hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
 Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 6:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Satori wrote: |
| You are full of these unqualified absolute statements. "Communication can only occur amoung equals". So you're a sociologist eh? Well, I'm a linguist, and I can tell you very conclusively that communication can and does occur between people who are not equal in any way. For example, a baby and a mother. Need I continue? |
I'm not a sociologist. I have a background in sociology, among other areas.
You describe information transactions, not communication. Information transactions =! communication. Information transactions pass through psychological filters. Communication, as a process, involves a pure unadulterated transmission of information. Computers and machines communicate. Humans rarely achieve such a state. "Communication can only occur among equals" can be found as a basic principle throughout information science and cognitive science. You'll learn that basic concept in a IT 101 class, and the validation behind it appears quite exhaustive.
| Satori wrote: |
| A simple test of whether one has truly digested something is when they can teach it to someone else with no background in the subject, in very simple plain language, without using terms and catch phrases. |
You seem to assume I desire to guide others to similar understandings. I do not. I have no desire to play that role in this venue. I will provide keys, but I will not coddle. You decide whether to accept or reject.
| Satori wrote: |
| Your statement that we cannot communicate unless I've read all the same texts as you is a serious intellectual cop out. |
You can choose to view the scenario that way, but don't mistake your emic reality for etic reality. I'd certainly love to see a refutation of these basic principles of cognitive science and information theory. It'd surely be worthy of publication and would likely win a few awards.
| Satori wrote: |
| You continue to make these bizarre and extreme assertions, based heavily on high brow terminology, with absolutely no support or explication. |
I've given support, and if you looked, you'd find it.
"What the thinker thinks, the prover proves." - Korzybski (Since you've already shown a lack of familiarity with general semantics, should I provide a specific reference so that you can ignore it and then accuse me of making statements without support?)
I use terminology appropriate to convey specific memes with minimal information degradation among those who have been exposed to the relevant paradigms. For those who have not, the "complex verbiage" should catalyze. If it doesn't, I probably wouldn't bother in r/l, so why would I bother in an e-venue?
| Satori wrote: |
| Reading lots of books is fine, believing them is another thing entirely. |
I believe nothing, in keeping with other model agnostics.
| Satori wrote: |
| And one thing I have noticed is that no one seems to respond directly to you except me. |
If most of those I come in contact with in my daily life lack a similar dedication to sustainable ideologies, why would I expect that to be any different here?
I do not post comments for recognition or validation.
| Satori wrote: |
| Arguments that rely on common knowledge of a text become referential, always triangulated back to the text. New knowledge comes from synthesis. First we must read. Then we must digest. Then we have to synthesise. Then we must communicate, one to one, without interpolation. In that communication we can synthesise something new. |
Of course. The problem comes when you introduce willful ignorance.
Namaste. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
