Proposal from Terry by email from 5th June 2011.
I’ve been having a wee think about what was suggested about remote collaboration. I like the idea of using the idea remote collaboration as a vehicle for communicating our experiences so far to another group. It would seem interesting to avoid it being a ‘this is what we’ve experienced so this is what we are’ by explicating the subjectivity of our placing together. I have been thinking a bit about how we have something in motion but it is, for example, played out in geographically disparate regions. Of course technology affords us a certain expediency here but only to a point.
I have become interested in the idea of sending letters; a technology of communication which exists outside of our current use because of the need for immediacy. This then led me to think further about how we could make contact with GOS. I was thinking that as we don’t (can’t) have exactly the same, shared, experience of our undertaking and the continued hopes that we carry through it I was thinking that it might be interesting to contact say a representation of the GOS separately but together. For example, we could make contact with them and ask for a certain person who might be a willing receiver of our contact on behalf of GOS. We could ask them to supply say their name, address, email, telephone, fax etc. and to name a date when they would be free to receive something from Strategies for Free Education. We could then individually (I mean this through the two collaboration that are in our group – NFA and DDF) say that we will all make contact through one of these avenues on that day. Maybe the communication can be on the idea of remote collaboration or just about our individual experience more generally?
What I like about this is that rather than trying to write something together, we disperse that location of our collectivity in a way that is perhaps more representative. The receiver, ultimately GOS, will receive fragments of the same entity, with the form and the content of the communications having their own shared but individual history. I also like the idea that through this action, GOS might know more about our external collective identity than we do, which I think is an interesting way to communicate with another group on the issues and problems with identity. In doing this, our identity becomes largely constituted in our communication with GOS and is in that sense active, not refined. It is immanent. I like the potential energy that this could create between us internally and externally, if there is such a boundary.
Anyhow, just an idea. Let us know what you think.
I also came across a few other things recently. I whilst in Glasgow I found out about Andy Abbotts involvement in this. See PDF attached. Looks ace!
And also a few things that Janna Graham has done, she’s real interesting.