Glen, Perhaps in my first response to this thread I should have distinguished clarity from verisimilitude. Let's imagine a situation in which my understanding of some situation .... say consciousness .... is vague. Do I sometimes advance the discussion more by advancing a more precise formulation than I actually can justify?
On sober reflection, I guess I think the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no and that a lot of wisdom is required to know what rule applies to a given discussion. I do believe the the power of a dialectic, in the intellectual energy that is generated when two clearly stated ideas contest over facts. But I also think that wonderful things can happen when a thinker truly and honestly describes his confusion. NIck Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 6/23/2009 7:23:33 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Direct conversation > > Thus spake Steve Smith circa 06/22/2009 08:57 PM: > > glen e. p. ropella uttered/spake/emitted/gurgitated: > >> 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. > >> > > I sympathize with your characterization of "_all_ communication as a > > generalized koan" but I am not sure I agree on your followup point. I'm > > not sure the two examples (clear as possible vs vague as possible) are > > reciprocal (complementary?). > > My point was not that the mandate to be vague is the inverse of the > mandate to be clear (though I think one could make that argument easily > enough). My point was that, when communicating, sometimes it is useful > to be clear and sometimes it is useful to be vague. > > What I was objecting to was Russ' _conviction_ to a single communication > mandate. I've found that it's counterproductive to commit oneself to a > sole approach to the world. It's like Russ' conviction to clarity is a > willful decision to always hold a hammer so that everything around him > looks like a nail. Single-minded convictions like that are always a red > flag for me. > > Of course I appreciate clarity and attempts to be clear. But I just > don't make it a fixed conviction. I'm open to all forms of > communication, including being vague when that seems most appropriate. > > If necessary, I can come up with some examples where being vague is a > better method for communicating ideas than attempting to be clear. But > I don't think it's necessary. I imagine everyone on this list can come > up with examples themselves. [grin] > > -- > 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 ============================================================ 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
