JK Again

from that thread: :::meta facilitation of comments, threads::: If I promptly remove comments from this thread from others, it's just for now. This thread is different, as per outlined in the existing post and comment. I need time to add stuff here. Thanks for understanding. - Ok, if you don't want us to comment, why are you sharing this then? - Because reading. Read, reflect, compose any which draft comment you want, from one word to a couple of hundred. Just, wait with commenting. This is design synthesis, me thinking out loud, as transparent as I can muster, in order to both explain what is going on, eg with digital discourse as I see it, as well as a possible launch pad and departure point, eg away from the tyranny and ephemerality and terrible transience of the "stream". Thanks again for understanding and even more for holding space for all the years of fab stuff we've gathered together around in this digital place.

You don't need to understand it all Barry. You just need to hold from adding comments to that thread. There's hundreds of other threads you can add comments to. What part of "hold" are you not understanding, hold with regards to that thread?

I wish to raise to your attention that your practice here is dangerously elevating my cortisol levels. Nor is this the first time. It is emerging as a recurring pattern, of which it appears you have neither awareness nor empathy.

To elaborate, it vexes and perplexes me why my conscientious participation in a graduate-level scholarly colloquium is being inexplicably and unilaterally curtailed.

This is a recurring "K-Line" (ref: Minsky's "Society of Mind") that has dogged me and a number of my peers for decades, including episodes in grad school at Stanford, some 45 years ago. So it's not just you, John. But it's a vexing and perplexing recurring experience.

Yes. I also did that same search, as I was quite certain I had not brought up that Umberto Eco quote since my last sojourn in CCFB more than two years ago.

I object to the practice of having feedback meant for me sent to someone other than me. That's a crazy-making practice. And, as you no doubt recall, it precipitated an outrageous injustice and estrangement the last time it happened with Jennifer Grove and Stephanie Wellen Levine.

CCFB is clearly constructed and advertised as a graduate level colloquium in Systems Thinking, which happens to be the topic I studied in graduate school at Stanford. Why are there participants here who take exception to content squarely crafted within that topic?

I just need to know one thing, semi-related to this issue. Is Monica Anderson a participating member of CCFB? I ask because I've been reading that long article of hers on Intuition, and I have a few things to contribute on that topic. I've had that tab open for a few days now, as I attend to it and compose my thoughts, and I was planning on working on that this morning.

"Very interesting," she said. But, as it later emerged, that encouraging response from her was a disingenuous lie. I was the last one to find out her true (if long concealed) feelings about attending to my thoughts. Hence the experience of a crazy-making double bind.