Tory and Glen, 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. On Mar 26, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > 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 ============================================================ 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
