Don't worry. It's not an argument I want to be drawn into. -- RussA
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Marcus, > > Hmmm! This communication is a case in point. You hear me to say something > like .... forgive the hyperbole ... I have to know whether Marcus's father > flogged him with wet noodles before I can understand what he means by his > views on writing in forums and listservs. But that is not what I meant to > say. I meant to say that language is always ambiguous and that you have to > build a big picture of what is being said out of the little words that are > offered you. Before you responded to my message, you built a model of my > mind. I would say you built the wrong model, although (at the risk of > drawing Russ back to this argument) we might bring evidence to bear and > argue that point. In short, we held different models of my mind, and it > led to a misunderstanding. > > 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. If > one has read some history of thinking on the subject, one has more > potential models available to apply to any utterance. One is more likely > to understand what the speaker meant. > > 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. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Marcus G. Daniels <[email protected]> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > > Date: 9/15/2009 3:40:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] comm. (was Re: FW: > Re:Emergence Seminar--BritishEmergence) > > > > Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > I was puzzled, when you wrote ... > > > > > > "It could be to communicate, but it could > > > also be to entertain or to manipulate. If a reader thinks they are > > > modeling a writer's *mind* (holy crap, the arrogance..), it's likely > > > they are just going down the road the writer so competently put out for > > > them." > > > > > > What sort of a "mind" did you have in mind? There are those of us out > here > > > that think that mind is just an individuals longstanding pattern of > > > response and sensitiivity. So when you read what I write, you have to > try > > > and gather, from the short sample that I give you, what the over all > > > pattern is. So it may be arrogance, but isnt it also a necessity? > Arent > > > you constantly building models of the minds of the people around you? > > > > > > I may or may not be. Why would you assume that it is effective for me, > > in order to better understand your arguments, to model YOU? Just the > > opposite could be true. It could be better for me to filter out the > > noise (a highly parameterized model of someone's personality) to get to > > the signal (the point or its absence). > > > > Down with straw men, > > > > Marcus > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 >
============================================================ 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
