http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/beyond-reductionism-twice-tp7582273p7582313.html
Meaty. Thanks. The Buddhist part of me gets you, Glen. So when I meet in Jordan this summer with our group of grass-roots Palestinian activists (all women in their 20s) I shall facilitate only ACTION, and no--or very little--interactive dialogue. And although I no longer believe in any "forward" motion involving nonlinear social dynamics, I can assure you that I have a PERCEPTION that the motion/movement in regard to Middle East peace building is distinctly backwards.
Do you guys believe the metaphor of the Edge of Chaos is applicable here for promoting hope? I use it to say with a perfectly straight face: this is when change is most likely to happen.
> 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.comMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College