An Open Note to the Moderator
- Dear Jack:
While the number of February's messages (139) far exceeds the monthly average
(about 70) for this project, I cannot help but notice the sudden cessation of
communication since your intervention closing the active threads. Or have I
participated in the fallacy of proximity here, missing the natural rhythm of
As a member (actually, as quite a new member) of the list, I was mildly
disappointed in the occasional questionable personal remarks scattered
throughout, and I wonder if these remarks led you to halt postings. You seem
to have been most effective in meeting the goal of quieting things down, but
did you intend what seems to be a chilling effect?
I should also ask if the discussion's turn toward semiotics had a chilling
effect on you. I can appreciate how some approaches to the Johannine material
question the validity of semiosis; indeed, the historical and textual critics
on the list are likely predisposed to be suspicious of anthing that begins in
structuralism. Nonetheless, I agree that literary theory qua literary theory
should not be the emphasis. I hope I did not contribute to anyone's
discomfiture so early in my stay on John_Lit, yet I remain convinced that
breaking new ground usually involves a modicum of angst. My analysis of the
discussion was meant to bring the relationship between authors and texts into
sharper focus, nothing more.
Perhaps if you were to share your views on how and where the discussion
should proceed, the membership might adjust its commentary and demeanor.
I had hoped to engage Johannine literature not only objectively, but
intersubjectively, as the latter tends to inform readers more about the
phenomena of texts and about methodology than the former.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]