Re: London blasts
- From: Paul Dean <paul_nospamplease@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:41:56 +0200
Richard Dudley wrote:
[ I'm replying to the post in parts. I only have access to Usenet via Google and that's not always reliable ]
Paul Dean wrote:
It certainly appeared that you asked with your mind already leaning one way
That would be an artifact of your perception.
I suggest that every interpretation is, unless you think it's possible to perfectly understand what anyone means by the words they use.
Depends what you mean by 'perfectly', naturally enough. Its quite possible, that for an extreme meaning of 'perfectly' that what you say is true - perhaps meanings in our bodies are quantum states which cannot, even in theory, be cloned. The practical outworking of assuming that its not possible would be the same as what's done in practice - use of dialogue ( aka feedback ) to reduce errors of interpretation to managable proportions.
Excellent, carry on.
Why do you consider this approach 'excellent' but not appear to follow it yourself?
Well I can't answer for how I appear to you, but I can say that of course I do follow it - the use of dialogue to reduce errors of interpretation to manageable proportions. When you ask questions that I think are properly framed, I answer.
Why would you request that I carry on this approach ?
You seem to enjoy it - after all, that's why you're here. Surely that's reason enough.
The more we reduce the errors in communication, the more we reduce interpretations that may only be artifacts.
Such a bizarre usage of 'we' which seems to exclude the writer.
You mentioned 'artifacts of perception' recently; this seems like a clear example. Can you demonstrate how my usage of 'we' excludes the writer?
Are you interested in reducing errors in communication, or is it that you are more interested in making insincere and mocking posts?
What's your opinion? You complain about making prejudgments, but I wonder whether you are projecting both about that and about what you have written immediately above.
> If it does turn
out to be the latter, you'll eventually get bored and give up, so its of no real consequence to me. However to you, its a more serious matter since 'what goes around, comes around' - its only fair to remind you of this since you seem to be unaware of the consequences of your behaviour.
Assuming I have that behaviour, how on earth have you been able to deduce whether or not I am aware of it or its consequences? You're simply making this up.
I'm using dialogue now to inform you that what 'appears' to be so to you isn't in fact the case - my mind was not 'already leaning one way'. Since you're already prejudiced against my being honest, you'll interpret my words in whatever way you choose to.
So I shouldn't have been expected to know the details of your mind in advance, and indeed I can't be expected to know in advance the mind of anyone for any statement they make.
Anyone's expectations about this matter are irrelevant
It's relevant the next time you advise me whether I should ask for clarification or make a guess as to the meaning. Your expectation will determine whether my action pleases or displeases you and my expectation of what I should do will guide my action. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.
Its true to say you won't know the details of my mind until you empty yours of its preconceptions and prejudices.
The same applies to you, of course.
In response to this problem, I could follow one of two courses
Why do you suggest only _two_ courses of action?
Presumably because of my limited imagination.
with the second method, it seems that only a percentage of discussions become meaningful. This percentage is, however, quite high and in practice is better than having a small number of very long discussions with interminable dead-ends; much like trying to solve a maze by a method of mapping the entire landscape when your best guess of the route through is usually correct.
What criteria are you using to decide that one option is 'better' than another here? You haven't made it clear.
The proportion of discussions which tend to be useful given the two methods. Since you've agreed my first suggested method is undesirable I don't know why you are wondering why exactly I hold the same opinion - imagine the reason is likely to be the same as yours.
How do you determine whether a discussion is meaningful to you?
By whether it transmits or produces meaningful concepts in my mind.
Do you consider a discussion 'meaningful' if, instead of engaging the subject, you choose to make ad-hominem remarks about the poster, for instance?
Consideration of just one part of a discussion is not sufficient to determine whether or not it is meaningful.
Oh, and what's an 'interminable dead-end' since to me this looks like a contradictory phrase ?
It's a path that goes on for ever but to nowhere.
-- Paul .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: London blasts
- From: Richard Dudley
- Re: London blasts
- References:
- Re: London blasts
- From: Paul Dean
- Re: London blasts
- From: Richard Dudley
- Re: London blasts
- Prev by Date: Re: The Church is dead. RIP.
- Next by Date: Re: The Church is dead. RIP.
- Previous by thread: Re: London blasts
- Next by thread: Re: London blasts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
