FWIW, B.C.Smith, that fount of wisdom, references "flex and slop" and cites Hume as inspiration for the idea. It's a tangle of reasoning that boils down (I think - this is my own nonsense, not Smith's) to the idea that there *must* be misunderstanding for communication to exist. (This is an extrapolation from his saying there must be ontological flex and slop for intentionality to exist.) Perfect information transmission would not be communication. So, if our tolerances are too demanding, then we define our _selves_ out of existence. But what happens on the other end is not similar. Too *much* wiggle room and we twitch/impute a meaning into place. You say "ooga booga" and I think "red barchetta".
On 08/07/2017 01:15 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > I expect "/SELF"/ to be a very sloppy term with most people... and at best, > highly varied in meaning amongst people for whom there is a special slot in > their more rigorous professional lexicon. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
