" it is not a state that can be > arrived at, but both a process and a cooperative achievement."
I agree that coherence can be a product of discourse. But I also think that what each of us contributes to the conversation can (or not) be coherent to varying degrees. A post full of opinion and wild speculation does not, I think, contribute as much to the discourse as a whole, as would a post with logical coherence, clearly stated ideas and factual substance. But as you say, agenda can have much to do with this. If a hidden agenda to disrupt and inflame is a foot, opinion and wild speculation would be the better tool to achieve this agenda. I too like the cooperative achievement form of coherence in discourse, and have found it often here. Which is why I keep coming back. Simpatico. On Aug 28, 9:23 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > Nice link, Molly. I like this particularly. We often tend to forget > here that the encounter itself between the interlocutors has its own > meaning and dynamic. (I know, Neil will now get annoyed with me for > being all critical-theoryish, and my daughter would give me a lecture > on the hermeneutic circle :-).) In my own defence, I would claim that > personal and interpersonal agendas are often the real motors running > ostensibly different processes > > "I take coherence as an interpretive notion, which, because it is > dependent on the hearer's ascribing an understanding to what he hears, > is intrinsically indeterminate. Coherence is not a discourse-inherent > property, but 'comes out' of discourse - it is not a state that can be > arrived at, but both a process and a cooperative achievement." > > Francis > > On 28 Aug., 13:59, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > >http://books.google.com/books?id=9OkoNXcZuN8C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=coh... > > > cooperation and coherence in conversation can be important... > > > On Aug 28, 7:38 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > I guess you are correct Don, perhaps not for the reasons you invisage > > > though? > > > > I can see what BB is talking about but he leaps from one point in the > > > debate to another without explianing why. > > > I can see the differances in our stances I would like to try to > > > understand why we have them, for that to happen I'm willing to explian > > > the reasoning behind my own yet when I ask for others to do the same, > > > I basicly get shouted at. I don't mind that as long as part of the > > > shouting contians some form of explaination. > > > > On 28 Aug, 12:11, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It sounds to me like you'd like to see the elimination of commerce. > > > > That is > > > > impossible. Ever since the first caveman traded a dead rabbit for > > > > sexual > > > > favors we've had commerce and it is a part of society. Everybody > > > > working > > > > together and sharing everything equally might work if everyone WAS > > > > equal. > > > > Some folks are harder workers, smarter, more knowledgeable, better > > > > looking > > > > and have better teeth then others. Until we're all clones of one > > > > another > > > > we'll have commerce even if its some form of crude barter. and we'll > > > > always > > > > want what others have. > > > > > Ok, this question isn't even sarcastic. I'm being serious. How come I > > > > understand exactly what BB is talking about and others don't? If I > > > > believed > > > > like R. Kennedy and Molly that most folks wanted to help everyone else I > > > > might go right along with socialism with the rest of you guys. But I > > > > don't. There's the rub. > > > > > dj > > > > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:28 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Can you prove that in order for such a system to work that people > > > > > > > would have to be forced to provied 'free stuff'? > > > > > > > You have not provided even an inkling of a "system" let alone me > > > > > > being able to prove anything against it. You go ahead and show me > > > > > > how > > > > > > it works and I will show you the force. > > > > > > Sorry BB that is not how it works. Shall we remind ourselves what is > > > > > going on here? > > > > > > I have given no system except to say lets ban money lets get rid of > > > > > the whole concept of it. I have admited that it is merely an > > > > > idealsitic propersition and that I have no idea how to implement such > > > > > a system. But here is the crux. You claimed that such a system would > > > > > be unethical, I asked how so, you replied because it would force > > > > > people into give you 'free stuff' > > > > > > My request to you is simply this, proove to me that such a system > > > > > would force people into giving you free stuff. You said it, you must > > > > > belive it so show me why you belive it. There is no question of my > > > > > needing to proove any thing to you, I made no claims whilst you > > > > > certianly have. > > > > > > > > Yes it is a legal requirment here in the UK to ensure that your > > > > > > > children are educated. I.E. If you let your child skip school > > > > > > > you can > > > > > > > be prosecuted. > > > > > > > Another lovely step taken in the "spirit" of the controlling state. > > > > > > Are students jailed for failing to graduate? You might want to add > > > > > > that step next. And I think you should just force feed socialism and > > > > > > communism in the curriculum while you are at it, as it is obviously > > > > > > "correct" isn't it? Of COURSE it is! So why teach anything else? > > > > > > You need to control all those wrong thoughts. Don't even let those > > > > > > bad > > > > > > thoughts start. > > > > > > Come on now, lets not start with the 'unreasonable' leaps of > > > > > sillyness. Why would a legal requirment for parents to get their > > > > > children educated end in arrest for students who fail to graduate? > > > > > Get ahold of your temper man, and think about what you are putting > > > > > down in writting here. > > > > > > > Deciding what is best for others is best! They don't "know" what > > > > > > is > > > > > > best for them. Forced education of forced ideas! What could be > > > > > > better than that? It is what is good for all. > > > > > > Again where did this rant come from, what is it's porpuse and it's > > > > > relevance to what we are talking about?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
