FYI

Date sent: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 19:01:35
From: Antonio Rossin
Organization: Increasing Flexibility Organisation
Subject: Re: FYI (and the Net

Kerry wrote:

> { >   I wonder if we have to allow for 'latentcy' even in those who play
> { > top-down roles? I mean to say, they *recognize, and are thus able to
> { > _speak of_, bottom- up ideas, but have not followed them through 
> { > completely as they apply to themselves. (Logs in eyes, and all that.)
> {
> {  let me analyze the above para: 
> {   "they *recognize":  this is the  down level re to our top (to-down)
> {   We cannot recognize *what they recognize, in their own minds.***
> 
> Isn't this the purpose of SIC such as " I wonder if" ? - to create a
> logical level *other than* the one on which the plain statement "They
> recognize" exists.
Hi Kerry,

shall I know your purposes ?;-) Yes, I must. Therefore let me take yours as the +A, and C's existence as granted otherwise our debate would not be pragmatic. This +A is a quite automatic component of the whole process in my mind. Then, let me search for -B, in order to complete (balance) the dial context re to your +A. Can you help? "What" this -B could be, now?

> { IMHO the real problem of language always keeps on unchanged:
> { whenever any (A/B) speaks, where did s/he really aim to drive to?  If
> { that {(+A-B)->C} piece of communication were effective, only (C) *** 
> { can know it, can you?
> 
> If youre not careful, you will leave no reason to speak at all ;-) 
The lesser one always will have some reason to speak. I do not know what this reason is until the less one asks me for an answer. Nevertheless I can suppose before what it is: but I must keep my supposition silent, *inside my mind*, ready to use it for C (after C's demand), being careful not to expose it by speaking first, because in doing it would assume the C role in another context where the real C, the less one, is therefore demanded *for answering me* by one's agreement, and the real C becomes thus the one-up role because of my demand to him. Of course the real C, being called for consent by the real authority, becomes conditioned to agree as a social rule, and her agreement can translate itself into consumerism, me-too-ism, LFS and so on.

Isn't this last context, what our Dial Ed campaign was aimed to change?

>  Like the arguments that often show up: 'It's not the fault of religion 
> (or capitalism, or whatever), but of those who practice it' -- if our
> dialectic doesn't work for *people* what use is it? 
However, if you and I must become effective, we should expose the utmost agreement between ourselves to the others and keep our "serve" discussion to be private only. Of course, this implies a hierarchy between you and I, and between ourselves and the others. What else, otherwise?

If our dialectic does work for people, what use is it? Really, this is a strange time, IMO. Our -B dialectic about Dial Ed is useless, neither better nor worse than the +A we want to oppose, for people already provided with the (+A-B) mindframe. It could be useful for people having to become (+A-B) framed - but for the same token, they cannot understand our dialectic...

> ... People are going to
> continue to speak, whether they speak 'properly' or not; therefore we
> have to 'meet them where they live,' and demonstrate first of all, how
> their improper speech contradicts what (as we recognize) their _stated_
> intention.
If their _stated intention_ were "showing-off" and me-too-ism, only their bandwagon's leader could make them recognize any eventual contradiction of their own, and s/he never will do.

Rather, I think, we have to oppose gently our -B to their +A while making it clear that their +A+B bandwagonism contradicts their children's freedom and health. I think the contradiction between them and ourselves is less easy to be accepted than the contradiction between themselves and their children - most of all if any of the latter begins to speak freely.

> There is nevertheless a problem. In principle, the demonstration should
> be easiest when a (verbal!) conflict is in view, but then the parties
> usually suspect *us* of 'taking sides' because (on the 'content' level)
> sides have already been chosen.**  OTOH, somebody like Agre, who writes
> 'editorially' (without any C asking) may understand the dialectical idea
> perfectly *because* he's not 'involved' in a real dispute. ***
Are you saying, he can understand in words even though not in actions? I came to believe, all of them are perfectly able to understand and speak "top-down" dialectic, but they actually reject the "bottom-up" dialectic as far as they always speak "editorially". Nevertheless, their speech is better than nothing at all... as it can be always +A-B faced anyway ;-)
> { We can only trust they owned the {(+A-B)->C} plug-in, so that your 
> { message, would it be either the (+A) or the (-B) -- or else another 
> { intermediate issue from the whole (+A-B) spectrum -- could be accepted 
> { without any _external_idealized_ authority's mandatory permission.  We
> { also can check -- subordinately -- that the context we speak into  was
> { dialectical, that is, that our speech was delivered as the -B to  a
> { previous +A. 
>
>  I think many people come to a dialectical style, without any interest
> in the 'theory' behind it: I trust them to have the {+-} plug-in, and
> say nothing. (Perhaps I should practice more on them rather than the
> 'easy marks' whose {++} style is all too evident...)
Aren't they the "pomo" people? I am not able to speak to them. I tried, but both my English skill and background is too little. Imo, cybermind was full with such pomo people, but when I hardly come to debate with Alan, he answered angrily somewhat about the "socius", a english pomo jargon I can't understand, and then he stopped my attempt without any further reply. IMHO, they are like the gay people, who are very skilled in performing dialectic (ie., sex) but formally (superficially) only, without bringing it to its natural (substantial) deepening, ie., children.
> {  "and are thus able to speak of bottom-up ideas".  Here there is imo
> {   a misunderstanding.  As soon as they become "able to speak of" and 
> {  they do, they pass from the "C" role of the prior {(+A-B)->C} context
> {   to the +A (or possibly, the -B ;-)) role of a further communication
> {   context, like a communication chain, re to a further (C) audience -
> {   if there were any. 
>    Yes, *if there were any*.  In cyberspace, we dont know, they dont
>    know.
Ok., but there are people who are trying to work both in the virtual and in the real space. Richard K. Moore could be one. Noam Chomsky is. Amodei is one too, even tho in a reductive space. (BTW, did you see about his ARGO and MULM projects?)
> {   It is not possible, speaking of bottom-up ideas, because "speaking" 
> {   as in itself always requests for hierarchic relationship between
> {   the speaker and the listener, that is, it always happens top-down. 
> { 
> {   The bottom-up ideas are not a matter of speaking.  These are a matter 
> {   of formative education, according with allowing self-consciousness, 
> {   ability to listen whatever speech open-mindedly and to choose changes
> {   autonomously: in one word Flexibility. 
> { 
> 
>   Here you sound ready to agree with me that the same flexibility concepts 
> and vocabulary apply as well to one's own cognitive process as to 
> interpersonal communication.   But then, why can we not say *recognize*, 
> as in the para above?  Imo, the emphasis should be between speaking, and 
> speaking _about_ .  The 'real' bottom-up idea needs no speaking about,
> only praxis. Nevertheless (like the Bodhisatva who renounces salvation 
> in order to help his fellow beings) we can 'sacrifice' the really real for
> the sake of those who think speaking is *only 'speaking about' (and thus 
> different from 'action.')
I don't understand well the point. Imo, a Child is bound by nature always to assume that her parents' speaking is action. I too assume that "speaking" puts - or should put - effective communication (education) into action, and that this action is due to be spent in (natural) order to educate C. I also know my Child needs of a +A-B dial context in order to learn freely her self. Finally I know that in the existing social reality, this speech of mine is the -B (otherwise I would keep silent ;-))

Therefore, all the above para is a -B possibly aimed at supplying the +A-B dial context for C's freedom. Why should I 'sacrifice' my C's freedom, for the sake of... whom? Of +A perhaps? I think it useless, because too many people are already doing that, and I like the differences... unfortunately I was commanded, by birth, to be an individual being. So I can be either an individual being, that is, *one-different from the others*, or else a "stand-by" individual. Could I give up and sacrifice this reality of mine? How, please?

> {   (Really, all what I'm doing while "speaking of bottom-up" ideas, is
> {  only pestering the official educators wanting them to perform the  
> { duty they're paid for *completely*,
> 
> The role of Office is a difficult one, I agree, because it _objectifies
> the 'sides'  **: the officer knows that you are 'the public,' and are
> *therefore opposed to his conduct -- or else you wouldnt be speaking to
> him.
Then the Officials must not pretend they support changes, and must not allow people to trust in their supporting changes. Are they in good faith? then they should welcome the public "speaking to them" as the basis for the bottom-up checking of their conduct. Are they in bad faith, most of all the Officials of Education? then everything becomes clear.
> {   that is, enclosing the earliest
> {   family education domain when the parents are the only teachers tho 
> {  totally unaware of their own educative-formative options; or else  
> { (-B)-like" opposing all what other people utter, every time I find   
> { any opportunity according of course with both my poor fancy and my  
> { limping english lang, hoping myself not to fall down into being too   
> { much rhetorical .)
> 
> Must we conclude that 'administration' (and schooling in particular) is
> Rigid *by definition*?  
I think it must be, but rigidly _honest_, that is, flexible in order to the flexible wants of the system which it is paid to serve. (You make me remember, I have a long writing of Umberto Eco on this "honest" point of view. I will translate and send it to you in a separate post.)
> { > In particular, this would apply to the net, which gives everyone
> { > the chance to _freely express_ every idea *whether or not anyone has
> { > asked*... 
> { > { Plainly "to _freely express_" doesn't mean "to communicate effectively" 
> { >  Of course! 
> 
> { > I now see that the gist of what I have written is that *adoption* of 
> { > the C role lets one 'act grown up' (by not having to ask) -- become 
> { > as a little child in order to deny childhood! 
> { 
> { Hi! If what you say you do "now see" were real, I cannot understand it 
> { because *** it would be out of my own logical level now ;-) 
>  
>   But you *do* understand it! Isnt this what G Bateson is saying about the
> need for a 'sacred' (unstated) level?  As soon as 'what you say' is *said* 
> it changes levels...
It changes the communication context too, from the former to the subsequent link of the communication "chain". I think one should know how this chain is formed first of all, and this would be Dewey's "solving the problem". (I must confess, I missed Bateson as soon as he began to speak 'sacred')
> { This is our old quarrel, your pretending to be C and a speaker at one
> { same time.  I think, one's life goes from the (C) to the (A,B) end of
> { a continuum.  Of course one, one's life passing, learns and teaches; 
> { yet there is a time for learning and a time for teaching, according 
> { with one's self-consciousness and responsibility, and sensitivity, and 
> { creativity, and...  shall I say, according with flexibility? ;-) 
> 
>     I think this pretending is what most poeple do most of the time. 
> Moreover, isn't *time*  the tool by which society 'defines' what shall
> be 'pretense' and what is 'real'? *Now Im a teacher, and what I say is
> The Truth; *now Im a regular fellow, and not 'responsible' for making my
> statements (appear to) fit what I believe.   ...Its a wonder the disease
> is not immediately fatal to the patient!
Immediately fatal, I dont know. Btw, did dinosaurs die immediately? ;-)

(snip)

> ***  The idea of the WWW fits in here too. If I post a msg to Cybermind,
> I usually get a response, but if I post the URL where one can read the
> same msg, I get no replies at all, even tho probably the same people who
> might answwer will click on the link.  Would you like to work on a paper
> to this effect? - Lurking (=browsing) is the greatest danger to 'free
> speech' on the net, because it biasses the statistics in favor of the
> '500 channels' view of cyberspace -- and officialdom/ corporations use
> such stats to argue that 'most people want' a one-direction (top-down)
> model of comm.  (Did you see the recent report that being online
> correlates with 'depression'?  I wonder if they measured how many
> messages the subjects 
>  wrote...)

Hmm. Maybe dinosaurs became depressed a little, before dying.

Further, I don't know whether the www were depressing because, say, the screen is square and the words mute, or because the usernets put into the www their last hope, or illusion. I remember, the msg of mine that got back more replies, was: "What a great sense of power, pushing the delete-key to so many messages!" I must confess, I agreed the many replies, but it was a bit depressing too to me.

Do you have an outline for the paper already? Not so unlikely, I could add some thoughts of mine, very willingly.

>  You wrote earlier,
> {
> { If I present myself, mine is a (-B) speech. If
> { another person presents myself, his is a (-B-B), speech, that is,
> (++). { I think, this is the operative option, the more effective one.
> 
> And what of presenting ourselves together, say to Z magazine?
> 
Two is always better than one. Old Romans said: "Unus testis, nullus testis", if I remember well, (where "testis" meant "witness")

Notes


    1. [Cyberjournal] Back <--


logos links future demos past
Comments? Contributions? Write to Serchan.