From: "Richard" <rcarlson@…>
Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 9:42 am
Subject: critical reason and the email medium

Time for a bit of self-criticism here from a Guy making the case for the need for critical inquiry. I am fond of the phrase from McLuhan, 'the medium is the message' because I do feel the way we receive information, e.g. orally, in print, on the TV, over the internet, structures the way we process that information.

Now although I am a big fan of the internet and email, and we set up an email list for pre-discussion time for a quick caveat in the e-dialog. While the email is a great tool to convey denoted information, it often hinders connotations of words and the subtleties of meanings, moods, and feelings.

Those of us who have watched some of the other auro-discussions get out of hand have experienced this first hand. Some topics 'politics being foremost - are often best avoided in that they are too emotionally charged. Since we are not present in a conversation but rather are absent and only leave behind cyber traces for others to read, the medium can lack of certain type of communicative interaction which allows perspectives to be reconciled.

I also think email medium is much more suited to critical discussion than integral conversation. For example, email discussions are structured in a rational linear way

I post a message and back it up with facts, trying to sway the other party. Then there is a pause for response. Then the sequential response comes, and I read the counter-argument and the facts associated with it. Hmmm a disagreement ah' Pause'. I formulate a response and since I can't make use of tone of voice, hand gestures, and laying certain emphasis on words to get at multi-dimensional meanings, I stick to facts critical arguments and demonstrations or examples that support my point. Hit send and await the next response. The response will be processed in a similar critical manner befitting the awkward linear patterns of the email exchange. 'Since one wants to be certain to be understood, as there are no subtle connotations accepted in cyberspace, often for arguments sake it is best to select the most sensational examples or facts to support one's position-

This is odd enough in a private email exchange but when it occurs on a wider email list

in which many people are watching the exchange, the tendency is to become even more sensitive to the manner in which their email has been received and responded too.

I think it is natural to feel a greater stake in ones own written documents, which leaves a trace in a public domain, than words which vanish once they are spoken. I think it is also somewhat natural to feel slighted by a critical reply being viewed by a public audience, a response which lingers in the mysterious ether of cyber space, and one which will require the linear passage of time to respond to.

Therefore, I find it interesting to discuss topics such as critical thinking versus integral epistemology, when constrained by a medium, which facilitates the former so much more than the latter.

I'd also add here, that over the course of our present dialog it would really be preferable - at least in regards to my own messages - to focus on the positive events and messages which give us hope for the integral community of the future, and although there may have been past mistakes made in trying to build the integral community, at best we can do is agree there are lessons to be learned, and move forward into the promised future.

Rich