How interesting, Glen! 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?
Yes, I do believe, and practice as best I can, opportunities for non-intellectual posturing. I certainly claim the right to posture with knowledge and intellect - but I know absolutely that is not the only philosophy I practice. It is in fact not the best philosophical basis for a variety of purposes. >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. 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. 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. But there are a myriad of options for philosophical dialogue that do have functional growth / expansion / increased knowledge. I'm signing off for today, pleasure to bounce ideas back and forth as always. Tory On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:44 PM, glen <g...@ropella.name> wrote: > Victoria Hughes wrote at 03/26/2013 11:27 AM: >> 1. The discussion also references non-European, non-white-male models for >> awareness, reality, conceptual modeling, etc. >> 2. The discussion does not devolve into intellectual posturing. > > This reminded me of the Ulam quote: > > "Talking about non-linear mathematics is like talking about non-elephant > zoology." -- Stanislaw Ulam > > I willingly admit my ignorance. But honestly, is there _any_ philosophy > that is not, ultimately, intellectual posturing? ;-) Or, further, is > there any speech/verbiage whatsoever that is not, ultimately, > intellectual posturing? > > I heard from somewhere a speculation that the emergence of human > language replaced (to whatever extent) grooming. If that's at all true, > then I suppose there is some speech ... pillow talk, platitudes, or > perhaps lyricism/poetry that is as much about physics (soothing and > communion) as it is about the ideal of communication or intellect. And > I suppose one might believe (act as if) the expression of an ideal (an > intellectual artifact) via words is somehow authentic as opposed to > posturing. But, when I examine my own behavior in the light of what I > observe from others and vice versa, it's quite difficult to distinguish > between the former (authentic expression) and the latter (posturing). > > But, I also admit my gullibility and naivete. > > -- > =><= glen e. p. ropella > Like it's screwed itself in hell > > > ============================================================ > 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 ============================================================ 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
