re: what kinds of exchanges: a playground for loose constructs

Devi (
Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:35:18 +0100

Dear Lois,

Thank you for your personal e-mail on this topic, copied to the pcp mailing

You sound irritated, since I misspelt your name. I'm so sorry.
But it wasn't intentional, you know!

As for:
>The other point
>is that you seem to be arguing for what you want on the list.

Of course I am.

It's not my place to argue on behalf of other people, I can only speak for
myself, just one voice among many, etc. etc.

But you'll notice that what I want is not entirely unrelated to what you
appear to want; in my case, free discussion untramelled by the inhibitions
that characterise other, more formal, or more face-to-face, media. Maybe
you don't recall, but I argued publicly against Bill Chambers' exclusion,
for example.

And I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say:
>But, if they set it up so everyone can join and talk about whatever
>then we can hardly fault people for talking about "whatever they like".

Am I faulting people?

Hardly. I'm simply doing two things.

Firstly, pointing out the value of conceptual play, discussing it in terms
of the Kellian "creativity cycle" of tight-loose-tight construing.

Secondly, I'm pointing out that a basic acquaintance with some relevant
concepts makes for a more fruitful discussion, and suggesting that if one
doesn't find a particular offering fruitful, one doesn't have to respond.


If you (or other colleagues) felt moved to respond to this message, that
would be lovely. I wouldn't be in a position to reply for 10 days as I'm
overseas and out of touch with the Net from tomorrow, so please don't think
I'm ignoring any message you (or other colleagues) might wish to send.

Kindest regards,

Devi Jankowicz