Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f7S0Dif04192; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000701c12f55$be1bc0a0$d8a92a3f@computer> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "gdemetrion" <gdemetrion@msn.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:579] Re: Habermas & Internet X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3096 Lines: 89 ----- Original Message ----- From: "hforster" <hforster@strato.net> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 10:57 PM Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:578] Re: Habermas & Internet > List discussion can be more permanent and open than any form of discussion that > we have seen before. > Agreed on the potential, though such similar potentials were perceived for radio in the early days. Now we have IMUS in the morning. > The problem is that we are not trained in skills such as Habermas's > Communicative Action and other such tools for guiding and analyzing discourse. That would assume a disinterested quest for the better argument among a community of participants. I think that is occasionally realized, in a limited manner. Yet, the divergent paradigmatic assumptions, to say nothing of the various political (broadly defined) stances that shape discourse among different communities of people remains deeply problematical. Though, I, too, am an admirer of Habermas's project of such communication and seek a sort of coherence for our field. > A further problem is that the present law of the code does not facilitate the > directing and focusing of discussion to a conclusion. Yes, that has been problematic--lack of closure, lack of comprehensiveness in making a sustained argument in probing diverse logic and pushing sustaining analysis forward. Your software program sounds interesting. Perhaps something to explore with the NIFL-Tech folks. > The present primitive nature of internet communication only adds to our work > load by making available more information and communication than we have ever > had. What we need is means that help us process this information in efficient > and effect ways. I would add, "meaningful ways." >Our job definitions do not consider that given the new > resources we may be able to achieve better results if we took the time and the > effort to do so. Yes, there is quite the possibility that we will let the fuller possibilities of this exciting fresh genre listserv communication erode. It's difficult to spend consistent, quality time when you're giving it away for free. Hence, your comments on eastern and western philosophies. "Just the facts, ma'aam" and given them to me quickly." "But what's in it for me?" >This is a confrontation of eastern and western philosophies< So in a different mind-set, we might give more time to such ex[lorations, perhaps where east can meet west, so to speak. > The work place pressure for quick answers from the internet places pressure on > long discussions as you are well aware. :) >One answer is the delete key but that > may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Indeed . >This issue just points to > another unresolved community problem. Please say more > With that I will say that I would like to say more but we may have over stayed > our welcome, which is one of my personality weaknesses. Don't let "the other" define you. Do say more and don't worry about pushing the envelope. Let er rip! George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:08 EST