Thanks einseele! Yes indeed, CONTEXT rules! Contextual influence can be summarized as "information alters consciousness". The person with information thinks about the information in the context of a chosen receiver(s) ability to understand, which includes language, culture, shared experiences, knowledge base, and receptiveness among many factors. If you are like me, then you make assumptions regarding intellectual capacity of the readers on newsgroup "epistemology" which would not be justified for readers of other newsgroups. You SHAPE the presentation of information to FIT the audience. Furthermore, you might have a presentation with multiple LAYERS of insight possible. You accomplish this by presenting information in order such that reading passes through the presentation after the first pass cause further information to be apparent, due to heightened awareness and understandings based upon prior passes. So it is a good idea in general to re-read presentations from those who are known to package information in nested layers of understanding...
Lonnie Courtney Clay On Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:15:21 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: > > I dont quite believe in a model of communication where two parts are > in play, > Usually explained like a transmitter-receiver pair > > Like binary ideas use to do, that model simply does not see a third > party, > > In any communication set there are 3 parts intervening > > Whatever you consider like transmitter, whatever you consider as the > receiving part, and a reference code > > We talk to each other "through" a reference, like for instance English > in this case. > A third person is needed in all cases. There is no language without > third persons, and that is valid for any comunication structure. > > If I can talk to a machine, that is because there is an interface, > which is the same as saying a third person "listening" the > conversation > > We can have of course more than 3 instances, but we never have less > than that > > I believe this is important because the message is because of this > always different. It is never like the starting party intended, it is > never like the receiving instance understood, and of course does not > exist by its own. > > While passing from point A to C, it needs to go through a sort of "B" > which is nowhere > > > > On Aug 13, 10:24 pm, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > A) I see a problem. > > B) Ask me if I care. > > A) You might, if you knew more. > > B) Try me. > > . > > . > > . > > B) I've heard enough, I can't make heads nor tails of it, go away. > > A) If you reasoned better, then you would understand. > > B) You say I'm stupid!? > > A) Well, I could teach you how to understand what I am saying. It will > take > > a while. > > B) Got unlimited long distance? > > A) Yes, why? > > B) Make random calls until you find someone who cares. BYE! > > . > > . > > . > > . > > A) Hello? I see a problem. > > > > The question which I pose to the group regards the ethics of > communication. > > At what point does the obligation to tell the truth shift from the source > to > > the receiver. In other words, is the source obligated to relentlessly > pursue > > receivers until finally the truth is understood? > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/jtnBOPmssqcJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
