Re: Direct conversation

Posted by Nick Thompson on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-Direct-conversation-tp3137870p3144060.html

Glen,

Perhaps in my first response to this thread I should have distinguished
clarity from verisimilitude.   Let's imagine a situation in which my
understanding of some situation .... say consciousness .... is vague.  Do I
sometimes advance the discussion more  by advancing a more precise
formulation than I actually can justify?  

On sober reflection, I guess I think the answer is sometimes yes and
sometimes no and that a lot of wisdom is required to know what rule applies
to a given discussion.  I do believe the the power of a dialectic, in the
intellectual energy that is generated when two clearly stated ideas contest
over facts.  But I also think that wonderful things can happen when a
thinker truly and honestly describes his confusion.

NIck  

   

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 6/23/2009 7:23:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Direct conversation
>
> Thus spake Steve Smith circa 06/22/2009 08:57 PM:
> > glen e. p. ropella uttered/spake/emitted/gurgitated:
> >> A mandated method to be clear as possible as much as possible would be
> >> just as effective and efficient as a mandate to be as vague as possible
> >> as much as possible.  To be clear, I claim that neither conviction is
> >> more effective or efficient than the other.  Particular methods must be
> >> chosen for the proper context.
> >>  
> > I sympathize with your characterization of "_all_ communication as a
> > generalized koan" but I am not sure I agree on your followup point.  I'm
> > not sure the two examples (clear as possible vs vague as possible) are
> > reciprocal (complementary?).
>
> My point was not that the mandate to be vague is the inverse of the
> mandate to be clear (though I think one could make that argument easily
> enough).  My point was that, when communicating, sometimes it is useful
> to be clear and sometimes it is useful to be vague.
>
> What I was objecting to was Russ' _conviction_ to a single communication
> mandate.  I've found that it's counterproductive to commit oneself to a
> sole approach to the world.  It's like Russ' conviction to clarity is a
> willful decision to always hold a hammer so that everything around him
> looks like a nail.  Single-minded convictions like that are always a red
> flag for me.
>
> Of course I appreciate clarity and attempts to be clear.  But I just
> don't make it a fixed conviction.  I'm open to all forms of
> communication, including being vague when that seems most appropriate.
>
> If necessary, I can come up with some examples where being vague is a
> better method for communicating ideas than attempting to be clear.  But
> I don't think it's necessary.  I imagine everyone on this list can come
> up with examples themselves. [grin]
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org