 |
 |
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote: > Robert, I think, implies that we should all define our terms and > stick to specifics (to avoid this interminable anxiety over > labelling, over-labelling...there`s a sentence in Prynne`s > astonishing letter to McCaffery about how identification and taxonomy > are the principal activities in a morgue). Might it be a good idea > to group-discuss one essay, and "Artifice of Absorption" would > probably be the most likely to have been read by those interested, > tho` other suggestions would be welcome - - so long as it takes us away from the binary and into the plurality where we seem to agree we live, go for it. A word of caution: I've seen whole lists brought to their knees (figuratively speaking) by the process of group-discussion, normally in attempts to fix rules of engagement. The only effective way is to just get in there quickly and simply and start discussing. Like the buses in our part of the world, this doesn't always go where you thought, but there are points of interest along the way. RC %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%