The properties of regularity are well known, in both the academic and working worlds: it facilitates coordination and concentration, enables gradual taming, promotes a certain discipline and increases the scope of activities through their predictability, as well as warding off opportunities for dissipation. But too much regularity makes things boring, which, in an educational context, is far from ideal.
While regularity offers a reassuring framework, this framework can fortunately include a certain level of unpredictability. The unexpected remains acceptable as long as it doesn't screw up the framework, which marks the limit of the unforeseen that can be integrated. But we're always happy to get rid of an oppressive framework and replace it with a more accommodating one.
We've seen that teleworking doesn't allow for synchronization as easily as the presence of all the players in the same place; "when I want, where I want" is hardly compatible with the demands of a group, whatever it may be. Of course, it's also possible to coordinate from a distance, but never in such an engaging way. Cross-hatched schedules are a feature of teleworkers' diaries.
In the physical world, regularity leads to synchronization: after a while, a group will adopt a synchronized rhythm, as long as there is communication between the elements. This synchronization is even an indicator of affinity: it's only possible with regular frequencies. Dancing with a partner, writing a letter or traveling together become easier when regularities are maintained. Don't we say "being on the same frequency"?
Thot Cursus has been publishing weekly for over 25 years. Our regularity means you know we'll be here next week and next year. This framework encourages our writers to meet deadlines and ensures varied production. Which you appreciate, and so do we, as we set off for another year.
Happy reading!
