Dear Larry
Thanks for making your position clearer.
May I add that that I fear that although I understood your comments about
stupid academics in relation to what you wrote below unfortunately many
neuro-typical academics are indeed lacking knowledge, and some in trying
to refute will make silly if not indeed stupid comments which are
offensive to not only you but others like myself. There is a great danger
of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Jonathan
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:23:59 +0100, Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>It seems to be the case that whilst there is widespread acceptance of
>physical and physiological difference and the way this has precipitated
>societal attitudes toward what is termed disability, it still proceeds
from
>a paradigm that there is only one way of percieving things and does not
take
>account of the fact that we are all embodied minds and that our very
>relations with the external universe proceed from our ability to construct
>it with our individual sensory equipment, and the neurological substrates
>which govern the way in which reasoning from this proceeds (whoops used
>proceed twice there)
>
>There seems to be little acceptance that ones makeup can be different to
the
>degree in which it determines ones thinking, social relationships etc.
What
>some have called cognitive style.
>
>What to some people is percieved as abruptness or rudeness or directness,
on
>lists and even more so in real life is still considered to be what it
>appears from the neuro typical perspective rather than trying to percieve
>this in terms analogistically as a clash or cultures and misinterpretation
>of signals.
>
>Whilst I use language, I do so ideolectically and with a different
emphasis
>on the importance to me of precision.
>
>Within academia there is an emphasis on fitting in with long established
>patterns of procedure, peer reviewed papers, style guides etc. which
really
>cramps me from trying to express myself in the way I feel best able. If
you
>are a square peg, to use the old analogy, the solution is still to shave
off
>the edges to fit the round hole, rather than to make the hole bigger so a
>square can pass through equally.
>
>Larry
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jonathan McNabb
>> Sent: 17 September 2002 20:33
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Disability Studies: Theory, Policy and
>> Practice
>>
>>
>> Dear Larry,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply it helps to clarify your original point. Can you
>> explain in further detail what you are trying to say in the two replies
>> earlier in the discussion before the post I sent earlier.
>>
>> Especially can you explain in more detail why do you consider that the
>> list has one set of rules for some people and has made little attempt at
>> understanding where you are coming from.
>>
>> I am also interested in giving further arguments why you believe 'there
is
>> discrimination in academic circles against people with a different
>> neurological basis.'
>>
>> I have AS myself so this is a debate which I am particularly interested
>> in, so that is why I am interested in you expressing your argument as
>> clearly as possible.
>>
>> Jonathan McNabb
>>
>>
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|