I take your reply to heart. The recent posts have been informative and
interesting from each sender.
Trudeau - a Great debater and yet a very passionate Canadian. Someone I
was proud to vote for /and /who got into office.
May we all continue to progress.
Darryl
On 11/25/2010 6:56 PM, Arthur Cordell wrote:
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]>
[mailto:[email protected]]
<mailto:[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 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]>
[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.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
