Re: [-empyre-] nice and naughty

this is all well & good, but wasn't it a paul annear who assumed in a post the other day (yesterday?) that everyone had read a certain author? (i assure you everyone has not). & "some well known, some rather more obscure" is another assumption - what's well known to me may be quite obscure to you.

frameworks have 'good' & 'bad' aspects (like most things); if there's no framework at all, it's a bit hard to challenge, break out of, go beyond it. & using words like 'good' & 'bad' implies some kind of measuring framework. having something, be it a framework or a concept or aotearoa or a banana, as a starting point for a discussion is useful, especially if you're having a discussion with such a diverse group as this list.

then yeah, go ahead & hack it wide open.
h : )

Listening, as su b avers, is good.  Voice is good.  Labeling is bad,
so I would object to her comment that 'Paul may label a voice

To attempt to clarify, for those writing and for those listening, any
statement from this pen is not an exercise in labeling, it is not a
fixed position of the writer.  It is an attempt to use words
provocatively and therefore effectively.  To borrow sistero's
terminology (if I understand her correctly): to 'hack the narrative'.

When a discussion is within certain agreed parameters it is already a
dead discussion.  Einstein, to pick a popular example, threw everybody
with his outrageous ideas.  The are plenty of other examples, some
well known, some rather more obscure.

I suppose it is true that most people prefer to think within a clear
framework.  However there are in fact no clear frameworks, there are
only ad hoc frameworks of varying clevernesses.  For me the challenge
is to recognise a framework of assumptions for what it is ( a prison
cell) and to attempt by whatever means to go beyond the proven.

One way of doing this is to use words slightly or outrageously outside
their commonly accepted meanings.  The categories that appear to give
structure to The Concise Model of the Universe are named in this way.
Another way is to challenge the shared assumptions of a group, and if
one is listening it is immediately clear when there are cozy shared
assumptions.  In case there is any misunderstanding, I am not
referring to a situation where everybody agrees with each other during
the discussion.

It is instructive, I suggest to look at Shakespeare (a name mentioned
elsewhere on this forum, and to ask: how would my thinking be
different if spelling was not standardised.  What is the significance
of 'correct' spelling?  How would my thinking be different if there
was no 'written' language.

Finally, for now, going back to the concept 'academic', it is
instructive to look at the origins of the word and to realise that the
meaning (the associative grid attached to the word) has shifted and


-- ____________________________________________________________

helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.