FergusonCommentMemo1-2-Anna

//Memo 1:// I love the juxtaposition of the talents and neuroses. The fact that you can realize that you can do whatever you are assigned to do and yet still worry about failing is terrible, and familiar. I'm wondering if you talent of 'pretty much' doing whatever you are assigned extends to things that are not assigned to you but still seem critical somehow?
 * __FergusonComment1&2-Anna__**

“I am always right” in the case of grammatical mistakes or generally? I find this interesting because whenever we end up in a discussion you usually start out with how much you don't understand or fears about not getting it right. Is this just a default conversation style that you have picked up (ala the !Kung and not appearing proud?) or something that is more intrinsic to your being?

Heavens, you need to get out more, no one I have ever encountered has honestly, when interrogated, said that they can work productively for more than 4 hours at a stretch.

Is it the social component of attending class, the information that you think you will find, or some other reason that causes you concerns about attendance? I guess I ask because I sometimes avoid class because I'm getting so much stuff done at the moment that I don't want to break up the experience, and thus rarely fear not making it.

//Memo 2: Topic A:// Are you confining yourself to face to face open spaces or can online forums and other venues also fulfill your criteria for open communication? Would you be interested in trying to put together a forum that would be as close to ideal as possible to determine the outcome of such a forum. I suggest talking with Nathan about this as he has done some reading on Fishkin and others whom have attempted to put together citizen panels to discuss topics and give policy recommendations. Why is neoliberalism your focus? Is this going to shift a little as neoliberalism seems to be taking some knocks through global outrage, financial collapses, environmental awareness increasing, and multinational corporations failing? If people don't care about participating (you've suggested that nanotech seems to be better off than biotech) then should there also be a question right after “who can participate” that looks at “who is willing/wants to participate”? Why the comparative study with a question mark? Do you think this won't work or are you concerned about leaving something out by not working in a different area? The Habermasians are going to hate you... //Topic B...// The first and second topics seem like less two distinct options than similar ideas that would be put in the same dissertation. How would you develop both to be stand alone topics? Is this topic simply supposed to be more theoretically grounded and develop out of democratic theory, standpoint epistemology, or some other backdrop?

//Topic C...// Do you think that green chemistry has no future because it is a dead end in terms of output potential or that prevailing institutions will not allow it the opportunity to expand? Do you like the idea of green chemistry but remain cynical? In the latter, as much as I try and not let Ned invade my thinking too much, I wonder if you are simply having difficulty thinking far enough in the future (or alternative futures) that would allow green chemistry success. This project seems to align well with my own topics, so we might want to hash out what troubles you ran into your first year of working on this and why you gave up on it. This might be an interesting topic depending on how it is constructed. You could even touch on local/indigenous knowledges and sciences as representative options for green chemistry, green industry, etc.