This is becoming quite interesting. Last night, before reading your response to Leslie re: ‘Trickster’, I read the several ‘summings up’ of the individual-group discussion, including the one from Liz. I was left feeling quite unhappy, and spent some time writing, then reducing considerably, my reply, & addressed it “To All”. Needless to say with its negative message I felt uneasy. “Who am I, the non-professional, to presume in this way?” But I clicked SEND anyway, & went to bed!
This morning I found the well-known MAILER-DAEMON, with its return. Odd, because I thought I sent it in form of a Reply. But somewhat relieved, & trusting in ‘Chance’, gave a sigh of relief: “Heigh-ho. Probably a good thing!”.
Now however, reading what you write to Leslie, it could be that my reaction, personal as it is, might be of interest – for psychological reflection, if nothing more.
I find myself disconcerted by the very ‘niceness’ of the exchanges ending this discussion topic. I’ve already expressed appreciation of EC and Peter’s document, all the voluntary time & energy &, in Peter’s case, self exposure – as I read him. But where are the ‘opposites’? Or, as with Leslie, the Trickster element?
I note opposition from Mats, discounted as ‘late entry’. But in any case it would take me weeks to consider adequately. As often, I pass him over on pragmatic grounds.
Even the 3 JAP articles, usefully summarised for us, appear to present nothing problematic about cyber-communication.
“Taking all these possibilities into account offered by cyberspace interaction which I think, on balance, are creative rather than destructive, it is important that IAJS maintains its grounded, reality-testing principles with good administrative procedures.”
From the summaries of JAP articles it would appear that ‘creative’ outcomes CAN occur under certain conditions, thus destructive outcomes also CAN occur under certain other conditions. The “on balance” judgement here is reassuringly positive but isn’t it, factually, inconclusive & woolly?
I have the heart of an administrator (not always admirable!) & relish efficiency. But is this all that is implied here by “grounded, reality-testing principles”?
Please would you accept this as my attempt to “ground in reality” – i.e. relay one reader’s feeling response.
Regards, Judith Keston