Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. Comments? Contributions? Let me know! 9c20, 29
The ways by which information is controlled and mediated has a serious influence on the ways people think, how they communicate, what they believe is the "real world", what the limits of the permissible are.(1)
"Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals." (2)
Vygotsky's inter- and intra- psychological domains reflect the concept of 'logical levels' that Korzybski, Russell, Whitehead, and others identify as the essence of intelligence and 'creativity,' altho what is the value of his objective "first... then" time-sequence? (4) On the contrary, when one speaks of 'learning by doing' or 'following role models,' for instance, isn't the point to make clear whether it is a time-bound, single-leveled, mechanical imitativeness that one is referring to, or the power of choice between mechanistic and 'individualistic' perceptions, actions, and responses? In the model of communication which has been developing on the E-Lekh, I summarize these two extreme positions on the spectrum of personalization as follows:
===========
Within a given exchange/ interchange/ change of mind, the POV [point of view] of 'one'
stands between the 'obvious' or 'existent' and some question. For ease
of reference, lets call the first 'A' (as in Ambiance, perhaps) and the
latter 'C' -- and for ease of visualization, let's suppose that each role
is personified ##, although the model works with A as the natural
environment or with C as one's own mental curiosity bump without any
difficulty. Certainly there is no assumption that C will accept A as 'the answer' to her question -- because even to recognize A as an answer to anything is a
step beyond 'pure questioning.'
So 'B,' (as in minding one's own Business :-)) is the critical actor, the one with a moral choice, either to 'point out' A by naming or 'authorizing' it as the Answer (thus +A,+B) -- or to use 'negative language' to position A balanced by B (+A,-B).
========
My second favourite phrase is 'taking your time' -- not meaning, it's okay to fritter away your energy on other things in the 'meantime'; on the contrary: dont let other topics jam your channels of energy and expression. Spread them out; to each one give its own season.
Clearly, what one is to keep track of is the connections across levels -- not the particular details of the past ('what happened') or the future ('what might happen') or even the hypothetical ('what ought to happen') -- and that is to say, one is to attend to the present. Which present? In place of the reflexive tangle (indeed, collapse) of one's 'own,' one waits for C to set the pace. One borrows her 'equation of time,' as I borrow the phrase from astronomy to indicate the mesh of subjective and objective perceptions or measures of a 'fourth dimension.' To take one's time is to give another her time.
========
##
In cyber-family-communication (CFC), as one realizes not only that every person has a unique POV, but that every POV has a voice, one can quit being so anxious to 'stake a
claim,' and instead, work to keep the agora open. When another
pov is needed, one need only whistle... Suppose you see that some idea of
yours splits in two (A and B, say) -- why not request (wish) that those who
already hold these positions 'enact' them for you, play them out like a
game, so that you can see what the (dis)advantages are to (really,
from) each viewpoint?
Again, there is no absolute need to associate each 'voice' with an actual person. Not only is it conceivable that artificial intelligence will provide quite adequate voices for most of us, and that there are multiple persuasive voices in the minds of some of us, but the general paradigm allows the 'table turning' to manifest in any number of physical ways. (For instance, the interplay between this presently-being-written 'marked-up' text and the hypertext which will presently-be-read on the E-lekh is a very effective 'dialogue,' to my ear/eye. )
What special value, then, does 'actual' inter-personalization bring to communication? Is it a value which has been abused, lost sight of through over-dependence on having a face attached to every name, a talking head to every opinion?
Up to the point that one can present 'both sides' fairly, there is no need for extra voices. I move between 'things are to think with,' and 'ideas are to implement,' very easily and productively. But when dealing with less tangible 'positions,' it is difficult to keep track of what is given, what is conditional, and what has been abandoned -- that is, there is an additional 'level' of ambiguity (that is, the existence/ non-existence binary no longer counts). One person can deal with the shift between two logical levels well enough, and can swap one pair for another 'within reason'; juggling the relational permutations of multiple levels is another story. Historically, it has been expedient to objectify 'things'; I suggest the opportunity exists to subjectify them, and indeed, that this 'personability' epitomises the entire three megabytes posted so far to the E-lekh.
=========
If I ('singlehandedly') bring a criterion into discussion (and even worse, if I 'deliberately' conceal it), the table tilts. Instead, I turn the table -- to you. You pass your hands across it, make your expressive gestures, and
pass it back -- and now I have the 'nonlinearity' needed to 'exercise'
or 'test' my criterion on what you (not I) have said, while also benefitting from your consistency. I believe this construction/ conservation transformation applies to all levels of organization:
environmental diversity (ecology), conscience/ action (praxis), you/ me (understanding), trial/ error (learning), investigation/ erection (engineering), creation/ preservation (culture). A/B and (C) are differently organized -- and the difference is not merely circumstantial, but the essence of how we 'tell things apart.' It is how one can do 'two things at once' and in addition enjoy doing 'it.' It is not only Bateson's 'difference that makes a difference,' but our own, every time. When we defer to objective measures of value, when we displace the immediate and let our very selves be mediated -- it is our present which is lost to us.
============
I was recently asked,
I think, not when, but why do they wish? If one is angry, then isnt the pressing question, What is one communicating for? What, really, is being communicated? (Cf palliative noise.)if people aren't forced at all and communicate whenever they wish -- could be over a life time -- then why would they be angry? They would be gentle and kind.
To say that without a deadline, one will be more relaxed is an obvious tautology. But how is it different to say, communicating 'whenever one wishes' is to be alive -- except that one is not 'supposed' to relax so much as to see the connection? (7) If I do not say everything I 'want' to say in one message, someone's response will bring a new opportunity to fit in that piece of the puzzle --and if by then I have forgotten the magic words, how important were they? (Won't I won't recognize the idea when it reappears in other words?) If, in the dynamic space we create between us, new thinking about the puzzle expresses itself, do I choose to communicate the idea, or the urgency of my need to be given credit ('be respected') for it?
For instance (supposing that thinking subjectively is new to you):