will be shunned and correct
their behaviour as a result. It appears that for whatever reason some
of those in the marketplace don't respond to the same set of product
cues in the same way as others do hence the bad behaviours are in many
cases engaged with rather than shunned.
If the list were in fact self governing rather than left to the
laissez faire of the open market there would be some process of
collective self-regulation/governance.
Having been involved in several such efforts I know that they can be
tedious in the extreme but perhaps as list coordinators you folks
might like to suggest a few simple rules for collective
self-government as for example along the lines of "formal complaints
by two members of the group to the coordinators and then there is a
public process of voting people "off the island" -- or some such.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur
Cordell
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:29 AM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'
Subject: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and away
frompushing and shoving
I received this message from an active FWer. And I am adding my own
plea to FWers below.
========================
Arthur,
I won't participate in the futurework list as long as racist and
venomous comments continue. This kind of talkdoesn't contribute
anything to the list but bile.
==========================
My open plea to FWers.
FW was set up to discuss the future of work but seems to go off track
from time to time. The conversation soon leads to schoolyard type of
talk I said this, no you said that&you are a creep, no you are a
creep. Pointless schoolyard pushing and shoving.
If people want to engage in this virtual pushing and shoving please do
it off list. One to one. So that others dont have to be party to
what are private shoving (pissing?) matches.
I have asked individual FWers to not respond to those FWers who
provoke in this way (you know who you are) thinking that by shunning
those who behave this way would cause them to change their ways or
drift off to another list where this sort of behavior is tolerated.
But for whatever reason a few (you know who you are) seem to want to
pick a fight and so things heat up.
Now is our chance to be a self-governing group. Lets not do or say
anything virtually that we wouldnt say if we were talking face to face.
I prize civility and exchange of ideas. How do other FWers feel about
this? Suggestions and ideas welcome.
Arthur
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
