maybe the problem is with Shannon’s post? Maybe she has an anti-cyber-communication from men blocker? 🙂 I got the same error message and there were no words with “men” in it. Gender-wise, I guess Stephen’s off the hook.
so, this is my response to Shannon’s post.
in time, it comes after I’ve read Stephen’s post and includes a reference to it at the end.
isn’t that life aquatic movie a thriller? like, beyond suspense and on the verge of horror? Ah – more of my limitations show! 🙂
as to the kinetics, yes, it is very different here, talking this way. the words stick, they linger in sight and don’t go away. there’s a time/timing thing (technical language alert!)….when will someone respond? IF they respond?
I never expect a response. Sometimes I hope for one, but after doing this for so long and going long stretches without any, you kinda start to feel like you’re writing in a vacuum. Then someone will post something and it’s kinda cool. A connection.
I think it parallels “real life”, just a different mode. You meet people, talk with them, look at them, wonder about them (maybe). If you liked them or were interested in what they had to say you might wonder about if/when/how you’ll meet again….this makes that process more visible, more palpable even? It’s the permanence, I think, of the words dangling in cyberspace, etching intention, leaving more than a trace.
A reading assignment I use in the interpersonal class is about epistemology, ways of knowing. it concludes with a discussion of “truth” being problematic because everyone approaches knowledge from their own subjectivity, with or without a procedure for how to know – which I sometimes reduce to how to learn. It argues that if we really want to learn together, to produce knowledge together, transient transparency won’t work. Bits and spurts of “publicity” or planned media incursions into enemy turf don’t contribute to the collaborative construction of knowledge. I’m not talking about consensus although there’s no doubt I have that bias at times. We can construct knowledge together with dissensus as the overt goal. I think Stephen’s contributing that with his posts, making sure there’s no way this turns into some kinda touchy-feeling group thang. I value the moments that feel that way, but I equally value the moments of disagreement and intellectual struggle – which become more sensible, I think, when they remain visible and can be revisited.