Douglas wrote,

> >>> It looked for a moment that we had found agreement on the idea
> >>> that language is in fact a technology like any other;
>
> WE have found agreement on nothing

I have to disagree; I think we have found agreement!

> >>> that 'transferring' it cannot be a unilateral 'laying down the
> >>> law' of what is reality,
>
> Language is certainly becomes unilateral

There are unilateral actions of all sorts, and some of them involve 'speech-acts' - but if one calls that language, doesnt it only confuse the understanding of the technology? 'Language' is a mutual construction; it only works between (actually among, see 6., below) parties.

> KM> You may use it to *point to other things that you believe are
> sustainable or better, but Im sure you will acknowledge
>
> You presume an awful lot.
>
> KM> that until one succeeds in establishing that belief on the part of
> KM> the 'beneficiary,' those things are hardly 'transferred.'
>
> *THAT'S* exactly what this thread was all about. I refer you to my
> post directed to Turlough Guerin on Oct. 6 and reproduced below. But
> my emphasis was on trust and respect (which I can highly recommend to
> *you*), rather than belief, given that it's difficult to believe in
> anything that's beyond one's own experience.
>
> KM> Frankly, all I had hoped to point out by taking up your note to
> KM> Turlough was that that simple statement is *recursive.
>
> Your are obviously referring to your own never-sufficiently-simple
> previous statements (1),  but then that too is typical of the arguments
> you seem to favor.

There are also positions of all sorts, and some of them involve statements -- but if one calls them arguments, doesnt it only confuse the understanding of the technology? Argument, too, is a mutual construction; I've simply stated a thesis, and backed it up with some evidence. In fact, recognizing that, as you say,

> it's difficult to believe in anything that's beyond one's own experience

I have relied entirely on statements made by you and me within the context of this conversation, so that there can be no possible mistaking the 'data-set.'

Several points follow from this.

1. (sig contrast)
   It is difficult, but not impossible, to so believe -- otherwise development would not be a human concept.

2. (claim)
   Whatever you and I have said or will say, it constitutes data for the present purpose. Again, I apologize if you thought I was arguing with you, and if that led to inconsistencies in your manner of speaking. I had hoped to allay that perception by pointing out a) that while one must initially assume something about ('the use of') language, it need not be an unfounded or untestable assumption -- and in particular, b) that any assumption that your and my uses were 'the same' would indeed be tested.

3. (subj/ obj time)
   The recursion (more accurately, reflexivity) I mentioned turns on this same point. Seeing beyond the hardware to the belief is one step, but seeing beyond the belief is the same step over again. A) I accept that this may be where using 'technological' terminology may confuse those who think of typical industrial-age linear-process machinery -- but are we to carry over that image into the information age? B) in regard to how beliefs are constructed, this linearity is clearly reflected when the question is conventionally put: 'Where do beliefs come from?' -- and almost invariably, the implicit answer is, 'From before.'
   • Datum:

     >  [*]First[*] you must gain the trust of
     > those with whom you're dealing, and that can be done only by
     > demonstrating that one is worthy of that trust, which itself only be
     > done over time.

   • Datum:
     

     > the trust and respect is [*]already[*] there.

   • Datum:
     

     > if someone like you hasn't earned the trust of those with whom
     > you must deal, it's wise to enlist the help of those who *have*
     > already earned that trust.

   • Datum:
     

     >  I suggest you begin by explaining ... what it is that you do, and
     > what has [*]prepared[*] you to do that.

   • Data:
     

     > Tell us about it. But [*]first[*] practice it yourself...
     >
     > Then, [*]after you've managed to have done this successfully
     > for a good while[*], please do get back to me.

   ===========
   

   > How nice that after all your meandering you've decided to finally
   > adapt the position I've taken from he start, but it's unfortunate that
   > you so conveniently forget that "detail".

   Not at all; we found agreement on the first step, the need to get beyond the tangible. On the basis of that agreement I went on (did I go too fast for you?) to what I have learned as the next step, that if 'believed' (or 'trusted,' if you prefer) takes the place of 'tangible,' then 'shared experience' takes the place of the intangible.

4. (hypothetical; Dr Belshaw, have you any suggestions?)
   F2f, there are a number of ways to do this, but by the same token, physical life makes it impossible to separate one's experience from the shared or collective experience -- that is, this second step peters out in confusion (and 'story telling'). Conversely, in CMC the 'way to do it' is limited (as at present) to words -- limited so severely that 'speaking' and 'listening' are synonyms for writing and reading -- but it also means that the confusion becomes possible to achieve intentionally -- whereupon academics call it 'addiction'! (I believe religionists used to call it 'rapture.')

   To a technologist, by contrast, CMC simply serves to 'isolate the variable' for study. 'One's experience' with (more appropriately, in) words depends, as you say, on one's prior environment -- but our shared experience is nothing more or less than the sum of the words we share here and now. (If only for this reason, I'm grateful that you, Douglas, have been able to continue the conversation!)

5. (highly relevant)
   'Conversing' is not a synonym for 'agreeing.' The hardest conversation to sustain is one between two parties who are convinced they agree. (No, I'm wrong; harder still is one in which a third party tries to help them see that they do not!) A statement of agreement is indeed a fairly reliable sign that something has been overlooked; that is, that some value outside the conversation has impinged -- the time one has available, for instance, to work through the 'details.'

6. (Vygotskian dialectic)
   In this context, when we wrote

   > >>> that not only the *committment of the parties of the first and
   > >>> second parts but the *presence of a third is involved. (Did you
   > >>> 'say' so? [...]
   >
   > I said that this is sometimes the case [for instance] at the
   > organizational level...

   we are agreed that the sustainability of the conversation (the continuity of the technology transfer, if you like) is a significant function of the 'third business' (following R[obertson] Davies ;-)) Where you say 'organization,' however, I posit a 'person of presence,' as this is more in keeping with not only standard arbitration and mediation practice, but also family life (and isnt that where most folks get their organizational start?)

   That is, how does Number 3 see that progress is being made? Is it not by the number of problems that are solved (or at least 'dealt with')? If everything goes along perfectly harmoniously, 3 is going to think either that something is being hidden from her, or that the problem was too simple in the first place (or both -- and try to solve that one by talking!) Isnt the most productive technique by far for sustainable conversation to keep all the 'disagreements' on the table, and take them as 'misunderstandings'; i.e. opportunities for 'walking through' the details of both parties' understandings? And isnt the way to keep from being distracted by outside issues (such as 'who's right'...) simply to mutually understand that it is 3's job to decide?

   Whether 3 is super- or infra-structural, TNC or the little pitcher with big ears, isn't it much more important that she decides fairly ('makes up her own mind') -- rather than that one of her hired hands 'wins' the 'argument' over the other?

==============

> KM> Can you help debug my 'methodology'? I can improve my accuracy only
> KM> when the errors are pointed out. (Isnt that called 'learning'?)
>
> I am going to take you up on that (assuming for the moment that the
> request was made sincerely)...

I will overlook the hypocrisy implicit in your parenthesis, as its greater significance is in your thinking about the issue.

> I suggest you begin by explaining to me and everyone else
> here on DEVEL_L, just what it is that you do, and what has prepared
> you to do that. I certainly would be interested in knowing this and
> I'm sure others would be as well, just to put things in a little
> better perspective and understand the basis for the "expertise" with
> which you "dissect" (or misconstrue) my statements.

I ask for help, and you respond by telling me what you want to know! How does obeying your demand improve my methodology? It looks to me like a complete contradiction in terms -- by which I mean, we misunderstand each other.

Well, good! Lets walk through it: Suppose I say I'm a language technologist, and that I have been preparing for 3 years, and that this thesis is 'in partial fulfillment of the requirements' for a M.E in Environmental Engineering.

Now, where would that lead? I'm sure it would lead to more demands from you. Quite probably, you would say you need 'background' -- that is, clues and indicators prior to, and therefore away from, the present request and our shared conversational experience. Outside issues such as 'preparation' and 'expertise,' in fact, distract, alienate, dis- integrate and demean the here-and-now relationship -- for both one who thinks 'priority' is more important than the present, and one who appeases without thinking.

Or do you mean to suggest there should be some sort of certificate of competency for language users? Indeed, it would be quite parallel to the idea of a 'parenting license' -- but the objection would be the same: everybody thinks they are already competent!

While it might help you improve your 'methodology' (i.e. your way of understanding the world you are in) somewhere else, it's not helpful in the present context -- that is, in any situation where I am to assume your intentions -- e.g. that a 'suggestion' is a request, not a demand -- with no way to test. So do you see why I decline to follow your one-up/ one-down strategy? If you have a request, traditional lang.tech. expects it in interrogative, not imperative, mode.

A good bit of my 3 years has gone to learning to ask in a way that other people do in fact understand whether they can help or not. I would love to share this perspective and basis for my dissections; I am quite convinced it underpins all international development (across the spectrum), and that it is custom made for an outfit like the Internet. But it all depends on one thing: the client's request, because of course, if she doesnt recognize the offering as helpful, it's no help at all.

If this is going too fast for you, by all means, please dont hesitate to ask me to slow down -- 'take your time' is always a good reminder.

>  I certainly would be interested in knowing this and
> I'm sure others would be as well,

I do hope so! But one of the hardest parts of the preparation (for me) is to see that even if one can keep one's own assumptions in view, its fairly impossible to assume on behalf of others. (Nevertheless, anyone who is interested is welcome - did I say this before? - to make their assumptions known on their own.) A corollary to this, btw, is that one has to really work at doing (that is, talking about) just one thing at a time.

> Meanwhile, rather than talk about it with someone both unsympathetic
> and far removed from our work, I'll be busy doing it.

I'm doing the best I can. (2)

=============

> DEVEL-L provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information

Quite so.

Cheers,
kerry

Notes

Comments? Contributions? Write to me.