But there are many lessons, perhaps _most_, that are best communicated with things like koans. And, in fact, given the inherent ambiguity (multi-valence) of natural language, one could argue that _all_ communication is a generalized koan, with no clear description. Talking about ambiguous descriptions is like talking about non-elephant zoology... to borrow from Ulam.
A mandated method to be clear as possible as much as possible would be just as effective and efficient as a mandate to be as vague as possible as much as possible. To be clear, I claim that neither conviction is more effective or efficient than the other. Particular methods must be chosen for the proper context. Russ Abbott emitted this, circa 09-06-22 11:18 AM: > I will acknowledge that sometimes one makes a point by acting in a > certain way rather than by speaking directly. I find it frustrating, > though, when someone attempts to make a point to me by refusing to be > clear about terms but not acknowledging doing that. It would seem much > simpler (and less frustrating for me) simply to say that certain terms > cannot be defined precisely than to act as if one were being clear but > intentionally being unclear. > > In saying the preceding, I'm not criticizing Nick. He and I have been > around the bush too many times to start again. But I am interested in > your point. Do you really want to be treated as I described? I don't. > > I take it as a basic value to be as clear as possible as much as > possible and to be clear that one is not being clear when that is the > case. Having written that I can think of situations (e.g., negotiations) > when a dollop of ambiguity helps. But I think that's a different situation. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
