uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> The argument I stole from wherever wasn't that talking was a *form* of
> grooming, but that it *replaced* grooming. Personally, I wouldn't go that
> far. I'd argue that as soon as we learned to talk, talking became
> yet-another-sensorimotor-behavior. I.e. talking is in the same category as
> having sex, punching someone in the face, riding a tandem bicycle, combing
> lice out of your kid's hair, etc. It's all the same thing.
Well corrected... thanks.
> The gripe I have with most people is they reify their "thoughts", give too
> much primacy to the idea of material-free interaction. Words are nothing
> *but* flapping gums and banged keys.
I will admit that having learned to type at a very early age (by
oldSkool standards...14) there is something *like* a visceral
satisfaction in banging the keys. When I have forced myself to write
longhand (see the anecdote about a first grade teacher breaking a ruler
on the knuckles) it can *also* be viscerally satisfying, especially when
using a fountain pen on quality paper. And yet I find "nothing more"
hyperbolic.
> So, to Marcus' point, talking and punching are equally manipulative. And to
> Nick's point, talking to oneself can be very satisfying, like shadow boxing.
> But fighting an *alive* opponent is always more interesting.
Touche' !
What about "dancing"? My limited experience with Tae Kwon Do peaked
during sparring which with the *right* opponent/partner felt more like
Dancing than Fighting. Similarly with fencing (foil only for me, no
sabres or broadswords). Neither felt choreographed.
Some of our threads here feel more like squabbling than "dancing"... not
quite a melee (usually) even though there are some real free-for-all.
I re-submit my previous question of the role/value/import of "an
audience/readership" participation.
SS> In contrast on this (now bent) thread, Marcel Duchamp stated
(authoritatively?!):
“All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone;
the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by
deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds
his contribution to the creative act,”
SS> Many creatives (visual artists, writers, and more obviously
performing artists) have agreed with this... the audience
"participation" if not "response" is key to their "completion"... I
don't know if this maps onto "closure" in CS, but maybe.
- Steve
>
> On 6/6/20 3:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> Glen has suggested variously that he doesn't believe in communication, and
>> that in humans "dialog is a form of social grooming" (I stand prepared to be
>> corrected for mis-apprehending/stating Glen's positions).
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree with him somewhat, though I DO believe some of our
>> chatter is at least an *attempt to communicate*. So is that *all* we are
>> doing when we blather away here? Or perhaps just Bombastic Careening (nod
>> to Jon)? Mental Masturbation? Dominance Aggression? Random Neuromuscular
>> Spasms?
- .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-.
-... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
