On 11/02/2015 08:44 AM, glen wrote:
On 11/02/2015 01:55 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality.
[NST==>Do I know that duality? I am guessing that I think of them in terms of
levels of organization. Can you say more? <==nst]
So, in the 20 or so minutes I've spent thinking about virtue argumentation (obviously enough to make me an
expert), shifting judgements of "good" arguing from the argument to the arguers is enlightening.
It reminds me of considering things like "white space" in a document or a GUI, or "negative
space" in an image. In math (or computation, or both), there's a duality between things and activity,
objects vs processes, state vs. behavior, nodes vs. edges. I suppose we see it in physics as well, with mass
vs. energy. Most consideration of argumentation focuses on the arguments. Switching to think more about the
arguers is interesting in that same sense as particle vs. wave flip-flopping is interesting.
[NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism.
And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in different
hands. <==nst]
I'm not at all familiar! So, now I have something else to learn about.
You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including the more
extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, apparently on the grounds
that social context is at least somewhat powerful. Do you admit a full spectrum of power:
realism <-> constructivism? Or is the rant against MOOCs just a "get off my
lawn" and, deep down, you stick with hard-line realism?
[NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet see
it. Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people is the best
way to arrive at the real? Or, at least, one of several methods, all of which make a
contribution? Could you say a bit more? <==nst]
Well, you could argue "parallax", the idea that none of us have (or can have) perfectly
accurate opinions, but that collections of us have more accurate opinions than individuals. To me,
though, this gives weight to things like postmodernism (at least in my own almost private
understanding of what "postmodernism" means). Here is the reasoning:
One important aspect of postmodernism is that guiding towards a vanishing point
(reality) by navigating opinions is only as effective as the abstraction layers
between the target and the opinions. The further removed you are from the
banal, the crazier the navigation gets. This is why we see so much symbol
reuse ... so much so that the symbols take on and lose entire (distinct)
meanings along the way. I.e. postmodernism is a reduction to absurdity, which
can be used to argue _for_ (or against) realism.
So, by allowing all the myriad symbols, the rich interconnections between 2
face 2 face arguers, you're allowing for a large number of abstraction layers.
E.g. something said with a giggle is different from that very same thing said
with disgust. Something said with vocal fry can be very different than
something said valley girl style. ... #whatever
Therefore, if you're arguing for _more_ abstraction layers (physical presence
in classrooms), then you're arguing for the same layered abstraction used to
make the Postmodernism Point(TM).
I would think a hard-core (naive) realist would be all for eliminating, for example, the
physical characteristics of a professor, facial ticks, gesticulating arms, etc. and
getting straight at the argument, focusing less and less on the arguers. So, realists
should LOVE the idea of a MOOC and dislike "virtue argumentation".
[NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain. I recently
read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker. I think
there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their
individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac and the
You-tube generation. As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in the ass. But
just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like that”, I encounter
somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am completely humiliated. Not
much of philosophical interest in all of that. <==nst]
Yes, but there is a boon to such "narcissism". I'm beginning to think
differently about that. All this selfie-taking, facebook-obsessed, soundbite culture,
may well be the opposite of narcissism. It may be a visible/measurable stage of the hive
mind required for an earth with 15 billion people on it. Perhaps we're evolving from
herds to biofilms ... from cells to tissue?
--
⇔ glen
============================================================
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
