 |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ33gAyhg2c |
The second half of the above video addresses games in communicating effectively.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Addendum, about games and language
[This post an addendum to one of the recent observations about reading/communicating not leading to mutual understanding. More on noematics 101.]
Troll dens*
We can't or don't read because we are not allowed to. We have limited information or are fed distracting noise.
Reading and writing under such a regime . . . communicating meaningfully in any way . . . dead.
_____
* Ukraine conflict: Inside Russia's 'Kremlin troll army' - BBC News
Over the past year, Russia has seen an unprecedented rise in the activity of "Kremlin trolls" - bloggers allegedly paid by the state to criticise Ukraine and the West on social media and post favourable comments about the leadership in Moscow.
But prominent journalist and Russia expert Peter Pomerantsev, however, believes Russia's efforts are aimed at confusing the audience, rather than convincing it.
'What Russians are trying to go for is kind of a reverse censorship', he told Ukrainian internet-based Hromadske TV ('Public TV'). They cannot censor the information space, but can 'trash it with conspiracy theories and rumours', he argues.Posting messages on publicly accessible internet sites have had the effect of shutting off dialogue on events of the day.
Reading and writing under such a regime . . . communicating meaningfully in any way . . . dead.
_____
* Ukraine conflict: Inside Russia's 'Kremlin troll army' - BBC News
Third observation
Gosh, realize where you are, or activate the literacy required to be in another place other than "where you think you are."
An immigrant from Africa arrives on Lampedusa. He has no papers. He gives you his name, and you don't know if it is really his or not. He doesn't tell you where he is from. He doesn't speak your language, but he has escaped from some hell or misfortune; and for all purposes practical he says he is your responsibility. You must treat him like a human being. You give him pasta with tomato sauce because he is hungry. He says this food is not fit for humans to eat.
He has only part of the context, his own, which he has attempted to force upon his interlocutor. He commits the sin of not understanding the relatio-spatio-temporal context. He is no longer living in his context; he is now in one made by and for Italians and Europeans. Thus, pasta with tomato sauce.
Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky got into it recently, and part of their now published discussion had to do with whether or not to publish an email interchange. Although not an easy read and embedded within are words as keys to who has said something of substance or not, my take is that here at the other end of the literate spectrum--"sophisticated" and nuanced writing and reading--context is (was) (also) all important.
My paraphrase of this aspect of their so-called "non-interchange" is this: At Sam's urging, Noam consented to publishing their emails even though he, Noam, found the idea weird and self-aggrandizing. As a result of the non-interchange, Sam felt he could claim the higher ground by showing that they(?) had reached The Limits of Discourse, which was not what their conversation was about to begin with.
What? The publication of a private conversation demonstrated the limits of discourse? What happened to the issues they were discussing? Weren't they the compelling reason for publishing? Apparently not, because Sam ignored or tanked 'em, that is created/framed another context.
But you decide.* This is just my reading . . . which is again, I contend, confusion about context, or the game, the two created as they jousted.
_____
* The Limits of Discourse : As Demonstrated by Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky : Sam Harris
An immigrant from Africa arrives on Lampedusa. He has no papers. He gives you his name, and you don't know if it is really his or not. He doesn't tell you where he is from. He doesn't speak your language, but he has escaped from some hell or misfortune; and for all purposes practical he says he is your responsibility. You must treat him like a human being. You give him pasta with tomato sauce because he is hungry. He says this food is not fit for humans to eat.
He has only part of the context, his own, which he has attempted to force upon his interlocutor. He commits the sin of not understanding the relatio-spatio-temporal context. He is no longer living in his context; he is now in one made by and for Italians and Europeans. Thus, pasta with tomato sauce.
Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky got into it recently, and part of their now published discussion had to do with whether or not to publish an email interchange. Although not an easy read and embedded within are words as keys to who has said something of substance or not, my take is that here at the other end of the literate spectrum--"sophisticated" and nuanced writing and reading--context is (was) (also) all important.
My paraphrase of this aspect of their so-called "non-interchange" is this: At Sam's urging, Noam consented to publishing their emails even though he, Noam, found the idea weird and self-aggrandizing. As a result of the non-interchange, Sam felt he could claim the higher ground by showing that they(?) had reached The Limits of Discourse, which was not what their conversation was about to begin with.
What? The publication of a private conversation demonstrated the limits of discourse? What happened to the issues they were discussing? Weren't they the compelling reason for publishing? Apparently not, because Sam ignored or tanked 'em, that is created/framed another context.
But you decide.* This is just my reading . . . which is again, I contend, confusion about context, or the game, the two created as they jousted.
_____
* The Limits of Discourse : As Demonstrated by Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky : Sam Harris
Second observation
Words as the building blocks can lead us in right and wrong directions. Get a word wrong and off you go onto the shoulder and out into the wastelands bordering more direct routes to our destinations and fates.
James Krupa tackles a currently misshapen word as used in the context of science. He asserts that "To truly understand evolution, you must first understand science." He goes on to help develop this thesis about getting words wrong.*
_____
* Orion Magazine | Defending Darwin
James Krupa tackles a currently misshapen word as used in the context of science. He asserts that "To truly understand evolution, you must first understand science." He goes on to help develop this thesis about getting words wrong.*
Unfortunately, one of the most misused words today is also one of the most important to science: theory. Many incorrectly see theory as the opposite of fact. The National Academy of Sciences provides concise definitions of these critical words: A fact is a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it; a theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence generating testable and falsifiable predictions.
In science, something can be both theory and fact. We know the existence of pathogens is a fact; germ theory provides testable explanations concerning the nature of disease. We know the existence of cells is a fact, and that cell theory provides testable explanations of how cells function. Similarly, we know evolution is a fact, and that evolutionary theories explain biological patterns and mechanisms. The late Stephen Jay Gould said it best: 'Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.'
Theory is the most powerful and important tool science has, but nonscientists have perverted and diluted the word to mean a hunch, notion, or idea. Thus, all too many people interpret the phrase 'evolutionary theory' to mean 'evolutionary hunch.'Ya gotta get the words right first, and by extension, the context in which they are used.
_____
* Orion Magazine | Defending Darwin
First observation
 |
| Dorothea Lange. On the Road to Los Angeles, California, 1937 |
I gave my students this instruction: Describe what you see in this picture.
One student answered in five hundred words beginning with this sentence. "I see the beginning or end of a story that has two characters who have decided they will not or cannot board a train for a distant destination."
Did he pass this part of the exit exam for English as a foreign language? Why, or why not?
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Pleasure of hating*
What have the different religions been
but pretexts to wrangle, quarrel and to sin,
and set as target a mark to shoot at?
Does love of country make for friendly fiat,
or serve another bearing the same bend?
Does virtue make us see and our faults thus mend?
"No."
Hate makes adherence to our own vices,
and most intolerant of others' frailties.
Love of hate--a most universal fact.
It as well extends to good as evil:
makes us snipe folly and to shun merit;
inclines to resent the wrongs of others--
impels impatience their prosperity.
"Revenge injuries! Repay the ingrate."
Even partialities and likings
take this turn: What was luscious we now expel.
Love and friendship melt in their own fires.
We hate old friends, old books, old opinions.
And at last we are right here hating ourselves.
"Hatred devours from the inside, but Defiance
defeats and kindles truth-seeking's flames--Thus,
Resolution sufficient to move on and beyond.
__________
* Adapted from but closely adheres to Walter Hazlett's "Pleasure of Hating" (
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Pleasure_of_Hating). Interlocutor is another's voice.
but pretexts to wrangle, quarrel and to sin,
and set as target a mark to shoot at?
Does love of country make for friendly fiat,
or serve another bearing the same bend?
Does virtue make us see and our faults thus mend?
"No."
Hate makes adherence to our own vices,
and most intolerant of others' frailties.
Love of hate--a most universal fact.
It as well extends to good as evil:
makes us snipe folly and to shun merit;
inclines to resent the wrongs of others--
impels impatience their prosperity.
"Revenge injuries! Repay the ingrate."
Even partialities and likings
take this turn: What was luscious we now expel.
Love and friendship melt in their own fires.
We hate old friends, old books, old opinions.
And at last we are right here hating ourselves.
"Hatred devours from the inside, but Defiance
defeats and kindles truth-seeking's flames--Thus,
Resolution sufficient to move on and beyond.
__________
* Adapted from but closely adheres to Walter Hazlett's "Pleasure of Hating" (
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Pleasure_of_Hating). Interlocutor is another's voice.
Friday, March 27, 2015
You are welcome
Retirement or part-time status was immanent a few years ago, and so after a lifetime of writing and otherwise fiddling with words for others (students, customers, etc.), I began writing for me. I have placed the words I have wanted to preserve on five blogs and in a couple of e-books. The variety of interests and explorations seems to have dictated the different places to put stuff. Have I had many readers? The logs and occasional comments and email messages show that I have had less than ten people who have bothered. Which is quite all right. As Paul Auster has said, no one owes you anything if you choose to write. It is a thankless and sometimes lonely and dark undertaking. But if you must, that is if you have some passion about writing or a subject, go ahead.
I write to observe what I find interesting and to explore things so that I can be clearer about them. And I have made a lifetime study of writers and writing and close reading--interpretation of the valid variety. Not everyone knows about these activities and motives of mine except as they too might have thought about this way of embracing and trying to evolve the world, or they have surmised as such from others who evidence similar motives. Perhaps it is time to be more transparent, though, especially in light of current events in almost every country where speech is not free and agents work to end dialogue, example Russia. Also, in light of the great variety of experiences life offers up for us to deal with, these too deserve some space in consciousness, if only to come up for a breath of fresh air.
Here and elsewhere it is pretty clear that I write for no audience. It is about my education and evolution. If one wants to catch a short ride or contribute, they have that opportunity. If not, I don't much care. I write to identify and fix a thing as it appears in consciousness (noematics). I guess that means that writing is the writer's consciousness (noematics101), and I am still in the middle of investigating that. Local cultural color and amusement also have a space in my efforts (benanoblog). From time to time, I get bitten by something, often about language (see earlier posts), or I try to synthesize the disparate parts of my researches, and I post here using different ways to present or discuss. In every case, experimentation in the interest of matching the medium with the message is a criterion: How best to put the message. Of course, there are many failed attempts and dead ends, but that is as life is. I address no one in particular (see also About to the right).
However, there are almost insurmountable challenges with my project. I am sure with recent evidence added to the pile I already have from other sources, the following--always tentative, as in a quasi-scientific approach--cautions, or caveats, can be put forth after what amounts to an eight-year experiment.
1. People do not read what the writer intended and often what s/he wrote. There is no match of experience-to-be-had and what the writer crafts. People can't or don't read to understand. Words do not confine the fantasies they lay claim to.
3. Holding a subject at a distance and turning it round on the phenomenological axis to understand it better and then put it back down to earth, without feelings about who said what, is a myth. It is not possible. Never seen it happen. Ad hominem. "Kill the messenger."
4. On the other hand, it is very easy to present one's view or idea or whatever such that it affects the other's heart more than his or her head. Words can get you off the couch, or get you killed by one or a mob, but more to the point here: to kill or maim--revenge for perceived affront is said to be sublime.
Buncombe to all these things. But people do or show their limitations--they seem unable to restrain themselves (look at the comments written anywhere on the web where the comment entry box appears at the bottom of the web page).
5. Any statement is more about the speaker than the spoken to. Put another way, when one asks a question or makes a statement, that is about them and not the one they are talking to. Mostly and invariably. (Yes, it is a paradox.)
Enough apologetics. Read or not. You are welcome.
I write to observe what I find interesting and to explore things so that I can be clearer about them. And I have made a lifetime study of writers and writing and close reading--interpretation of the valid variety. Not everyone knows about these activities and motives of mine except as they too might have thought about this way of embracing and trying to evolve the world, or they have surmised as such from others who evidence similar motives. Perhaps it is time to be more transparent, though, especially in light of current events in almost every country where speech is not free and agents work to end dialogue, example Russia. Also, in light of the great variety of experiences life offers up for us to deal with, these too deserve some space in consciousness, if only to come up for a breath of fresh air.
Here and elsewhere it is pretty clear that I write for no audience. It is about my education and evolution. If one wants to catch a short ride or contribute, they have that opportunity. If not, I don't much care. I write to identify and fix a thing as it appears in consciousness (noematics). I guess that means that writing is the writer's consciousness (noematics101), and I am still in the middle of investigating that. Local cultural color and amusement also have a space in my efforts (benanoblog). From time to time, I get bitten by something, often about language (see earlier posts), or I try to synthesize the disparate parts of my researches, and I post here using different ways to present or discuss. In every case, experimentation in the interest of matching the medium with the message is a criterion: How best to put the message. Of course, there are many failed attempts and dead ends, but that is as life is. I address no one in particular (see also About to the right).
However, there are almost insurmountable challenges with my project. I am sure with recent evidence added to the pile I already have from other sources, the following--always tentative, as in a quasi-scientific approach--cautions, or caveats, can be put forth after what amounts to an eight-year experiment.
1. People do not read what the writer intended and often what s/he wrote. There is no match of experience-to-be-had and what the writer crafts. People can't or don't read to understand. Words do not confine the fantasies they lay claim to.
Two people re-create an experience in mind from the same set of words, each from his own perspective. The resulting perceptions differ: Two spirals of interpretation drilling down and sedimenting into separate conclusions, that is as it is to understanding. Woe to the world.2. People respond with their heart or emotion or self-interest first, and then--if convenient, needed, or appropriate--they might respond with their head, but only if it serves their heart or emotion or self interest. "It's about me."
3. Holding a subject at a distance and turning it round on the phenomenological axis to understand it better and then put it back down to earth, without feelings about who said what, is a myth. It is not possible. Never seen it happen. Ad hominem. "Kill the messenger."
4. On the other hand, it is very easy to present one's view or idea or whatever such that it affects the other's heart more than his or her head. Words can get you off the couch, or get you killed by one or a mob, but more to the point here: to kill or maim--revenge for perceived affront is said to be sublime.
Buncombe to all these things. But people do or show their limitations--they seem unable to restrain themselves (look at the comments written anywhere on the web where the comment entry box appears at the bottom of the web page).
5. Any statement is more about the speaker than the spoken to. Put another way, when one asks a question or makes a statement, that is about them and not the one they are talking to. Mostly and invariably. (Yes, it is a paradox.)
Enough apologetics. Read or not. You are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)