Hello Lawry, Strangely, you wrote just as I was struggling to get into the futurework archive, having inadvertently deleted a recent posting by John Verdon.
His posting, about the need for insurance arrangements in a world of the self-employed, plus an earlier posting (see reference below) which John had sent to a group of us here in Ottawa who meet to discuss work, plus Ed Weick's recent "Your gloom for today," are cogent and interesting. It seems to me that there is much to be said and done about work today, and I would be sorry to see the disappearance of the futurework list. As one component in the many ongoing discussions on the topic of work, it has its value. For those of us who are "working on work" as an important key to our future -- where survival meets self-image meets climate change (whatever became of homo ludens?) -- its continuing existence is welcome. I do agree that the list is being used for other than Sally's intended purposes. For my part I do not treat postings to it as a conversation in which I should be respectful of all comments by all participants. I treat it more like a newspaper, ignoring many postings and/or columnists, while sampling others and valuing some -- a resource for learning. I am one who regrets that it proved possible to learn together but not also to work together. I always hoped that Charles Brass's contributions, for example, might compound with others, in a glorious brainstorming, to a global breakthrough -- the conceptual repositioning of work in our lives into a less dangerous position than it currently occupies, where its nexus with income is driving us to self-destruction collectively and often personally. We don't seem to be able to develop any better way of distributing the means to survival than through processing the planet's resources, having organized ourselves more as a factory than as family, spurred by a vastly exaggerated notion of scarcity and praising our remunerated activity as "work." It seems all such a pity. Meanwhile, Lawry, thank you for your invitation and your posting. We'd be delighted to have you in our "work" working group here -- it's too bad the commute would be so long!.The conversation ranges widely -- work, it seems, is everywhere. John, who has been thinking deeply about these matters, has drawn me at least to some fresh thinking about "communities of practice" and the internet. I'm also intrigued by the pivotal potential of the newly retired and the "guaranteed incomes" that at least some of them enjoy -- a nexus in which work is now being (and could now usefully be) redefined. I sense though that there is a tension between a use of this list to discuss work in all its ramifying challenges to our future and the desire to have the list carry an intelligent and civil conversation among a community in the form of an extended network. Such a list (or maybe a wiki site) could be a pleasure. Might you think of starting one, Lawry, for that purpose, a conversation which you might monitor and nurture? It doesn't seem to me that futurework is that conversation or capable of becoming so, although some of the contributions to it, on various topics over the years since it began, and some of the exchanges, have been rich and even profound. Sally surely wot not what she would wrought! Regards, Gail Forces Shaping the Future U.S. Workforce and Workplace Implications for 21st Century Work LYNN A. KAROLY CT-273 February 2007 Testimony presented before the House Education and Labor Committee on February 7, 2007 (Part of the RAND Corporatioin testimony series) This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:07 PM Subject: [Futurework] This list > Greetings everyone, > > Since Mike posted this message a couple of weeks ago I have been thinking > quite a bit about this list and the state that it is in. > > Mike mentions one problem, and I think we have several besides this one. > > I've been a member for several years, and I have never seen the list as > dead > as it is now. There is very little that passes for conversation, and very > little genuine exploration or learning going on. > > We have always had a problem straying from the nominal subject of the > list, > the future of work. But we have always had vibrant discussions, until > these > last many months. > > Karen is carrying on valiantly with her Casey Reports, but receives no > feedback and little thanks. > > Harry and Chris doggedly pursue their pseudo-discussions with > argumentative, > unwavering, and repetitive self-righteousness. > > We have obviously lost many valued members in the last couple of years, > and > it is with sadness that I think of their brilliance, energy, bonhomie, > curiosity and knowledge. Some of these have explicitly or privately > referred to Chris and Harry as the cause of their departure. > > The moderators of this list, the list-owners, seem by their silence to > accept the deterioration of the list. > > Who else misses the qualities that we created here some time ago? > > And if I and Mike are not alone in missing them, what should we do to > bring > this list back up. > > The moderators may well tell me that I am overstepping my place with this > email, in which case I will happily follow my friends over the horizon and > disappear. > > If this happens, those of you who know that I enjoy and learn from your > postings, and who may from time to time enjoy mine, please make note of my > email address in the header to this message, and please know that you will > ALWAYS be in my heart and your contacts will always be deeply welcomed by > me. > > To those who are only lurking here, if you too wish for a day in which > vibrant conversations might again prevail, I would love to hear from you > as > well. > > And, finally, a desperate request: if any of you are engaged in > constructive > and convivial discussions in other fora and might welcome my > participation, > please email me.... > > Cheers, > Lawry > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 3:13 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] [META] Re: Bill Gates,Rockefellers & Africa's > biopiracy > > > Hello all -- > > I dropped off the FutureWork list a couple of years ago, not only > because Harry was trolling [1] the list, trying to provoke > opportunities for his condescending barbs and his > free-market-cures-all polemics but as well because all the other > bright folks on the list were politely responding to him as if his > posts were mature and sensible contributions and his jibes and > provocations were unintentional oversights. > > I quite missed the dialog so now I've subscribed again and, oh dear, > oh dear, what do I find? That Harry is still trolling for arguments, > intentionally provoking them and pointlessly prolonging them. It's a > bit reassuring that others are no longer tolerating his provocations > with good grace in the interest of decorum. On the other hand, > allowing the list discourse to degenerate into the kind of shouting > match that makes Harry feel righteous and important is not a big win, > either. > > I would hesitate to suggest that the list owner(s) bar Harry from the > list but perhaps it would be constructive to simply ignore all of his > posts that are devoid of redeeming value or which serve chiefly as a > launching platform for his belligerent rhetoric. Harry's skill is > an ability to be so irritating that one feels compelled to respond. > Suppressing that compulsion might improve the FW conversation. > > > - Mike > > > -------------------------- > /| /| | | > ||__|| | Please | > / O O\__ do not feed | > / \ the troll. | > / \ \ | > / _ \ \ ---------------------- > / |\____\ \ || > / | | | |\____/ || > / \|_|_|/ | __|| > / / \ |____| || > / | | /| | --| > | | |// |____ --| > * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/ > *-- _--\ _ \ // | > / _ \\ _ // | / > * / \_ /- | - | | > * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ > > > > > [1] On the off chance that you haven't encountered the term "troll" > in a net context, here's a snippet from Wikipedia : > > In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally > posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about > sensitive topics in an established online community such as an > online discussion forum to bait users into responding. They > may also plant images and data...in order to cause > confrontation. > [...] > The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet > groups in the late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a > truncation of the phrase "trolling for suckers", itself derived > from the sport fishing technique of trolling. > > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. > /V\ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] /( )\ > http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
