Sonya and all,
Well said. In thinking about theories 'metatheoretically', might we
consider that there is something about a conceptual system or theory
that endures, and then elements that change, can be reformulated, or
modified, without losing the basic pattern of the original theory? For
example, the evolution of Rogerian thought could never take a
mechanistic turn, at least not in the way we under mechanistic today. In
saying this, I realize it takes us back to Jacqui's original question,
and Violet's question -- what can or should change (or, more in Rogerian
terms, is already in process of changing?)
Pam

Pamela Reed


________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Hardin, Sonya
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:09 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver



Jackie,

This is a very important question.....as Co-Editor of Visions, I know
that some readers would like to see the writings that do not deviate
from the writing's of Martha. However, so many of the writers are taking
the work and moving it some distance from the original work....so should
utilization be limited to what Martha wrote? Martha Bramlett and I
struggle with this issue too.

Sonya R. Hardin RN PhD CCRN

Associate Professor

School of Nursing, Room 444F

University of NC at Charlotte

9201 University City Blvd.

Charlotte, NC 28223

Office:704-687-7970

Fax: 704-687-6017

email. srhardin@... <mailto:srhardin%40uncc.edu>

________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jacqueline
Fawcett
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:10 PM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

I would be disappointed if the listserv went away but I certainly
understand Bear's point about his efforts. Perhaps each of us who would
like the listserv to remain could pose a question for dialogue. I'll
start:

How open are Rogerians to changes in the content of the Science of
Unitary Human Beings? Is what Martha wrote "set in stone" or should
revisions be made in content as needed?

Jacqui

Jacqueline Fawcett

________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of bear
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 10:32 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

Hi all

I have been looking over the activity level for the listserver and
wondering whether it is still performing any useful function.

Most of the posts to it are from spammers trying to market some sort
of goods or services and it has been a very long time since there have
been any extended dialogues. My hunch is that as people have become
more email savvy and their interests have broadened, the benefits of
the listserver in facilitating communication are being replaced by off
list communications or that people are congregating on other
listservers.

It would seem to be an appropriate forum for communications from the
officers or board but I can't really remember when last there was such
communication.

So, the question: Is it worthwhile to maintain the listserver when
there is so little use being made of it? Most of my work on the
listserver at this point is dedicated to identifying and deleting
spammers - which is not quite the way I want to spend my time and very
little time is spent reading interesting posts from colleagues.

So, I suggest that we engage in a dialogue about the utility of
maintaining the listserver and if that dialogue fails to generate
appropriate interest and responses, we agree to let the listserver go
on in a relatively unmoderated manner - unfortunately that would
likely eventually result in a lot of spam. The upside would be that
the older messages would remain intact - as opposed to formally
shutting down the listserver which would mean that the 1200 messages
would be lost.

Another option would be that someone else step up to be moderator.

bear

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]