Re-sending
From: Arthur Cordell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:30 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: RE: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and away from pushing and shoving Interesting. (if the fonts are too large please excuse. For some reason my default font has gone haywire) When I first saw the quilt at the National Gallery containing the statement by Trudeau, --Reason Over Passion-I thought it should be the other way: passion over reason. http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/canadian/Joyce-Wieland-Canadian- Artist.html So I am sympathetic to your view. arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D and N Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 4:13 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and away from pushing and shoving 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 emphasis 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 AWEsome. 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.
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
