We have discussed humor a few times in this group, how it is used and its benefits. Some old threads may still be available, I'm not as good as mining them as Slip is. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we all follow a script for communication, just that we examine our own patterns and keep in mind the outcomes. Barriers to coherent discourse are many, and I previously sited one most recently discussed, inflaming emotion. The need to be right or feel injured are two more, as they pit people against each other and limit ideas. As Neil suggests, these may also be part of a private agenda to manipulate the conversation. This kind of stuff is everywhere, being aware of it allows us to avoid pitfalls.
I don't think any group member should feel personally indicted by a reflection on how we communicate. Doing so, examining how we ourselves communicate in the group and how the group as a whole communicates, is much like taking the position of the witness in our own experience. We benefit by taking a step out of the emotion and value and looking at the process objectively. On Aug 28, 1:36 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > To Molly and group: Can I please say this and I will stop? > I think I see where the problem is. You see, I am a huge fan of the > artform of stand-up comedy. I have listened to thousands and > thousands of hours of it, and I not only believe it is an awesome > artform and "delivery system" of ideas, but it is so ingrained in my > personality that I have little conrtol over it. I wish I had the > skills they had however, when they do it the people laugh with them > while they are thinking about the ideas. > I will make more of an effort to stick to the "cold logic" and > toneless arguments, but then I am not allowed to be who I am. This > bothers me greatly. I am, as with everthing I am saying, "trying to > find the right balance" > > I swing back and forth, and I don't fall to the center, or find it > to your or my satisfaction, but that is my goal, to find the right > balance. The right of the individual versus the right of the society > not to be infringed upon either. A "fair" exchange is what everything > I am saying comes down to. I have failed to find that balance, but I > am looking for it. > > On Aug 28, 6:35 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > " 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
