Posted by
Steve Smith on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/beyond-reductionism-twice-tp7582273p7582312.html
Glen -
I have to say that your world-view (which I think you will claim doesn't
exist or at least that *I* can't possibly come to share) continues to be
more and more fascinating as you pull back more layers of otherwise
"common" understandings which you don't share with the world at large.
I mean this in the most favorable way.
The hardest part about it all is that the more I think I understand your
world view, the more I believe your world view doesn't allow for me to
actually understand your world view!
Why does head hurt when Hulk try to think?
- Steve
> Victoria Hughes wrote at 03/26/2013 12:02 PM:
>> I'm curious- how do you talk to your friends? Or your children, if
>> you have any? Or those you want to teach you something?
> Great question! I'm often frustrated by my conversations with my
> friends. I usually feel like I'm offering alternative explanations for
> various things. They almost universally end up believing I'm
> "contrarian" or "argumentative". It's unclear to me why they tolerate
> me. It usually goes something like this:
>
> Them: X happened. So to compensate, I will do Y.
>
> Me: But perhaps Z really happened and you only thought it was X. And if
> that's the case, then perhaps P is a better course of action.
>
> Them: No, there's no way that Z happened. It was definitely X.
>
> Me: There's a person/book/article/theory/... that Z can be mistaken for
> X or that X is a side effect of Z.
>
> Them: No way. I know the truth. I have access to reality.
>
> Me: OK.
>
> Then after I get home (it's usually a dinner party or somesuch), I find
> the person/book/article/... and e-mail it to them. In response I get
> nothing... not even the sound of crickets. 8^)
>
> That's how I usually talk to people, friends or not. I have no
> children, thank Cthulu. And I wish people would do the same with me.
> I.e. provide alternatives to whatever gravity well I'm stuck in.
>
>> From my perspective, anything that is actually asking a question,
>> and actually listening and considering the answer, and inquiring
>> into it for new information, and then integrating new information
>> to continue the dialogue, is not intellectual posturing.
> In any other conversation, I'd agree. But in this conversation, I'll
> propose the following. Competent posturing requires just as much
> asking, listening, consideration, and integration as does non-posturing.
>
> I say this from the perspective of fighting. A good fighter knows that
> the feint is a legitimate fighting move. Yes, you may have to unpack
> it's _role_ in the fight. But it's just as much a part of fighting as a
> straightforward attack or defense.
>
> The same could be said of, say, my cat's fur fluffing up and it turning
> sideways when a dog appears. Yes, it's posturing. But it's just as
> much a part of the interaction as the lightning fast pop to the snout.
>
> And remember, I offer this in the spirit of alternatives. I
> legitimately believe I'm offering you an alternative, albeit one you
> already know but may not have (yet) invoked in this conversation.
>
>> Communication exists for many purposes. I believe that
>> communication, of which sharing ideas and information is one
>> category, is not a hierarchical system but a needs-based system. So
>> by that definition, dialogue is always expressing something about the
>> speaker, and her/his intentions towards the listener. And (in most
>> cases other than for a didactic purpose) the purpose is the back and
>> forth of the dialogue. Then what that reciprocity brings to the
>> participants.
> Heh, now you're just pushing my buttons! I don't believe communication
> (as normally conceived) exists at all. The ideas in your head are
> forever and completely alien to my head. You may have a mechanism for
> faithfully translating your ideas into your action or inferring ideas
> from your perceptions. And I may have similarly faithful translators.
> But the similarity between your ideas and mine is zero, even if/when the
> similarity in our behaviors is quite high.
>
> But, that doesn't change your conclusion, which I agree with.
> Reciprocity is critical to the interaction. The difference is only that
> I believe in sharing actions. The ideas are not shared and largely useless.
>
>> If there is no particular forward motion brought about by the
>> dialogue - in the direction of the purpose for which the dialogue
>> was established - than that is posturing.
> I'll offer another alternative. There is no "forward". There is only
> movement, change. While we may share a behavior space, we probably
> don't share a vector, a line of progression, in that space. Hence, what
> you may see as posturing (or aimless wandering), I may legitimately feel
> to be progress ... even if it's postmodern gobbledygook.
>
>> But there are a myriad of options for philosophical dialogue that do
>> have functional growth / expansion / increased knowledge.
> I agree, except there is no such thing as knowledge in the idealistic,
> intellectual sense. There is only _competence_, the ability to perform,
> to achieve. And that includes the modification of what we _say_ and how
> we say it by saying things together.
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com