Topic

Exclusive Inclusion?  The academic and commercial/'public' framing of /discourse around () 'emergence' (Vickers/Cilliers/Urry) from the infinite layered textured surface that is Barthes post structuralist "text" and methods of accessing it such as for example the Random Journey (c.f Debord)

Re the evolution of my topic 

The previous  focus on the 'expressive'   in "Random Expressive Flow" (or the interpretation thereof) ,can perhaps provoke an emotive  response related to  the (appropriate) academic bias towards the cognitive, returning my  focus to the  more passive  "appreciative space (c.f Vickers 1996) for emergence(Checkland/Cilliers) (or emergent field effects (Massumi))" may be more open to subtlety of construction. The method of language/frame analysis (Eg critical discourse analysis (Fairclough) and its distinciton from/relation to the topic should be made clearer perhaps...

The closure/opening of appreciative judgement(Vickers) and how it relates to ideology/ hegemony is central...

It's interesting that the careful listening that is central to qualitative research is at the heart of this but not  just  listening  to the dominant group discourse...of course... staying away from the group has made me consider why some of the seeming tension (whether a 'good' or 'bad' thing) was, for me, there, the concept 'Random Expressive Flow' could be seen as a block to  listening and a source of a controlling insensitive (perhaps invasive) discourse... but that  was not the whole story meant by  the term "Random Expressive Flow" perhaps I did not play the role of  a good /balanced (between listening and expression) advocate/researcher of such a concept in the group,  if so I regret that... but I also felt my subject position (and the 'shape of my working texts) within the group being interpellated? push-flowed into an 'oppositional / more extreme space/caricature   at certain times... that position in the group "constellation"  is a product of what? I believe it is to an extent dominated by  the effect of the role of  exclusive filters the tutors have? to play to keep their jobs in the modernist hierachical  institution... that is my personal bias of course... I feel qualitative research  is very  important, perhaps too important to be subject to the level of  exclusion created  by  post-structuralist language games stripped all the concepts offered by serious attempts at inter-subject communication such as general systems theory.

(The attempts to appropriate systems theory by the hard systems movement and the neoliberals is perhaps at the base of the fear the post-structuralsts have (Cilliers2005) )

Deleuze and Guttari have attempted to reinstate some of the systems language in a socially liberating way, but the denial of such meta-narrative by the post structural meta-narrative appears to have left a flat plane of entwined  messy struggle with contradiction (as no clear distinction is left between living systems? (self-similar complementary aspects of a whole) and category systems(fixed bounded-often oppositional)?) (eg defining "univocity") leaving me not sure whether they are posing or being purposely obscure, perhaps they are attempting to create a 'more open text'  c.f the   "infinitely complex post-structural layered textured surface" that Barthes proposes...an infinite ground in which to stake an academic claim perhaps but a ground that is shuttered off from many by it's labarynth like complexity . Is this a view from either side of the bridge?


On a more personal level, my concern with creativity has evolved  from  a concern with active construction  (c.f austin/iragray)  in an individualist and romantic sense  to a concern with collective emergence  
from beyond language (the animate ecological?) and how language frames our access to this, in that sense perhaps the construction of the  'random journey' is the perfect vehicle for this, as each encounter with a 'text' is potentially a random journey although the framing ('practical' /ideological/ 'hegemonic' etc) usually closes this potential... and the simplicity of the  "random" becomes the background (of the  gestalt), is it  excluded...like the commons? via comparative value?  


( as we perhaps edge back towards the important social theoretical  foundation dimension  of Marx? via admitting the motivation for the designing into our academic language games ?  the  'perceived affordance' *(Norman)? of extended complexity  - a (rather worthless?) example of which this is?)


*"The designer cares more about what actions the user perceives to be possible than what is true. (emphasis added) [4]" Norman