circling back around again
4 Jul 2009 04:02 amAwhile ago -- like, hrm, over a year ago -- I posted yet another reflection on issues burbling in my head, that particular time riffing on the question of exclusionary subgroups at writing conferences. I had it up for a bit (maybe a few days?) and took it down on second thought, because I mangled more than communicated. Although, admittedly, I do that plenty, anyway, because it's just part of the process of processing. For me, at least.
Keeping silent or dancing around stuff never did me any good. Never learned from it, at least. Sometimes you just don't realize how stupid something sounds until you say it out loud, realize what you just said, and the next words out of your mouth are: okay, that's pretty stupid. And sometimes you gotta say it out loud to realize: the reason this sounds stupid is because I'm missing some crucial info, here.
I'd always meant to come back around again, and I did, sort of, in recent post. But I didn't really address the first post's root cause in the second post, which is this: on what grounds can someone participate in this discussion? I think that's where my confusion came in, and the result was that I was trying to juggle two contradictory positions. In other words, I didn't deconstruct far enough. There was an assumption hiding in the statement, "to participate in this discussion," and I didn't go far enough in asking just what hid beneath that.
( Because it is entitlement on one level, and a justified one, but if the context is different then I agree that entitlement is inappropriate. )
Keeping silent or dancing around stuff never did me any good. Never learned from it, at least. Sometimes you just don't realize how stupid something sounds until you say it out loud, realize what you just said, and the next words out of your mouth are: okay, that's pretty stupid. And sometimes you gotta say it out loud to realize: the reason this sounds stupid is because I'm missing some crucial info, here.
I'd always meant to come back around again, and I did, sort of, in recent post. But I didn't really address the first post's root cause in the second post, which is this: on what grounds can someone participate in this discussion? I think that's where my confusion came in, and the result was that I was trying to juggle two contradictory positions. In other words, I didn't deconstruct far enough. There was an assumption hiding in the statement, "to participate in this discussion," and I didn't go far enough in asking just what hid beneath that.
( Because it is entitlement on one level, and a justified one, but if the context is different then I agree that entitlement is inappropriate. )