Re: comm. (was Re: FW: Re:Emergence Seminar--BritishEmergence)

Posted by Miles Parker on Sep 16, 2009; 5:50am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-comm-was-Re-FW-Re-Emergence-Seminar-BritishEmergence-tp3654051p3654289.html

On Sep 15, 2009, at 9:24 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

I thought the comment on the New Criticism was interesting, but I am not
sure it's relevant here.  Literature is not designed to inform in the same
way that I assume [hmmmm!] postings to this list are designed to inform.

That's an intriguing issue actually and docks nicely with Marcus's question below. What is different about scientific discourse? Is it intent? Context?

The larger point is that people have done a lot of thinking about this kind of stuff already and if nothing else the post-structuralists have made early critical approaches appear hopelessly naive. I can't help but see some striking parallels between New Criticism and the general scientific materialist world view. Granted, a lot of post-structuralism is self-referential, brain-dead and nihilistic, but some of it quite brilliant and I think ultimately indispensable to any efforts at communicating our understanding and (yes) appreciation of complex systems and knowing the limits of doing so.

If one tries to be aware of the different models that might be built on the

same words, it helps to make a conversation more fruitful, I believe. 

Is a fruitful conversation one that leads to more conversation, or to a conclusion?

============================================================
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