I’m working on the transformation of things. Thanks for being patient. I may actually blog before the transformation occurs; we’ll see. I’ll take more suggestions here for the name of the new blog, if something strikes your fancy. That’s still up in the air. Names that are named are not constant names…
I certainly understand the reasons for the transition and hope everything goes well. It’s a bit funny (or ironic), however, in the light of my experience, for I joined a group blog–Ratio Juris–knowing there was a handful of co-bloggers and thus believing I would not feel under any compulsion or obligation to frequently post things (for some unknown reason, I’m not very good with the light-hearted or fairly frivolous fare by way of gap-filling: inexplicable, that is, if you knew me). However, again for no obvious reason, since I’ve started blogging my co-bloggers have slowly acquired the status of missing-in-action, and only Jim Chen posts things now and again. Perhaps it’s irrational, but I now feel under the aforementioned obligation to post things, if only to keep the blog alive (I’m inordinately fond of its raison d’être: ‘law, politics, philosophy’). Perhaps coincidentally they all became unusually busy at roughly the same time. In any case, I’m hoping that some if not all of them return and the blog will become, once again, a group blog!
What about: “Clearing the Underbrush: A Group Blog in Chinese Philosophy”?
I like to spread the compunction around. On the other hand, there is some situationist psychology research according to which “helping behavior” is substantially diminished after the number of people around to help is greater than 2. Maybe the compunction gets spread thin as it gets spread around!
Hagop: Interesting suggestion–seems slightly more programmatic than what I had in mind. Something somewhere between clearing underbrush and soaring serenely to the Southern Oblivion would be more in my comfort range I think.
I’ve been in Korea sans laptop, so I’ve been lagging on my blog, as well, which is significant seeing how I posted only once or twice per month.
My circumstances and sloth aside, I think a well-updated collaborative blog for Chinese philosophy is a good idea, but one that is hard to keep productive by individual inspirations. Will you be able to set aside time with your collaborators to organize a posting rotation, or discuss themes? I seem to remember that you were more active in communication on common topics.
Then again, I’m sure the last thing you’d want to do with a group blog is legislate it.
I’m actually in discussion about this very issue with my chief collaborators. We’re trying to figure out a happy middle between too much legislation and complete wuwei in order to maximize posting rhythms. Maybe some form of leading by virtue is in the offing, however one implements that…
Your suggestion about a thematic organizing scheme is worth thinking about. Thanks!
If you’re still in Korea, tell all my people hello for me — all of them :).
For the title of the group blog, I’m thinking of something like “Warping and Wefting the Way: A Chinese and Comparative Philosophy Blog.” Or maybe just “The Warp and the Weft: A Chinese and Comparative Philosophy Blog.” What do you think?
How about “Warp, Weft & Way: A Chinese and Comparative Philosophy Blog:?
In which case, I have the perfect image, which I used in my latest post at Ratio Juris: http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/zoomObject.cfm?ObjectId=7913
I like both of those things, Patrick, especially the image.
“Warping and Wefting the Way” is very catchy. What is the suggested warp/weft theme meant to draw attention to?
Hi Stephen; a couple of things. One is just to refer obliquely to one of the less frequent meanings of jing 經 (the warp of a fabric). Related to that would be to suggest something like construction of the fabric of understanding through a weave of discussion, some of which runs at transverse angles to other bits (I’m putting too fine a point on it, no doubt). Plus it’s catchy in its obscurity and archaism.
I had to google ‘warp and weft’. So I can confirm Manyul’s last statement. 🙂