Comments? Contributions? Write to Serchan.
==========
> >How can my not communicating well with you be because I > >havent read somebody else? > > that's not what i said* or meant* > although it might be a contention - that we are what we've been > exposed to... especially as regards metalanguage that gets used in > describing slices o life to others who belong to certain mutual > 'speech fellowships'...This is exactly what I am contending -- and that the 'meta' has to derive from outside the speech fellowship. (Since you declined the opportunity to make the point, I'll claim it ;-): "If we dont even have books in common, where can we start understanding?")
> you also seem to insist on making fine distinctions between words > or terms that effectively, to me, block whatever i am saying to > you.Looking back, I see a few knobs and nubbins on which this thread has turned: I questioned the relevance of 'biological determinism'; I sniped at your quote from Haraway (any reason for [Tyler] to spell her name with 2 r's?); I gratuitously quoted a lengthy dictionary definition; I asked for references to autopoietic language and then criticised your offering. Within the last tangle, we have got to this point:
> >{ >> these are all (mostly) conversational perspectives,
> >{ >
> >{ >I disagree. [...] Can one say that Rawls,
> >{ >Gofman, et al have *communicated* their ideas -- or merely expressed them?
> >{
> >{ well you haven't done too well here. above. re communicating.
> >{ perhaps seeing as you have not read the references cited.
> >
> >How can my not communicating well with you be because I
> >havent read somebody else?
>
> that's not what i said* or meant*
Lacking a metalanguage in which the changing focus could be diagrammed (tho Im working on it!), it may still be clear that whatever our knowledge of Rawls and Gofman, there is something else informing the flow of the conversation. Is it possible that this *s-e* is in fact the meta-lang? That in place of (a) clear initial agreement with one anothers' statements (on whatever grounds -- maybe just "me too"), we (b) assume the alternative? (And, as a corollary, that once a 'confrontational' or a 'challenging' tone is read into another's remarks, it's pretty hard to revise?)
My train of thought here is conditioned somewhat by Frank's paper: there may not be any gender in c-space, but we gendered critters find it damned dificult to let it go. Haraway and the po-mos would like to deconstruct this tendency and move it from the 'instinctive' and 'natural' substrate to an acculturated superstratum, but -- unless there's an awful bunch of benighted souls online -- what if relying on a superstratum is an instinctive thing for Homo sap to do? In short, what if 'superstratum' is our s-e, and its just the metaphorical conceit of sub- and super- that is problematic?
If we dont find one thats 'given,' we 'naturally' assume/ make up one, whether it pertains to 'gender' in RPG or 'agreeability' in conversational demeanour. (With a little bit of research, I rather suspect that these two notions could be plausibly conflated: (VR) 'male' = confident/ confrontational/ maleficent? ...)
And in the same terms, my 'contention' is, after all, purposeful: if one can, with practice, make up an effective cross-gendered persona, why shouldnt one be able to learn what goes into making up a meta-language/ something-else for discursive purposes generally? If RL is the meta-turf for what one knows of how people 'express themselves,' that's dandy for gender questions -- but where does one practice linguistic meta-formation except in language itself? There are (or used to be) schools of deportment; might not a good use of global CMC be a school of conversation, where a transcript such as ours above could be parsed:
> >{ >>________________|________________________
\___________> >{ >
\____> >{
\______ > >
\_______>
?======
> what i mean to say here, is that, instead of sensing meaning in > the words i use, you seem to sense, by your responses, that i need > to be shown something i have not thought of previously. the problem > being, of course, that one cannot say everything. therefore i tend > to hope, and act* that whatever and however i say something, > someone will fill in the gap through [*]some sort of mutual > understanding[*], and want to converse more on the smaller points > perhaps.In CMC, why cannot one say everything? Doesnt the problem then become, that we dont have the habit, the format, the code by which to keep track of what has been said and where it fits -- because we havent yet integrated the knowledge that 'mutual understanding' is a phrase which points to just that process?
> you seem to assume, from your comments, that i have missed > something that you think you need to tell me about. to me, you come > across as extremely authoriarian, rather than authoritative. it > therefore causes me to feel the need to withdraw, rather than be > told again that i don't know what i'm talking about, when it > appears to me, that you don't know what i'm talking > about....otherwise you wouldn't bother with all this extra > explanation and questioning..... > > gawd, can you even follow that?No problem, tho I question why 'something i have not thought of previously' equates to 'something that you think you need to tell me about' and thus to 'that i don't know what i'm talking about.'
Diagrammatically, there seems to be a missing premise: the expectation that one will in fact have thought of everything previous to saying anything... Where, in anything I have said, do you find a basis for that (excluding, of course, that 'implicit' in asking questions which you didn't expect, since that's a circular argument)?
> this is fine, but your WAY of expressing yourself, as i say, is > rather off-putting for me. the meaning is in the language one uses > after all, which is why i tend to use as many different languages as > i have at my disposal, depending on where i am, or what audience i > am trying to reach. some are imperfectly learned, some i do not > feel comfortable with. but in the effort to -connect- i do try to > use the local lingo to some extent. and at the same time, i believe > languaging to be ingrained as a personal thing too, so that notions > of 'habitus' do come into it.Again, my contention is simply that language is a snail: it makes its own habitus... 'Ingrained' only to the extent that as modern literate Western-enculturated folks, we're much more used to being 'dealt with' on an anonyomous, statistical, talked-at basis, so that the idea that the the 'language one uses' is essentially (not merely derivatively) a one-on-one development feels a bit strange.
> and i thought that CMC might allow me to just BE, rather than be > classed as this or that, and seen as the same as what people wish to > label me as, depending on what information they think they have > about me...rather than just read along and find out as they go, much > the same as IRL, but without the cute gestures and signals.Isn't this the point Frank is wrestling with? One can no longer merely be *read; the writing has to actively participate in the 'finding out' process...
> >When I say (as above) "I disagree" it's not a warning that Im about to > >prove you wrong (what use would such a warning be after all?), but an > >indication of a change of 'logical level.' > ... > i'm afraid that i cannot argue with you here. > (having accepted your term 'logical level' as being consistent with > concepts i may term perspectives or dimensions)Perspective, to my mind, connotes 'its really the same thing from a different slant' (and the difference usually being taken then as = 'cause Im me and youre you'); dimension has orthogonal overtones, as if the levels are 'independent' of one another...
============
> i do know that you had an argument with two of the other > participants on CM re ND. that while i was in oz one time with no > net access, so it would have been march 96. heh, just before matt > topped himself.)That paralleled posts on ND at the same time, in which I said there was more 'community' where there was less talking about community...
=========
> >Its my experience that > > *disagreement opens more 'dialogical space'; more ambiguity, more chance > >that you will ponder, for instance, whether Im disagreeing with what you > >*meant, or with what you said. > > yep.Well to heck with you then!
========
> look, what i say all along is not too much different to what you > seem to want to say either. this is why i do not get it that you > wish to call me on things, raise questions etc, when i have been > thinking about the same questions for ages...so i don't get it that > you feel the need to discuss anything with me at all...heheh, no i'm > extrapolating here for effect. exaggeration - you left that out. but > then, you are not of the artist mein, you seem to be more of an > expository type rather than an expressive type...judging by your > style... > > this may be where the friction occurs. > who knows. > but, if i ever subject your texts to any formal analyis (computer aided, > natch) i will let you know how our styles (heh, that's if i'm game to do > the same to my own writing) compare.I'd be very interested if you were to read through the files, assuming my questions to be open rather than a rhetorically closed way of saying, Heres what I think, you should too.
=========
> >(After all, we are (were) having one ourselves; can we 'read' it in the
> >same terms as {Gofman-the-author and his reader}'s 'conversation'?)
>
> sorry, i cannot answer your questions because somehow they seem
> beside the point to me at this stage, one step beyond, so to speak.
How so? Isnt it only the ...__|________ other side ( the object, in fact) of the proposition?
> well, you are quite fond yourself of quoting those who you have read and > found enlightening about some aspect of interpersonal interaction. > in that spirit, if you indeed remember the beginning of this > 'conversation', did i mention names that have affected my thinking. > not only goffman of course, but he is easily accessible, and has > informed in turn, other thinkers and writers on matters which > seem to interest you as much as they do me.
> ah, well, _I_ get what you want to do, from my own perspective. > but at least i am willing to admit that that's what it is, my own. > of course, mediated through language and experience of self and others. > at least i am willing to acknowledge that, in matters of knowing your > *intent, i am going to be always ignorant, although i can describe my > own reactions and responses to what you say/write.Personal perspective is one possibility, of course; but I neither equate the two words or find much conceptual profit from that 'dimension,' compared, for instance, to working from the relational pov wherein language is the focus around which various yous and mes revolve and imbibe and derive. In this view, of course 'you' will know 'my' intent , because that intention will have emerged from 'our' language. (I dont say 'sooner or later,' because until that time there will be only confusion, ambiguity, conflicts of 'interest' and so on: what's called 'getting acquainted.')
=========
> >{ >> but that absence of gestures etc etc, mean that we
> >{ >>[*]have to make our 'intentions' ...more apparent[*] here,
> >{ >no...
> >{ and yet you go one to virtually say 'yes' later...
> >{ so, in effect, you do not understand what i am getting at....?
> > I supposed you were referring to things like emoticons, but I accept
> >that may not have been what you meant.
>
> thankyou, emoticans was definitely NOT what i meant.
> i meant in terms of language use.
As I suggested to Simonie the other day, is there really much difference between what a smiley means and what a question-mark means (see below)? Between "Hi, everybody!" and "Bouncing in her chair, she wrote enthusiastically"? Between "I hear what youre saying, but" and "I disagree"?
"Language," I postulate, includes anything which points to something else -- what do you mean by the word?
> >Making our intentions more apparent is, in the long run, what > >communication *does; my objection was to _having to make_ them > >apparent... > i object to _having to make_ them apparent too. > but i have found that unless one couches one's observations in terms > which do not offend some, they will say so....Isnt this a problem created by the 'personal perspective'? - that is, by distancing ones 'self' from all the 'givens' which embed it? "Ooh, use the 'right language,' or my sensibilities will be offended!" -- instead of "Of course, how could they know what terms jazz me if I dont tell them?"
> i find this interesting...and at times frustrating when people > impute to me attitudes and ideas that i do not have, or assume that > i think in ways that are really not the case as i experience myself > and as others have experienced me...and why? because i have not > made myself _clear_? hardly, as you point out above, we tend to > muddle along. but the muddling gets too muddy when certain points > of congruence are foreclosed by diversions, spurious comments, or > inability to read between the lines after lines.No ("I would say"), not because you havent actually made yourself clear, but because the 'hegemonic assumption' is that one should be able to make ones 'self' clear. Further, you (I will go ahead and say, just as I did say that: not least because you've lived outside the hegemony) dont entirely share that assumption, so its interesting -- but neither have you found a conceptual 'frame of reference' to replace it, so its frustrating.
> the thing is, i do not want to argue with those i do not feel some > affinity with. the only people i enjoy arguing with, are friends who > treat the whole thing as a game. some peope take themselves and the > world very seriously indeed. i find them slightly dangerous. (oh, > and occasionally exciting - hooked by ideas and seriousness as a > complement to my own frivolous nature?)One of the unsubstantiated insights Ive had (of which there arent many...) is that -- if there has to be a 'point of beginning' -- the line between humor and seriousness is it. From this axiom, I draw the corollary that this, above all, distinguishes ready-made or 'common' language (in which the pers pers prevails) from the realize-ourselves-and-our-intentions-through-it one-on-one language (in which it is no surprise at all that inside jokes and the like exist: that's community at work).
> i'd rather discuss things of mutual interest, share > ideas....even though there must be difference for any conversation > to proceed at all. but it isn't an all or nothing thing. i search > for points of congruence, especially with those of different > backgrounds.I'd rather discover things of mutual interest in a shared process of renunciation of assumptions about what (pre-)defines 'background.' Chatting (with hammer and tongs!) with a (young? Australian?) woman (okay, ?) who teaches (English?) in Japan is just the most interesting thing I can do today! (Making things that work doesnt come close, tho I do that too -- see Lorenz)
> hey, this just reminds me of a classic story, me and one of my > argumentative friends were arguing. then, in exasperation, he says- > that's the difference between you and me! i'm always trying to find > the similarities and you're always trying to find the differences!Another axiom: it doesnt make any difference where one starts; it's going on from there that matters. (Like Euclid's fifth, tho, its dispensible; thus I often sound as if one is more 'natural' or less 'enlightening' than the other, in order to (under?)study the underdoggy role.)
==========
> >{ >If this is so, isn't it because we are still in the 'top-down' state of mind
> >{ >which decrees that only the 'speaker' has authority (to determine what she
> >{ >'means')? That the listener 'ought' to understand 'what is meant' - if
> >not by
> >{ >the 'speech,' then by the speaker's expressions of SIC? That 'harmony' is
> >{ >another word for obedience, acceptance, acquiescence to this principle, and
> >{ >misrecognition is therefore a 'fault'?
> >{
> >{ rubbish. you are saying this, not me.
> >{ i suggest you hold the mirror up to yourself.
> >{
> > Do you mean these questions, or the answers you suppose they 'expect'?
> >The question mark, in fact, is an ideal example of an emoticon which has
> >'submerged' into meaninglessness -- not merely by your response here by
> >any means, but all through the 'not conscious' conventions of c-space
> >'communication.'
>
> eh? oh. well. i mean that your questions obviously have meat. i say
> 'rubbish' to the implied rhetorical acceptance of the state you
> describe. And, i also imply that you, yourself fall into this trap
> sometimes...don't we all?
I wont say I never fall, but I do pay attention to this particular detail of composition. If its a trap, its the same trap of carelessness that lets one write 'we' for 'I' (as I did, evidently) and make all sorts of assumptions about what another means, and then challenge 'them' when the 'implication' is called into question (as you do). As I say, I really enjoy correspondents who appreciate the use of the interrogative emoticon; I think it reflects the 'different perspective' within language (and experience, for that matter) which the cult of personality adopts for the externalised or 'objective' self.
> but, i think that wrt net based communication, the state you imply > (re the speaker's authority) does exist and i agree that it should > not...but then, that's my opinion. sometimes, however, being human an > all, i stamp my foot. that's not what i meant! better? > > ... people are so serious > about their ideas. which they got from where i wonder....?Things, you see, leave a trail; ideas are harder to trace, so one tends to ignore their connections. But, too, I think it highly likely that any functioning brain is serious about something (which level it's on is another matter altogether).
...
> well, no i have no suggestions of any useful nature at this point . > and in any case, if i did and tried to have such things accepted, > trumpeted, prevailing, then it would also be a case of 'top-down' > constitution of behaviour. n'est-ce pas?Can one try if one has no preconceptions? - that is, does not confuse logical levels? What needs come between you and your Suggestions? (tm ;-))
Yes, if your trying was successful, it would (in this world) probably be because due to other (prevailing!) conditions (such as your status, authority, position, influence, etc etc) you could act in a top-down manner. So your hypothetical is thus: if A is A, then A. I suggest its not the only thing that can be said; that one can suggest with no fear whatsoever of its being taken as top-down **if one refuses to use language in which such fear (the simply psychological translation of expectation, assumption, preconception) is endemic**. In this world, I think this is of critical importance, and set it off with double-asterisk emoticons. In fearful language, one needs authority to say anything but A is A -- the relevant instance being: IS A A? Condition your people to accept this, and you can t-d dictate anything else you like. Inculcate a style in which every question automatically pre-conditions ('implies') the 'right' answer, and you're home and hosed. Persuade them that all they need is the 'facts' -- information, not knowledge or experience -- and then you have them, because the facts are defined 'impersonally,' 'scientifically,' 'objectively,' and by the highest authority of 'reality.' Have them *expect to provide, or to be provided, only conclusions, and you can have your way with the premises.
("The typical family in the United States is working, latest estimates are, about 15 weeks a year more than they did 20 years ago -- just to keep stagnating, or even declining, incomes [i.e. authority]. That's a success in the richest, most privileged country in the world?" - Chomsky)
=========
> fine, now we are into paradox, which is the only place i ever come > to with any sense of relief. for me, there is no logic in language. > there is system, sure, otherwise there would not be > misunderstanding (paradox here), and there is goal-directed > activity, otherwise i have no idea why anyone would bother to write > or talk.Interestingly enough, Whitehead and Russell founded the idea of logical levels on the notion of paradox (e.g. "Cretans always lie. I'm a Cretan.") Sure, one can say isnt it fun, there's no logic (just as one can say Arent computers (or cars, or guided missiles) wonderful? I have no idea how they work!) -- or one can take it as a valid indicator that lang isnt quite what it seems; that maybe if one understood how it worked it might be less crash/ misunderstanding-prone; that maybe such things are not the fault of 'the system,' but of the users.
As for goal-directedness, I dont think it's adequate: people do talk and write and express themselves regardless -- one might say, as if we sense that languaging is not goal-directed, any more than a computer is a file system. Sure, use it for that purpose, and if that's all you need, then be happy.
If you have time to chatter
read books.
If you have time to read
walk into the desert and ocean.
If you have time to walk
sing songs and dance.
If you have time to dance
sit quietly you Happy Lucky Idiot.-- Namao Sakaki, 1966