Over the past several months I've had private correspondences with a few
Heidegger scholars, James Faulconer and Richard Polt among others, who've
left this list -- given up on it, really -- because (I think) they had
decided reluctantly and after some investment of time and bandwidth that this
unmonitored electronic forum could not really sustain the kind of
discourse that its subject requires. Maybe not -- such a conclusion
seems to be supported by the recent flurry of exchanges; but, at the risk
of continuing this thing and abusing the bandwidth further, I would like
to think a minute about the ethics -- or about the very possibility -- of
virtual communities like this one.
I appreciate and admire Babich's apology to the list and her conciliatory
posts. Given the circumstances, I think it was a difficult thing for her
to do. But now where are we? Blancato is enraged -- quite
understandably, it seems to me -- and continues to post in that he was
"not a shooter" in these exchanges. This seems right to me. My files
show that this flurry of posts, which began when Babich used the forum to
insult Blancato, consists of two posts from Blancato, one each from a few
other people (including me) and nine from Babich. This is hardly a "back
and forth," and the people who are coming out of lurking _now_ to call
for "business as usual" in a way that implicates Blancato in all this are
IMO being unfair to him and to the delicate balance of egos and manners
that enables a forum like this.
We all know that if you antagonize somebody enough, that person will
eventually oblige you by becoming antagonized. This is fair. I think
the scramble for moral high ground that comes in the wake of these
exchanges, in which lurkers post in calling for order as though they're
having to come down to the playroom and separate the squabbling children,
only perpetuates and worsens that antagonism. It is dishonest, and
disingenuous, to call for business as usual after this public space has
been used to antagonize and provoke one of its members.
Something else has to happen. What? -- I don't know. But it seems that
the list has to begin by acknowledging what happened to it, and that all
of us are implicated in its abuse. There is no moral high ground when
something like this happens. Pardon, all, if this sounds too preachy or
righteous. Really, I just find at times like this that we're dealing
with more important and provocative issues than perhaps we realize.
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Heidegger scholars, James Faulconer and Richard Polt among others, who've
left this list -- given up on it, really -- because (I think) they had
decided reluctantly and after some investment of time and bandwidth that this
unmonitored electronic forum could not really sustain the kind of
discourse that its subject requires. Maybe not -- such a conclusion
seems to be supported by the recent flurry of exchanges; but, at the risk
of continuing this thing and abusing the bandwidth further, I would like
to think a minute about the ethics -- or about the very possibility -- of
virtual communities like this one.
I appreciate and admire Babich's apology to the list and her conciliatory
posts. Given the circumstances, I think it was a difficult thing for her
to do. But now where are we? Blancato is enraged -- quite
understandably, it seems to me -- and continues to post in that he was
"not a shooter" in these exchanges. This seems right to me. My files
show that this flurry of posts, which began when Babich used the forum to
insult Blancato, consists of two posts from Blancato, one each from a few
other people (including me) and nine from Babich. This is hardly a "back
and forth," and the people who are coming out of lurking _now_ to call
for "business as usual" in a way that implicates Blancato in all this are
IMO being unfair to him and to the delicate balance of egos and manners
that enables a forum like this.
We all know that if you antagonize somebody enough, that person will
eventually oblige you by becoming antagonized. This is fair. I think
the scramble for moral high ground that comes in the wake of these
exchanges, in which lurkers post in calling for order as though they're
having to come down to the playroom and separate the squabbling children,
only perpetuates and worsens that antagonism. It is dishonest, and
disingenuous, to call for business as usual after this public space has
been used to antagonize and provoke one of its members.
Something else has to happen. What? -- I don't know. But it seems that
the list has to begin by acknowledging what happened to it, and that all
of us are implicated in its abuse. There is no moral high ground when
something like this happens. Pardon, all, if this sounds too preachy or
righteous. Really, I just find at times like this that we're dealing
with more important and provocative issues than perhaps we realize.
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---