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
>
>
> -----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
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:05:33 +0100, Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >My point is that to summarise a short paper is in essence to emasculate
> it,
> >in that every word that is there is a part of the message and to shorten
> it
> >fails to make the point.
> >
> >It is like passing exams by memorising key notes only, you miss out so
> much.
> >
> >Academic natural selection therefore favours those who have aquired the
> >ability to play a social game and tailor there output to what they expect
> to
> >get from it.
> >
> >It is like the days when Latin was the universal scholarly language, and
> >that no-one who culd not speak latin would be capable of presenting a
> >scholarly argument, because no-one would listen to it.
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jonathan McNabb
> >> Sent: 17 September 2002 19:00
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Disability Studies: Theory, Policy and
> >> Practice
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Larry
> >>
> >> I am finding it difficult to follow your arguments in relation to this
> >> discussion. It will be helpful if you clarify what you wish to say. I
> am
> >> sorry what you have written so far has not helped your case.
> >>
> >> I would be interested to know what you think because I believe what you
> >> wish to say might be of some importance.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> ________________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.
>
________________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.
|