I'm pretty sure the best a program could do is clean up and sequence the conversation. There is definitely a man-in-the-middle .. this software would augment your task but not complete it.
-- Owen On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hi, Owen, and all, > > > > You have me right. There’s a big difference between entertaining a > question – noodling, if you will – and demanding an answer. > > > > Confession time: I come from a world in which success is measured out in > published writing. That’s not the only world, but it’s a world. During my > 12 years with you folks I have seen a dozen great papers slip through our > grasp and into oblivion on the FRIAM list for want of an easy way to > transpose our correspondence into coherent text, text that could be read > with pleasure by others. I once was an experienced developmental editor > …. Several edited collections on various subjects. Every time I read one > of these email exchanges I get itchy editorial fingers. In fact, I always > get itchy editorial fingers when I see good ideas go to waste. > > > > Owen, you are also correct that I have had this problem for years. When I > was a professor I spent a lot of time working with the writing of > students. I had a terrible time getting student to think of themselves as > the sort of creatures who had ideas about the world which they needed to > defend in writing. I had an even worse time trying to convince them that > people who disagreed with them were their great allies in developing an > argument. They saw papers as something you wrote to make professors happy, > not as vehicles for changing the thoughts of others. But to my joy, when > email distribution lists came around, I got them to argue in email because > they didn’t think of email as *Writing*. In email, they found it > easier to argue as if the arguments made a difference. But I never could > get them to take the next step and edit their correspondence into > collaborative writing. I had to settle for letting them present their > email-arguments, reprinted in sequence, in lieu of final papers, which I > did, reluctantly, for years. > > > > Even since that time, I have wondered what if a software could be invented > that would re-present an email discussion in its rhetorical order, so that > email correspondence could readily be seen as a step to the development of > published writing that convinces. Would such a software unleash a flood of > collaboration? I dunno, but I would love to see. > > > > By the way, I have found the discussion about the “grammar of wanting” > very interesting. It is the kind of issue that normally would lead me to > join you in the wallow, but I haven’t been feeling all that well, lately, > and there has been lots of incoming, so I have had to watch from the > shore. Let me just say that I think that each of those ways of wanting > corresponds to a different higher order pattern of behavior, and that all > of you are as privileged as I to decide which kind of wanting I have been > engaging in. > > > > Thanks for all your thoughts. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen > Densmore > *Sent:* Friday, October 28, 2016 8:28 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] THREAD BENDING ALERT: Was "Is Bezos a Bozo?" IS > NOW"Reading Email exchanges chronologically" > > > > Sorry to be pedestrian, but how about the OP's desire to convert thread(s) > into posts/correspondence? > > > > I take Nick seriously here, it has been his goal from the beginning, right? > > > > -- Owen > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > > Glen - > > I am a Mozilla/Tbird Man myself but am used to many people clinging to > very oldschool text-only (or worse?) mail tools. I also don't have any > trouble sorting the complexity of comment/response/inlining/inclusion in > my head for the most part, but that is how my head works... I think that is > excruciating unto impossible for some. > > I do acknowledge/agree-to your description of the experience of "to want" > vs "to be wanting"... I personally mostly *want* what I want but I also > know the feeling of *to be wanting*. It isn't a simple question of > expression... it is a deeper experience of association/dissociation and > intention IMO. > > Your example of the co-worker distancing himself from the > responsibilty/agency of "breaking" something is a red herring in this case > (I think)... it may be related, but not directly? > > I agree that there is a distancing/abstraction from the itch as you put > it, but at least in my own case, expressing it as "I am wanting" rather > than "I want" is intentional and an attempt to be more responsible or > precise about what I mean. > > I suppose, a difference between "I want" and "I am wanting" involves > actionability. If I tell you "I want" something, you should be put on > notice that I am likely to take action to pursue acquiring/achieving the > subject of that wanting. But if I say "I am wanting", you can take some > solace (or not) in knowing that I have not internalized that "wanting" into > any formulated action. In the language of the 10 commandments, it is the > subtle distinction between finding your house or wife > attractive/compelling/desireable > and actually finding myself making plans to move in and shag her first > chance I get. Yahweh didn't have PowerPoint and a numerically controlled > stone chisel to put in these subtleties with sub-bullet points? Or were > those tablets clay, suggesting a 3d deposition printer instead? > > In the case at hand (Nick's want or wanting), I would say he is not asking > anyone specifically to take action, to find or create the toolset he is > seeking, he is just speculating out loud and probably *hoping* such things > already exist or perhaps someone else actually *wants* the toolset enough > to create it. > > Have I split the dead horse hair enough yet? I am wanting to know (but > don't feel compelled to tell me)! > > <gurgle> > > - Steve > > On 10/28/16 4:45 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > > On 10/28/2016 03:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > I've always assumed everyone else's does too... So, when one looks at the > content of a mailing list like this, they can _see_ trees of threads, > right? If not, I highly recommend a modern client. 8^) It helps a lot. > > I agree... but I think many/most don't see this view and I don't believe > many will obtain one soon nor easily. > > > It's just Mozilla Thunderbird (well, Icedove on one machine, Thunderbird > on another)... It's free and open source, which means anyone can have it if > they want it. I also think I remember Eudora having a nice tree-based > threaded view. Pretty much any usenet reader has it. So, I'm confused why > others wouldn't use such tools. > > Maybe you can tell me how "Nick is wanting" structures your thoughts > different from "Nick wants"? > > I think it is my perceived tentativeness of what I think Nick wants... > meaning I'm not sure he knows what he wants or understands the implications > of what he wants. I'm not sure about the grammatical or semantic roots of > this (why I use "is wanting" over "wants") but it is interesting to me that > you can call it out so clearly. Unfortunately I am probably conflating or > convolving my own unsureness of what I *think* Nicks wants into what I > believe to be his own lack of clarity... > > For contrast, I think I would be MUCH less likely to use the same phrasing > to describe my understanding of what I *think* YOU want... or Marcus... or > many others here who have a crisper sense of confidence in what you are > asking/suggesting. Our patron St. Stephen of Guerin, I am *much* more > likely to use "he is wanting".... perhaps Renee's "I am wanting" vs "I > want" reflects some of this same ambiguity of detail? If she were more > precise in her own mind about what she wants, might she be more likely to > use the more assertive? > > > That's intriguing, as is Marcus'. I have noticed (and have the guts to > point out for some reason) that lots of people express their thoughts with > an external locus of control. My favorite example was when I noticed the > CO^2 regulator on our office keg was broken. I asked my partner: What > happened to the CO^2? He said "It broke." >8^) I asked for more clarity > and he responded something like: "I was <doingsomethingorother> and it fell > over and broke." So, I asserted: "Do you mean that you broke it?" And he > relented and said "Yes." > > Perhaps there is something of that in both your and Marcus' response. > It's a kind of removal/abstraction/distancing from any intimate knowledge > or clarity surrounding the itch ... left wanting some scratching. > > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
