(Apologies to Fujimora.)
Cheerskep,
First, please allow me my habit of using "to be" in all its
multifarious glory in this message. I think you'll have a good idea
what I'm writing aobut.
Thus:
Is it your contention that fuzziness is the prevailing and permanent
condition of human communication? Is it a good thing? Bad thing? Or
just neutral, like gravity (like it or not, it's there)? Are we doomed
to walk around in a fog, talking with cotton in our mouths and badly
smudged glasses?
If it's a condition to be resisted or improved--if the fog can lift,
the cotton be removed, and the glasses wiped clean--what will that be
like? What is the goal of anti-fuzziness? Is this an exercise in
stopping down the aperture and extending the depth of field of our
discourse?
How will we know it? What will it seem like? When the current
fuzziness is mitigated, is there more fuzziness out there that we
never perceived, mainly because the new fuzziness was obscured by the
original fuzziness?
I really am serious: what will be the result of our attempts to de-
fuzz our discussions?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
