Just a note on Fran's note regarding work on caring..."defining caring" is not
what most scholars who study caring in nursing are interested in...what many are
trying to do is to understand caring in its broadest dimensions and also in its
unique dimensions in situation. The author to whose work Fran has alluded might
be, I think, John Paley, the article on the archeology of caring in JAN, and the
point that John made in the article had to do with a critique of the idea of
"knowledge of caring". John's article wasn't critical of the idea that caring
has not been "adequately defined", in fact, John's view was more like "no wonder
it hasn't been defined as it is not amenable to definition" - at least that's my
paraphrasing of John's view.

I'm not real sure just how much tongue in cheek is going on in this thread...but
I think perhaps the limits of usefulness in pinning down glossaries has been
reached, and what we are now being called to do is transcend the limiting
characteristics of these glossaries? Naive perhaps, simple perhaps, but
definitely a genuine view, with no intended effort to entertain.

Savina Schoenhofer
----- Original Message -----
From: Francis Biley
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: [Martha_E_Rogers] glossary


Hi Bear et al,

Yes quite right Bear, and I loved the Cat link!

As a recent paper on Caring suggested (?author), for all the academic
posturing
and all that has gone on with defining caring, the paper concluded, rightly or
wrongly, that no progress had been made (in decades) in actually, really,
defining it.

So, I suggest that we work systematically on producing a SUHB glossary. I will
host it on the website and we can have it on the yahoo group as well.

Right. Given the thread, the first word will be

Probablistic (or others if you so choose).

Anybody got a good def? Bear? Richard, John, Jacqui etc are you there...

Answers please by end of wk, when we'll start on new word.

Fran

--- bear <tc_spirit@...> wrote:
> Good points Fran...
>
> I would harken to the consideration that when it comes to inequities of
> access to or protection from health care services (being mindful of the
> fact that brother Fran has on occasion suggested that access to modern
> healthcare may not be in the best interest of the individual) it is
> analysis that leads us to conclude that people are being deprived of or
> perhaps being exploited by health care interventionism. However, the
> same analysis may dispose one group of people to correct social
> inequities while it may be used by another group to exploit those same
> inequities in some fashion. It may be inconsiderate to ignore
> disparities in health status in inner cities and rural areas from a
> social engineering standpoint - but no less inconsiderate to use the
> same data to develop a system of inadequate services to vulnerable
> populations while exploiting the revenue potentials that may be
> available...
>
> so it is not the analytic mind but the manner in which the analysis is
> to be used that ought, perhaps, to be our concern in evaluating the
> appropriateness of research methods...
>
> Thank you for adding an aesthetically pleasing literary reference to
> the dialogue...
>
> as to the issue of originality of thought... as bill the cat might
> suggest:
>
> http://alcyone.cc.uch.gr/~kosmas/pics/bill.gif
>
> bear
> --- Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am not capable of original thought like Bear, so have to depend on
> > throwing
> > in a quote from somebody else, in this case from Thomas Mann's Magic
> > Mountain:
> >
> > "Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good,
> > in so far
> > as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural
> > prejudices,
> > and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free,
> > refines,
> > humanises, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in
> > so far as
> > it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims
> > life at
> > its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as
> > death,
> > with which it may belong - allied to the grave and its unsavory
> > anatomy"
> >
> > page 222, vintage classics ed, 1999, trans Lowe-Porter; first pub
> > 1924.
> >
> > Fran (B)
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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