Dialog on Dialectical Education, Nov- Dec 1996

Participants:
-->

Key:

In order to integrate the 'vertical' slices of this dialog, the following convention has been used:
    Where material in a preceding mail was quoted, in place of the conventional 'fences' marking it off, the first word in the response is placed in curly brackets to link it to that source (a second word separately bracketed indicates a second, separate citation). Correspondingly, where text has been quoted in a later mail, following the segment is a link consisting of initials, mail number, and citation index; e.g. KM076a. All such references are internal to this document, allowing one to read 'loopingly' through the text with little need for the browser's 'back' command.
    Annotations and links foreign to the original communications are set in square brackets, while, for clarity, some posts have been indented. Some contemporary posts have not been included here, and the dialog continued on a daily basis for another 14 months.

Abbreviations:

Contents:

  1. ///AR4O Re: KM050 Taowley
  2. KM051 no message
  3. AR41 no message
  4. KM052 sic
  5. AR42 madness
  6. AR43 Aboriginal wisdom
  7. JO02 Re: AR43 Re: KM053 + Aboriginal wisdom
  8. KM054 hopping
  9. KM055 crossing cultures
  10. AR44 and Jeff
  11. KM057 Planck
  12. JO03 Re: AR44 RE: KM054 and 53 and Jeff
  13. KM058 re JO03
  14. AR45 Re Jeff and KM057 (+58) Balance
  15. JO04 re KM058
  16. KM059 Balance carried forward
  17. AR46 Balance coming back [6c06]
  18. KM1002 re Wisdom
  19. AR47 re KM1002 reading key
  20. JO05 Re: KM060 re [JO04] Re: KM058 GIGO
  21. KM062 re AR47 +KM1002
  22. KM063 re JO05
  23. AR48 re JO05 reprise
  24. KM064
  25. AR49
  26. KM065
  27. AR49* re KM065 and Jay[re JH01]
  28. KM066 More/ merrier
  29. AR50 "and Jay"
    KM068 Techno-bridging
  30. AR51 re KM066
    KM069 Re JH03 that long?
  31. KM070 re AR51 Between or betrine -> Citrine
  32. JO06 Re: KM069 Re: JH03
  33. KM071 re JO06 Welcome
  34. AR52
  35. KM072 cognitive dissonance
  36. AR54 Re KM071 +KM068 +KM072 + JO07 minimize!
    KM073 re JH07 performance
  37. KM074
  38. AR55 re 074
  39. KM076 re: AR55 meta-meta
    From: Antonio Rossin

    ///AR4O Re: KM050 Taowley

    Kerry,
    wanting to seek for some difference/analogy between your last "loot" and the concerns of mine which I am long trying to share:
    ================

    >Bits of an ongoing Web dialog between Robert Hunter and Terence McKenna

    > Written communication can always be misconstrued more easily than
    > speech, because speech is self correcting and is carried along on a
    > wave of empathy or telepathy that is somehow absent in the written
    > word. Or at least my written words.

    Here is the problem of the "Context Identifying Signals", which all of us miss usually to realize, but feel (and rationalize) as "empathy or telepathy" KM051a

    > "Meanings Edge"
    > [ Trumbell Stickney]
    >
    > I do not understand you.
    > Tis because I lean over your meaning's edge
    > And feel the dizziness of things
    > You have not said.

    Is it a poetry?

    By simple people, things non said (or not understood if even said) can be asked for explanation, or further deepening. KM051b

    [Robert Hunter:]

    > Another limitation of email is that banter is minimalized. On each of
    > several points you raise, a tree of branching possibilities presents,
    > asking for a flurry of quick exchange to establish which limb is worth
    > crawling out on in order to obtain what apple...

    This sounds a bit like a selfish POW.

    Instead of this, you can wait under the tree. At a certain point, a KM051c Child appears on the landscape and calls. The vibration of hir voice shakes down the ripest apple, straight upon your head...
    ================

    > All migrants leave their past behind, although some try to pack it into
    > bundles and boxes - but on the journey something seeps out of the
    > treasured mementoes and old photographs, until even their owners fail to
    > recognize them, because it is the fate of migrants to be stripped of history,
    > to stand naked amidst the scorn of strangers upon whom they see the rich
    > clothing, the brocades of continuity and the eyebrows of belonging.
    >
       -- Salman Rushdie

    This is very fine, for me. Really, often I felt a migrant one. For instance:
    when I approached the academic world;
    when I meet the Power People;
    >when I write in English language. KM051d

    Also, I think children may feel like migrants, when they enter the adult world (not just that of their parents, but that outside), the teachers world - and perhaps this entering is sheldom too quick, so as to leave KM051e them their own history-nature (ie. that which allows to look at the world with child's eyes..)

    The same, the developing peoples are like migrants towards the developed people - and perhaps the developed people left their past too far behind themselves (in their rushing into... Cyborg world? ;-)) KM051f
    ================

    > [The Tao Teh King], Liber CLVII: THE EQUINOX Vol. III. No. VIII.
    > Aleister Crowley, 1923
    > January 18, 1990 e.v. WEH

     >    ... Nothing exists
     >    except as a relation with other similarly postulated ideas. Nothing 
     >    can be known in itself, but only as one of the participants in a 
     >    series of events. Reality is therefore in the motion, not in the 
     >    things moved. We cannot apprehend anything except as one postulated 
     >    element of an observed impression of change. We may express this in 
     >    other terms as follows. Our knowledge of anything is in reality the 
     >    sum of our observations of its successive movements, that is to say, 
     >    of its path from event to event....

    This piece, and the remainder of the quote, is a bit too hard to me as it sounds too accademic to me, in the sense that it requests a specific cultural background I dont have. KM051g

    But, could it be "academically" accebtable, if translated with analogy to humans? Then, it would become more understandable to me... Let us see how:

    ... Nobody exists except as a relation with other similarly existing ones. Nobody can be known in itself, but only as one of the participants in a relationship of informations. Reality is therefore in communication, not in the speaking bodies. KM051h We cannot have consciousness of self except as one postulated element of an observed impression of change. We may express this in other terms as follows. Our knowledge of ourselves is in reality the sum of our observations of our successive changements, that is to say, of our path from speech to speech.... (That is, from belief to belief ;-))

    Perhaps the author came to similar reflexions, where he wrote:
     >   The Tao can never be known until it  
     >   interpret the most trivial actions of everyday routine. It is a fatal 
     >   mistake to discriminate between the spiritual importance of meditation 
     >   and playing golf. 
     

    But now, if our openmindedness-flexibility allows us to interpret the most trivial actions of everyday routine (eg., the Family Communication Relationship ;-)), well then, what a need...

    (Otherwise, if our openmindedness-flexibility doesnt, what a need else?)

    KM051i
    =============

     > Ch. 1 
     > 2.   Unmanifested, it is the Secret Father of 
     >             """"""""""             """" """" 
     >      Heaven """"""""""  and Earth  """" """" 
     >             """"""""""             """" """"; 
     >
     >      manifested, it is their Mother.((This doctrine is the initiated teaching 
     >      to hint at which priests invented legends of parthenogenesis. )) 
     > 
     >  3.   To understand this Mystery, one must be fulfilling one's will, ((In a 
     >      moral state, therefore, without desire, frictionless.)) and if one is not 
     >      thus free, one will but gain a smattering of it. 
     > 
     > 
     > Ch. 2 
     >  1.  All men know that beauty and ugliness are correlatives, as are skill and 
     >      clumsiness; one implies and suggests the other. 
     > 
     >  2.  So also existence and non-existence pose the one the other; ((I.e., the 
     >      thought of either implies its opposite.))  so also is it with ease and 
     >     difficulty, length and shortness; height and lowness.  Also Musick exists 
     >      through harmony of opposites; ((nay, even.  [sic] 
     >       This shows how the Tao realizes itself through its projection in 
     >      correlative phases, expressing 0 as + 1 + (-1); to speak like a Qabalist 
     >      or an electrician.)) time and space depend upon contraposition. 
     > 
     > 3.  By the use of this method, the sage can fulfil his will without action, 
     >     and utter his word without speech. ((Our activity is due to the 
     >     incompleteness of the summing-up of Forces.  Thus a man proceeds to 
     >    walk East at four miles an hour, though he is already traveling in that 
     >     direction at over 1,000 miles and hour!  The end of the Meditation on 
     >     Action is the realization of [Egyptian] Hadit; wherefore any action would 
     >    be a disturbance of that perfection....)) 

    I cannot understand the way by which one speaks of an unspeakable thing KM051j (Perfection, in this case, that does not admit any (speaking) action. I could, if they had said that perfection is speakable in "negative" only, that is, with "negative" language too.

    Likely, my "waiting under the tree" is the same of their "the sage can fulfil his will without action, and utter his word without speech", thus, *no action*.

    But I think that this no-action can be a condition of the subject when s/he is cut off from any context of communication (that is, who doesnt exist...), thus hir "no-action" would be the result of a perfect *inside* contraposition, (jng/jang?), which then produces *no* internal demand.

    But in communication (ie, among existing beings) one cannot cut off the demand of one's neighbour - most of all, that of children. KM051k

    IMHO, they say so because they werent able/allowed to meditate the difference, in human communication, between an Action answering the internal demand of the Giver, and an Action answering the external demand of the Haver.

    If "perfection" were utterable (*and they are uttering of it!*), it also must be actable; OTOH, whatever else is an act, if not a sign, a piece of communication? whatever else is any utterance, if not the same? Anyway, they seem to have isolated the variants (epistemologically wrong).

    Variants should be tied in the same speech action, by Love. By Love for whom/what? Not for money, neither for heaven... neither for self-perfection. By Love for C? (C like children, possibly).

    Then, wanting to lay each type of things on a same logical level, I would suggest:

    Level 1: If they give me their words/acts, even if about fulfilling the will without action and uttering word without speech, I give them my acts/words...

    Level 2: where, if they could stop to speak/write the above C1, C2, C3 (ie., to speak of *unspeakable* things, I would stop to act answering them and performing communication from my side, thus the TAO perfection will be done... without communication of the same. @:-O

    Level 3: priests usually, at least here, preach one thing and practise another, they speak well and act the contrary, thus they separe speaking from acting. Thus, can we set Eastern and Western priests in one same level, finally? as well as both word and action... so as to stop looking *at* our G only, and start looking *to* our C too, everywhere?

    Antonio
    Ps. I think of this speech of mine in its whole (to be clearer, I put it "into two triple slashes" - whose the first triple slash is above, before the "Subject" of this @mail, and the last one will be below) as a TAO phasis. Well now, where is the correlating phasis, both together these allowing me to understand the "would-be" perfection claimed by the TAO sage? Is it perhaps your -B, the opposite-correlated phasis to this +A of mine? Thence, is it perhaps the "->C" only, the (humanistically possible) hoped perfection? KM051l

    Then again Antonio - who is not such a sage but a mere simpleton - thinks it to be more real considering one phasis of language as the "positive", the other as the "negative" and the real communicaction - the only existing being, IMHO - as a sum of variants-differences...

    ///


    KM051 re AR4O no message

    {And} I count it as another suggestion that written forms _decelerate_ the communication process. Much more has been going on in oral transmission than we had to take practical account of before - even 'dead-tree' correspondence was usually with people one already knew. E-mail can only be _getting to know_. AR41a

    {In} the course of Physical Life speech, the twitch of a finger, or the glance of an eye serves as this asking. Now we are swimming in molasses in a deep vat in a dark room, and a 'twitch' has to be scaled up to the size of an armwave.

    {It} sounds to me like a call for meta language, to provide some of the cues in _anticipation_ of just such a 'flurry' (<- The word brings in the time-thing again: the 'trippy' feeling that meta-levels go at a different speed.)

    { ;-!}

    {Don't} you mean, "seldom so _slow_ as to.."?

    {Yes,} the tragedy is the _rush_, and thereby jettisoning not only 'baggage,' but life-stock.

    {Actually} that's what Aleister Crowley is saying - that the Western dualistic mindframe can't make sense of the Tao Te Ching. But also, in 1923, everybody was writing in prety academic style...

    {Of} course the essence of said dualism is just the opposite... so seventy years later, Crowley is still 'wierd' or 'radical.'

    {This} is the Great Divide, for most people whose _need_ is the prioritizing that puts one thing higher or more important than another - if the Tao gets in the way, they will ignore it. 'True' flexibility (true anything, I would guess) is just too much.

    {"Who} knows the Tao, does not speak; who speaks, does not know." _Pragmatically_ it is too much for language at all.

    {Yet,} speak/ act we (think we) must.

    {The} Tao has no correlating phasis, that's the point. Only as it _breaks down_ (becomes pragmatical) can we say anything - even then, we cant say anything about Tao, only point at the void where it must be.

    From there on, of course, the sage 'optimistically skeptically' (thanks, Jeff!) practices flexibility, the best s/he can do, knowing that it is always incomplete yet unable to _show_ its incompleteness. "Be happy, don't worry."

    If there is a 'correlating phasis,' isn't it in not _opposing_ ++ determination to reach some goal (e.g. 'make them understand,' only ignoring it as wrong-headed? That is, isnt the aim of +- to reach _back_ to the better origin? Ultimately, neither one is reachable; but flexibility is more fun along the way ;-)

    k

    { none of this is what I mean to write }


    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR41 re KM051 no message

    {I} dont know.
    But now you make me think about the normal use of language. First of all, I must admit I am not a normal user of language. Often, having had to ask myself the why I had not understood correctly the meaning of some "oral trasmissions", I concluded that I was lacking of a correct knowledge of the "Signals Identifying the Context." I think that their knowledge is unconscious and their use is quite automatic - as if a great deal of the first training of a child, in hir language relationship, had been spent to make hir learn the "correct" recognition of such signals., Then such recognition, as time passed, has become automatical. KM052a

    Well now, I must suppose I have not learnt well how to recognize such signals when I was a child.
    OTOH, these are deeply tied to local culture, to local people, to local language.
    Of course, technology cannot supply the function of these signals, and
    KM052b

    this lack could be the why comunication is so much hard to be performed between different countries-civilizations - or else between different social levels in a same country - and, however, through modern informatical technology (as I have learnt, eg., from Eductech). KM052c

    Besides, flexibility and openmindedness dont seem to be too strictly tied with a great allegiance with such Signals Identifying the Context. KM052d

    Well then, as I felt I was in trouble with my use of language, I faced the problem of these SIC.
    IMO, the SIC work in the same way of two modems when they connect together. In the first phasis of this connection, they talk together, just to identify the context of the connection.
    KM052e Only after this, once the context was checked, the data transmission occours. I think in human communication there happens the same.

    In a first phasis of their communicating together, two speakers recognize themselves and the nature of their relation, just by the work of these SIC. Then the transmission of data can eventually occour between them.

    Now, IMO, the happening of this first phasis is quite unconscious for both speakers, but it is real, and quite necessary for communication may happen.

    But then, in my case, what had I to do to to be able to communicate effectively, as I was not capable of using these SIC properly? KM052f ie., automatically and unconsciously?
    I remark these are just the characteristics of SIC, moreover unconsciousness., Indeed, I believe, if a person is not automatical as much as unconsciousness only can allow hir to be such, in answering *in no time* hir partner's SIC, s/he is recognized automatically and in no time as an alien, thus an ungrantable person being not worthwhile..

    This problem occourred to me when I started wanting to tell people new things, that is, to speak about family communication. Before of that, I always was telling the same usual things which everyboody tells, thus there was no problem. But after that I realized that when one speaks wanting to tell novelties, this one must first of all deliver the Signals Identifying a particular Context: that s/he represents, s/he *is* the social authority. Otherwise nobody listens to hir. OTOH, the social authority, to be such - at least in the developing countries - usually needs to show a great conservativeness, therefore s/he just avoids to propose novelties KM052g by hir speech...)

    Well now: we know that these SIC, in human communication, can:

    Anyway, I did not take into account the second of the above possibilities. After all I was the "doctor" here, and my people always said Yes, they were agreeing with me. But, were they really trustful? or the reverse? That is, was I really effective? KM052h
    And - conversely - why are so many people so much effective without any reasonable merit, in human communication?KM052i

    So, I said to myself, whereas my speeches did not obtain the hoped success, they must have been understood like reversed. Thus, if people translated my speeches into reverse, it would have been better for my effectiveness if I had spoken with "negative" (ie. reversed) language... Hence I began to experiment and rationalize the use of negative also language. Until now, as you know well...

    Of course, the "negative language" must not be disqualified totally but, to some extent, taken into account. To this aim, people must have been trained to its understanding - and qualifying, possibly....

    I think now, that also technological communication must face a similar problem, if we want Distance Education and the Internet to be really effective. Emoticons only, as the Cyber SIC, dont seem to be sufficient. KM052j

    Likely, the spreading of "negative language" in education, that is our (+A-B), should lead people to verify their usual SIC, ie., their Traditional Education. Only after this, educative communication in the Internet could become really successful. I think so, because the basements of traditional education are just the SIC each one of us in each one's cultural context has been trained (imprinted) to apply, and not - as most people seem to think - the history of the common going on, uses and language. KM052k


    KM052 re: AR41 sic

    {At} the CM conference in Perth, Richard Smyth wrote re habitus, 28/11/96:
    |Alan says, "Questio from audience - describes community as habitus - rules
    |we follow without realizing we follow rules
    |"Habit forming things we specify without consciously following
    |them - golfswing [!] as an example , "feel for the game" - perhaps cyb has a
    |strong habitus - strong feeling, subliminallly what's going on, common
    |language -"
    |
    |my question--asked on cybermind:
    |
    |You say, "habit is memory at the level of the body. if we're striving for
    |a BwO [body without organs], then perhaps we should be moving away
    |from "habitus" . . ."

    {Of} course, any medium can supply these functions, if we give them time to develop. Emoticons are a meager example of how the felt need for a meta-textual form can be realized. What is interesting to me is the reluctance to engagein _textual_ discussion of what a certain smiley 'means,' or what emotional/ contextual signal is missing, etc. - as if the aquisition of this understanding not only is, but _must be_, automatic. AR42a One might argue that the motive of poetry is to push that boundary; 'How do I love thee' works because we know Shakespeare is not going to itemize all the bits and pieces _literally_.

    Certainly the signals are cultural: what else can culture be?

    {On} the contrary, can't we say that communication occurs only where it is between different cultures? That is, on the same level, all we can do is confirm the signals, like the Masonic handshake... AR42b

    {It} is, but the speakers just dont realize it; they just take flex as given ;-)AR42c

    {It's}called handshaking!

    {Speaking} from long years of living overseas, 'proper' (proprio) is exactly the right word. You must use your own SIC just as confidently as if you were truly unconscious of any question about them. Sorting out where they match or mismatch is a _subject_ of (further) communication, not a precondition. AR42d

    {The} very last thing you can admit is that it is *novel*, therefore unreal, therefore worthless...

    {This} has been, from the beginning of my being online, the big question. 'Effectiveness' seems to require 'action' - _not-speech_ - that is, a meta-linguistic arena. Where all intereaction is 'only' speech (writing), I may say "Yes, I agree; yes, you are effective" - but there is no *ground* for it to mean anything. I may be honest or cynical or manipulative or an agree-bot ;-) and say exactly the same thing with exactly the same assurance that noone can prove differently. What there is, however, is *consistency* of speech, which extends the idea of communication beyond just the hypothesised {(AB)C} asa single event to the {(Apattern, Bpattern)Cpattern} (and which has no end...)AR42e

    {This} one, I'm afraid, we shall never know - unless ignorance (= dumb luck) is the Universal Signal ;-)AR42f

    {Just} now, they are not sufficient. In time, just like Wilson/Crowley's soldiers and hunchbacks, w will have curlies and squiggles and gesticular marks that will serve every purpose.

    {What} I had meant to write yesterday was my concern that +- may not preserve well. In the course of this beautiful dialog, I understand what you say, and can map the shifts from one level to another - but (as you protested some time ago) will a *history* of this conversation work the same way for someone ele, if I make it into a web page? Even when re-reading some of our past messages, I have a hard time following the train of thought...
    Now it occurs to me that the written record of this techo-comm gives us a way to fabricate our +A and -B. AR42g
    From the same initial dialog-point, we can link *both* flexible and rigid responses. Then the web visitor can explore the connections, and make hys own mind up as to what flexibility is (= construct their own version of Signal Identifying Context to qualify and disqualify what each response means). And one characteristic I think will emerge: the ++ links will repeatedly die out, while the flexible +- dynamic goes and goes.
    So who will volunteer to provide the dogmatic, mind-closing dataset (starting at whatever point they like)? (It wouldnt be a fair game if I just make up artificial responses!) KM057i


    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR42 Re KM052 - madness

    {Not} only. I think of this reluctance it is due to a taboo about the definition, time by time, of the context. Who owns the authority of defining the context? that is,:

    What are the signals identifying the relational context? and, after this,:

    What are the signals identifying a particular digital context?KM054a

    {Perhaps,} here we are speaking of two kinds of comunication.

    Of course, "communication" cannot exist without differences. But you can speak differences as long as you wish, and your listener can listen to you the same long, even formally agreeing, without any substantial communication had been performed. KM054

    _________________________________

    {Wanting} to be surer of my English, I remark that IMO flexibility and openmindedness, *when they work*, make communication freer from the tyranny of SIC and Traditional Ed. KM054c

    ___________________________________

    {Usually,} things run likely in the way you say. Unfortunately for me, this way was not "my case"

    First, I had to cope with my stammering. Then, I was not able to use My own SIC just as confidently as if I were truly unconscious! I was very conscious that, if I had failed the SIC - as it always happened - I missed the connection with my interlocutors. I had no time to try and err, and I had no interlocutor able to hold what you call " a _subject_ of (further) communication," (until now.. @;-)

    (Anyway, I survived, doing to some extent what you say above) Second, my job as neuropsychiatrist led me to consider the madness as the result of an inverted and unflexible realization of some SIC, by the mad one.

    Quoting myself (I would like to do it by singing, like the Old Papuasian - in your next E.mail - but I am not able) ( ;-))

    "    In the distant year '70, when I worked as a specialist in mental diseases,
    "  I asked myself if the troubles of my patients emarginated by madness were
    "  to some extent the logical consequence of their illogical and stereotyped
    "  attitude of rigid psychodependence on collective consent, which they seem
    "  to demand by their unusual behaviour, incompatible with the collective
    "  expectations, thus deviant. 

    " I said to myself that everybody could consider the possibility of putting " into action a behaviour as different, unusual in the social environment to " which in this way he proposes himself, without being considered therefore a " deviant. KM054dOn the contrary, the individual's creativity seems to base itself on " an analogous process: the "creative" fancies a new way to present himself, or " to present a behaviour of his, to the environment: then he tries it, and he " makes it become a proposal which will move, if it will obtain people's " consent, the social context onto newer and more advanced positions. It is " obvious that if the "creative" doesn't obtain the people's consent to his " proposal, he will abandon it at once to go on another more advantageous. " The deviant fated to become emarginated would indeed be a "creative" " who shows his "new" way of behaving, but then he skips the successive " passage of trial and verification, starting definitely to demand the consent of " the group into which he has put his unusual behaviour. KM054e Thus, in the very " remote possibility that such a behaviour can be successful, he fossilizes " himself in quite a sterile waiting for consent, in which more and more rarely " he gives voice to his demand so as not to endure the consequent tension. " So he retires progressively into a world of emargination, where the consent " is only his own, without ever considering the practical possibility of " changing his behaviour and of trying a different course, if possible more " rewarding, to take his part in society.

    " The social emargination of the deviant and the relative tension would then " be the logical and quite predictable result of his too strong bind - and not " _double_ only, as Gregory Bateson said (sub. 3.33) - of a rigid dependence " on consent of his group authority. His tragedy is therefore that of a too rigid " psychodependent personality, neither autonomous nor flexible. "

    Of course, "rigid dependence on consent of his group authority" means "rigid dependence on his group's SIC"
    Of course the same, if the above mechanism works on a single individual, this becomes a mad; if it works on a group, or a people, it is called "traditional Ed" and it forbids true communication between that people and other - more or less civilized -ones.

    {I} think of myself, I dont own the mindframe able to match this "consistency" of speech. My deadline is that communication cannot be extended to any "(Apattern having no communication with another pattern)", if I have understood well your above concern. KM054f I can understand only that the map of communication parallels the brain frame, where A is the conservative nervous circuits, B is the logical simulating circuits, and C is the resulting output. But this consideration leads me to analyze the context which the brainframe begins to build itself in, that is, once again, the real {(+A-B)->C} *family* pattern.

    My concern is: "How could I understand, if I had not been trained to the +A-B communication, what you are now saying (mailing) to me?"KM054g
    (Perhaps, you understand well what I am saying to you, that is, your container can contain mine and mine then, of course, cannot contain yours.
    Possibly, this is my mistake. I am not able to consider "flexibly" the flexibility, and instead you can.)

    {I} will study more. KM054g

    {Wait} a bit.
    I think that the first step could be the export the headlines of our concern into a context a bit larger than ours. For instance, to both C[yber]M[ind] and Philcomm (IMHO, as I dont know well this ground). KM054g Anyway - I once said a "manifesto" - wanting to mean, with this term, a short and handy (one-sheet) text containing:
    - the background, ie., the communication problem we have recognized.
    KM054i
    - the hypothetized solution - ie., the implementation of mental flexibility, as it is the basis of every DIY, - that is the "Dialectical Education" KM054j
    - the target, that is, parents everywhere there are any (and not just the academic world, most of all the post-modernist one ;-))- deliver actually this matter: the LFS Pilot Project of the "Taglio di Po" Town Councillorship, and Rossin's Web-page (the existing one)
    - And, finally, the meta-problem: "how all this can be improved?" KM054k

    Btw, I wanted Rob (the mripermedia owner) to add our paper of Kos and some about the official text of the "Taglio di Po Project" to the Web-page. Next week it "should" be ready.

    ===============

    amp;#62; Smythe also writes:
    > i too want to extend an invitation to folks at this...
    > next week. you can log on as a "ghost" character . . . hope to see you
    > there some time.

    Unfortunately, the MOO is forbidden to me. Often I must spend a whole night to send *only one* mail. Daytime, I dont try anymore. And, about " and an idea from Jerry", this is one of the things which make me feel I should study more...


    Return to Contents
    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR43 Re: KM053 + Aboriginal wisdom and economics fwd (limping)

    > THE ONE-THOUSAND-YEAR-OLD MAN
    > [from Stan Steiner, _The Vanishing White Man_, Harper and Row,
    > 1976.]

    Kerry,
    once, (perhaps 3 years ago) I sent to a friend the "Limping Roe-buck's letter" to be published on a Magazine. (maybe I misquote the name of the Old Indian Chief writing to "the Great White Head who lives in Washington"). You surely know it very well.

    Well, this friend asked me to add a comment to that piece. I did it, like a letter to answer that of the Indian..- the appended:

    ----------- appended letter starts here --------------------

    Dear Limping Roe-buck

    I am rereading once again your letter: I found it a score of years ago on "CTG Veneto" and now F. Marchioro wants me to comment it for UCT. And now like that time, your words make me feel sad, fill me with emotion and pain. Your words, then, touch particularly the heart today, with this ecological crisis which all of us are living in - like blind and unconscious ones.

    I dont know, perhaps my soul is that of a renegade, but I always felt a great liking for you Indian people, since the pictures I saw many years ago.

    I always retained I understood your respect, your great love for Nature and Earth. I would have liked to be an Indian people I myself, truly I dond succeed in recognizing myself amid these selfish and stupid crowd who spit into the dish where they ate and dirty into the bed where they sleep, who dont take into account the world they will leave to their children. We just disgust, and you are right, Limping Roe-buck: first we stole your earth, and then we are destroying it unconsciously. Your words have become topical today more than ever, and batter me like an obsession: " All things are related... nobody will escape the common destiny... our God is the same God and maybe we are brothers, after all... We will see".

    ....Your view of the world is very beautiful and suggesting, Indian Chief. It is also very true and prophetic: the ecological disaster which we have got into confirms it too true to us. Nevertheless, dear friend, there is a false note in what you say, there is a clear contradiction between your words and the way your people have reduced themselves to live in. It will also be true, as you say, that you Indians love and respect the earth like one loves and respects a sister or a mother, but [...]" all. Look at the end you have done: you were staying with bow and arrows, with carrying by horses, with dance for rain, and you have given yourself heads - you are just one of those! - who kept yourselves firmly tied to the rhetoric of old tribal rites, perhaps with the illusion that the world was yours only - but instead there were others too, and their progress knocked yourselves down. Red people, your mistake was that typical of those who lack with fancy, who are uncapable of experimenting and taking new hypotheses into account. Yours has been a real adaptive crisis, which you were uncapable of overcoming because of your lack in flexibility. Your people stiffed in a lot of stereotypes, without knowing how to look at the rules of Nature and Science, without understanding quite thoroughly the meaning of just your words: "all things are truly related together". KM054m

    How had all this been able to happen? Your chiefs - you yourself - must surely have had your own responsabilities, if you had not been able to lead your people on positions of a greater adaptive flexibility.

    Surely, you must have set yourselves to work keeping your people onto that steadiness which is given by the firm belief that Truth is always granted by others - the chiefs: it is a prerogative of their own, and therefore it must not be touched, things must stay as they were.

    Surely, when your time has occourred, you the same must have done some demagogy, instead of leading your people towards that mind's flexibility which is allowed by autonomy of thoughts and freedom of speech, and in that way you were not jet capable of finding a new adaptation balance, as soon as you found yourselves forced to undergo to a reality that was not yours, anymore: and you ended to search for burying it in the alcohol, what a great sadness. KM054p So now, re-reading your letter, beyond my emotion for your bitter fate, I am realizing that you made no proposal to increase the adaptive flexibility in your people. Plainly, you did not possess such a concept, and so - now - your words sound like an heart-broken and wise appeal to better feelings, almost as if, for your people, you were asking for pity only. I am sorry I must say it to you, but today your letter sounds like having gained the smack of a demagogical issue.

    You could have done better, Indian Chief. You could have said to us, the humans of the western culture, than scientifical data and truths are very useful things undoubtedly, but Woe betide people - if they were too trustful with those who tell they themselves lead people in the name of a truth which they only can control! JO02a The risk of coming at the same end of your people will be great, if people had kept firmly tied to that truth and to those who possess it, if people werent able to change it, thus being not able to perceive whether real truth was that they told us or not, whether in the meantime the common environment had moved towards new adaptive exigences or not.

    Who knows, what prairies your soul is riding now, Limping Roe-buck.
    Who knows, whether you were able to put to profit for us your dreadful experience, by saying to our chiefs that, if they truly want to save ourselves from an horrible future, if they truly want to increase the adaptive flexibility in people, first of all they must teach us of to get rid of this demagogic hopeless asking for depending rigidly on others' truth - even if it is clothed with *green*. Only then perhaps, we will be true brothers, after all.
    We will see. ________________ appended letter end here.

    Note:
    *green* is the colour-symbol of the so-called "ambientalist" political party, here in Italy, very near to the magazine I sent this comment to. Of course, they didnt publish it...

    I remember, with this writing I wanted consciously to realize an +A-B relation, where the +A was the speech of the Indian Chief.

    But now I realize I am not able to put out any -B to the speech of the Old Papuasian. He sounds right... but he applies to flexibility. KM054p

    Antonio


    [JO02] Re: AR43 Re: KM053 + Aboriginal wisdom

    {Antonio,}

    I was raised in Arizona where the Hopi and their problems have been discussed for many years. I don't completely understand the Hopi culture, but I know enough to see some of their problems. They live on a small patch of land inside the Navajo nation. The Navajo indians are more aggressive in adopting Western ways and are probably the biggest problem for the Hopi. The Navajo have population and resource problems due to their growth and have encroached on the Hopi. The Navajo have started developing their resources and allowed strip mining.

    Knowing about the Hopi and then looking at your words leaves me puzzled. I can not see what you are asking the Hopi to do. For a thousand years they have been peaceful and survived. Even today some think the Navajo who surround them are destroying themselves. Should the Hopi try to be like the Navajo? For hundreds of years the Hopi have said the same things about the future and tried to change slowly while holding their culture together. What would you have them do? They live in an isolated semi-desert region and do not bother anyone. It is us who bother them.

    Possibly if we understood the Hopi and their history we would be able to tell them what is best. But, how can we tell them to do better without first knowing them? Maybe it is us who should do better and the Hopi may have some of the answers. We can provide the Hopi with technology and knowledge, but those things have not helped very much so far. We are the problem.


    KM054 Re: AR42 RD Laing? + AR43 hopping

    Antonio,
    {Isnt} this the epitome of the entire affair? Because there is no Signal for changing levels, the ++ person waits for an Authority to _say_ that the level is now changed; AR44a the +- mind tries to find a pattern in the existing repertory of signals that would indicate that level-changing has been going on implicitly. AR44b If there is such, then either the person makes the case, and reluctantly becomes the authority - or the 'self-promotion' is thought anti-democratic, and she remains silent. AR44c If there is not such, then the discussion of identification is likely to be found 'off-topic' (transgressive) and the interested parties start a new group...... AR44d

    {I} would say, the two kinds are (i) communication of the _intended_ meaning, and (ii) comm of some unintended meaning - a new level of understading, typically 'agreeing to disagree'ment, or 'confidential' advice (if one is ++) that the other's signals are Wrong.

    {May} we say 'difficulty' instead of 'tyranny? SIC is always changing, by the cumulative effects of the struggle to keep track. Tryanny arises from a ++ effort to _concretize_ the signals (as by making a law).

    If both parties are flexible, learning (=understanding) the signals lets them alter them (as a game, or as the boundary marking of a *new group*); another way to say this is that Flexible communication takes place alwyas on (at least) two levels. The 'mundane' or textual meaning can be almost ignored, if the 'esoteric' or syntactical (changes in) SIC are acceptable as identifying evidence of _under_standing. AR44e
    __________________________________

    {You} are looking at the patterning of behavior. Yes, everybody could, once or twice, but over the longer term she is expected to learn to 'control herself.' Standards may vary as to how much variation is tolerable - how long one has to learn (certainly, totalitarian rigidity is the extreme case) butmal-adjustment must be persistent over time.

    {I} was once in a kind of 'dance-circle' with friends. The steps were individualistic, but the overall motion always seemed to be clockwise. I thought this arbitrariness should be compensated - after all, dont my steps have equal validity? - and tried to dance contrarily, to change the whole pattern to go the other way.
    Ha!

    {I} meant, over time, a statement (A) such as "I agree with you" will be found to fit together with other statements, made to you in other circumstances, until you gradually form an *image* or model of me. If this Apattern hangs together, you come to believe me; if it is full of variation and contradiction and 'noise,' then you reserve your trust. AR44f

    The universe is the only 100% consistent entity; all our maps of reality fail in some degree (otherwise they would be the reality itself). Being human, we don't expect more than about 90% of one another ;-) to call it consistency ;-)AR44g

    {Really,} {understanding} is finally a proof of the existence of God ;-) There is no _logical_ way you can understand me, whether you are +- or ^ &. AR44h OTOH, being human is to have a lot (90% perhaps...) in common, so it is not a complete miracle; 'effective' comm is only one percent or so above the average. AR44i

    {The} usual mode of fabrication is to sort through a great pile of random inputs and pick out those responses which seem _to oneself_ to have the desired property....

    {I} want to include an instance of the problem, so that others may recognize.

    {I} visualize a hyper-linked exploration

    {Being} meta, it won't even have to be stated; the SIC of the Net is above all, feedback. AR44j

    =========

    {Might} {it} be that there is a certain rate of change which distinguishes flexibility and rigidity? Such a 'stiffness factor' would take account of the Chief's natural environment (which is about as slow as it gets) and the White Heads' techno- enhanced hustle and bustle.Even a flexible Indian would have looked rigid to the floppy sloppy invaders (who couldnt remember what they had said the next day unless they wrote it down (and disbelieved it even then)).

    But we might have sent out missionaries to say
    "Your world is about to collapse. Here is the recipe for your survival: '1) Poison the air by burning lots of trees and grass, 2) Eliminate a few species from the picture, 3) Take as much as you can of what you have always had and treat it as if it is scarce: lock it up, _convert_ it to _negotiable__instruments_, _invest_ in a futuree you cannot believe in.' Yes, this sounds desperate, but be assured that even your best efforts to accomplish these things will not be enough to actually destroy your way of life; they will howver give you antibodies so that the even more massive disruptions which are about to occur will be bearable. Good luck.' AR44k


    KM055 crossing cultures

    > ['A city with two tales', a story in a [Rhodes S.A. student paper - sorry I lost the URL]

    [...] Here comes a youth, perhaps of my age. He utters something to me. I dont understand even a word of what he is saying. What can I do? What, I can fight fire with fire. I mumble [1] nonsense phrases in my language, smiling, or pretending. He smiles too, and "He was probably greeting me", I presume, stepping forward.

    Another fellow. He walks faster and is in high mood. He stops and talks me. The old story. Banna! I apply the strategy. It does not work. He seriously looks at me. "Im sorry, I dont understand Xhosa", I confess. "May you speak?" Before he responds, I realise that he is asking for the time. "Oh,it might be four, or around there" I guess [2], after glancing at the sun. He passes and run. I move on.

    ...A human queue heading to a square building.

    I look carefully and then walk towards it - quickly and happily. Im at a soup kitchen. "Its true fortune favours fools" I say to myself, struggling to hold back appetite saliva. I look around, see a plastic milk container and then pick it up. Its not clean. I murmur [3] words that served me well in my cattle herding days, then join the queue.

    Four people to go. Three. Two. One - my face down, I hand over the container to the server. She fills it up with soup, puts a slice of bread on the top and gives me. The food safe in my hands, I look at her, ready though to run away should she question [4] my visit and then try to recover the food. Here she is, happily serving. "People who understand humanity", my heart says, or thanks. I walk for a minute or two, sit alone under a tree and eat. Feeling fresher and stronger, I stand up and go.


    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR44 RE: KM054 and [KM0]53 and Jeff (Aboriginal wisdom)

    {Then,} the entire question would become: "Who is who commands?"

    {But} we can suppose "the +- mind" once, when s/he was trained to be such, KM057a was a Child who acknowledged the pattern {(+-) ie., the parents who waited for their C's demand, before exercising the parental authority - by saying, by giving hir the family's goods- ie.: *->C*} Now this one, once grown up as an adult (+- mind), should do just the same which s/he shaw hir (+-) parents were doing when s/he was a child: that is, should wait *now* for hir own C's demand as well as their Parents once waited for hirs KM057b

    {Indeed,} there would be no self-promotion, in a relational context, for the (+-) mind. The promotion of this (+-) mind "to become the authority" would be given by the C's demand.

    {Rather,} there will be no discussion at all...

    {The "tyranny",} IMO, would act to forbid people having a ++ mind to realize that there is the +- possibility too. For others, I think there is difficulty only - increasingly lesser, hopefully. KM057c

    __________________________________

    {Statements?} Maybe. But "trust" is a term i dislike to speak about.
    Rather, I realize You are working together with me for the same aim. KM057c Reciprocally, you should realize I am working together with you for the same aim. The facts count. Buth trust and distrust dont matter if there were facts. O KM057e TOH, whatever else is "distrust", if not "trust" uttered with negative language?KM057f

    Then, your Apattern, (and eventually my Bpattern) are both elements of a same structure. KM057g

    {Well,} then, in communication, if I had delivered one only map, to say, +A, the expected failure will be 9O%. But, if I also deliver another map, to say, -B regarding the first - the potential margin of failure will decrease. KM057h

    {Indeed,} we agreed that the understanding of self is a matter of self-consciousness only. So I need no proof of the existence of God, to be given by understanding you. It would be better, DIY ;-)

    {Very} respectable concern. But, where is C? S/he is our 100% in common.

    {... I} think that the bit has passed. I thought a lot, on my side. Go on sure, on yours...;-) KM057i
    =====================================

    {Kerry,} and Jeff
    I now realize, after having read your replies, that the question of American Indians is too much painful still, for American People. JO03aI must apologize: really, I had not taken this into account, in my former E-mail, as I should have done.

    Well, now, I think here is again a question of SIC. If our conversation had been made orally, very likely Kerry would have stopped it since the beginning, by some strong SIC of his. Or else, I would have been asked for more SIC of mine, so as to define better the context which I have released my "comment" into. I want to try to do it now.

    Actually, the Indian Chief's speech made a great impression on me. I had read it the first time many years ago, then I made several copies, also with a picture of the Red Chief, and I gave it here and there to friends. A copy arrived to a friend at Bozen, a town far from Taglio di Po, and this friend whom I gave te copy to, asked me to send another copy to the "Green" magazine, with a comment of mine, and I did.

    I did it, Jeff, not to suggest some news about how to solve the today's problem of the American Indians. You are perfectly right: plainly, I don't know their real problems of today, nor I am in any social role from which I could be able to do anything useful for them, even if I would like to do it. However, I feel the Indian to be a brother to me; and that time I wanted to keep his speech alive, so as I always keep doing it the best I can, with all the means I have.

    The reason: I cannot accept the idea that the Old Indian Chief's struggle has ended, so I will keep struggling until the end of my teeth, anyway.

    Yes, Kerry, this may sound desperate. But I have children, and I cannot accept the idea of leaving to them a desperate future. Further, I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of deciding that *their future* is nearly hopeless, so as to leave.

    (Ps.: OTOH, Kerry, your "'A city with two tales', a story in a [S African town]", let's hope on..)

    Ultimately, Jeff, why, dont we realize that the {G <-(++) <-C} patterning which we parents apply to our children today is just the same - at least potentially but not even potentially only- but just the same pattern we applied last century to the Red American People? So as always it happened, onto the oppressed people? JO03b Must their sacrifice go uselessly, or must it teach us something, that is, how to respect our C's demand and how to make a (+-) place for it?KM057j


    KM057 re: AR44 Planck

    {(don't} you allow for spontaneous discovery?)AR45a

    {Surely} - I had written, "What is interesting to me is the reluctance to engage in _textual_ discussion of what a certain smiley 'means,'" but I wasn't suggesting that one should bring it up as a topic _ab novo_. AR45b

    {I }think of it in terms of quantum mechanics - a particle in one orbit or energy-state cannot know there are other orbits, and therefore cannot know the _flexibility_ of changing states. AR45c
    ______________

    {Trust,} belief, confidence, rapport all are associated with ongoing 'work,' not any single instance (which might be charisma, if we need a word for it).

    {O,} if there _were_ facts, then all would be hunky-dory! But in c-space, where are they?AR45d

    {The} recent CM thread re Silence is exactly apropos. The _fact_ of continued response has to stand as a kind of trust, if the alternative is... nothing. But even that is no basis for moving to trust the message content, or the sender in another situation such as on another list. AR45e

    {and }whatever manifesto/ webcourse/ procedure comes out of it will be the start of a Cpattern. AR45f

    {And} after a hundred, you'd think someone would jump up and say something, wouldnt you ;-?

    {km} re km052[n]

    AR45g

    OTOH, I can reply to myself as dogmatically as I please. This is the problem with the project report.

    All this dialogic exercise is great, but its not what i _ought_ to be doing. It is no surprise, then, that 'collegiality' is valued, and will continueto be valued, international connectivity or no. Can the creative juices flow just because I sit in front of my machine at 9 a.m.? No, because the challenge of converting thought to statement and back again is lacking. Of course, the day is coming when I can argue with an Artificial Intelligent chip - but who will care for _head-written_ prose then? In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree, I submit this silicon, to be judged by a circuit of its peers...

    Now look, the task was to be dogmatic! AR45g
    ===============

    {When} there was a rice famine in India, the West sent thousands of tons of emergency food: surplus wheat was all they had. Many Indians preferred to starve rather than demean themselves to eat such rubbish. Was theirs a sacrifice, and what did we learn? AR45i

    When there is an upheaval in Bosnia - for the current fracas is one of many - many thousands of people die for their right to stand on ancestral property. Is anyone learning? AR45j

    Vietnam? Burma? Falkland Islands? Cuba? Who is oppressed, if not those who cannot (under)stand for a principle? Is W J Clinton their leader? AR45k


    From: kowens@teleport.com (jeff owens)

    JO03 Re: AR44 Aboriginal wisdom

    {Yes,} this is both a historical and current problem that is painful. The historical problem carries guilt and the current problem has large amounts of frustration. These factors make it difficult for me to write without feeling.

    {The} language and attitude patterning you mention are probably part of the historical problem, but they do not seem to be significant for todays problems. Today it is the relentless push of development by cities and corporations that is building the power plants to pollute the desert. The development by the Navajo and their expansion has also caused problems. There are many factors which make the problems very difficult to solve. But, telling them to do better is not the answer. Talking about communication and language is not the answer either. Saying it is their problem is also not the answer. If we listen to the Hopi they are saying the problem is built into the culture we live in. It is tied into our models for development.
    We are the problem. We are responsible. It does not matter where we live, the problem is ours. AR45r

    I sometimes think the ecology problems we have today are identical to this Hopi problem. Many people are busy working to stop the air polluting business, or pass a law, or protect a forest, or increase development to feed the hungry, etc. But, their actions do little good in the long view and the problems grow each year. If everyone stayed home and lived peacefully using only local resources most of the problems would go away. This is exactly what the Hopi are doing.

    Of course, the world economic markets would collapse and many people would starve if we stopped development. But, we should be able to find a path which slows development and moves towards a sustainable use of resources. Unfortunately, everyone wants to believe the problems are anywhere but within themselves. Looking around I see a whole world pointing fingers at each other and saying there is the problem. KM058a AR45n



    KM058 Re JO03

    {But,} even realizing this, what if we are not constitutionally capable of seeing ourselves? Surely there is some ingenious instrument humanity can cook up to compensate for the lack of direct vision? Indeed (since it is hardly a new _insight_), perhaps has already got one, called education?

    With such a tool, it is possible to come to see that one cannot see... whether that's the way we've been using it - thats the question. JO04a


    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR45 Re: Jeff(03) and KM057 (+ 58) - Balance

    {Since} Kerry and I began this correspondence/research, we searched for how to establish general rules towards the changement, starting from a proposal of mine: that flexibility in mind is the first, the main, the introductory, the mandatory condition we must provide before facing every other problem.

    And our "Talking about communication and language" was aimed to set a line able to educate the youth to get a greater *Do It Yourself* flexibility.

    Of course, the problem we are facing is the general problem of too much aggressiveness towards maximization, too much mental rigidity and faithfullness, too much incapability of giving our children, our neighbours, an open ground in which *they* can freely choose. To use only a word, this general problem is *too less flexibility*.

    Of course, as you said above, " ...the problem is built into the culture we live in. It is tied into our models for development. We are the problem. We are responsible. It does not matter where we live, the problem is ours."

    Equally, wanting to allow mental flexibility to others, we must the same face and solve the problem of our own flexibility first of all. The {(+-)->C} way of speaking together, so as to show to the parents how eventually to adopt the same way in their family communication pattern, requests more flexibility in both speakers.

    {But} both Kerry and I spoke about two ends of a continue spectrum. Now let us call these ends: 1) "minimization" and 2) "maximization". Well, we identified two kinds of (educative) communication:
    1) the {(+A-B)- >C} one, and
    2) the {(+A+B) <-C} one.

    Now, wanting to say it in other words and hoping Kerry will agree, our working hypothesis is that the {(+A-B)- >C} speaking way leads to that end of our spectrum we've called "minimization", and that the {(+A+B <-C} speaking way leads to that end of our spectrum we've called "maximization". KM059c

    And, what we're going to hypothize, is not the compulsion of all people onto one end of the spectrum, say "minimization". It is the inversion of the actual trend only. Thus, we are speaking for the 2) end of the spectrum, *not* just for yours (I would say). KM059a

    {Of} course, who lives in the 1) end, does not need of these words. KM059b But what must we say to those surrounding hir? to the invaders? Must we show the latter that we have solved the problem inside, will this be enough without exporting the solution outside? That is, in the virtual reality, the only practicable path without invading the others' house, without forcing any one? Thorough *freedom of communication*?

    But, if you want to export the {(+A-B)- >C} trend into the real world too, we have another path, according with democracy laws. It is the LFS Project, which can be freely drawn out from the Web-site http://www.mripermedia.com/Rossin/

    and freely proposed to the countryside social Authority, all over the world.
    Don't you agree? Could it be useful, as a starting point?

    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {(Quite} not: "spontaneous" discoveries cannot be allowed by any one...;-))

    {Don't} you allow me for spontaneous... suggestions?;-(

    {I} think of all that in terms of entropy. The system has its own. But let's put into it a bit of {(+A-B)->C} negative also language, ie., neg-entropy... KM059c

    ______________

    {Everywhere.} Why, isnt c-space a map? Why, arent there c-facts? KM059d

    {Of course.} Such bases should be found just there, that is, "in another situation such as on another list". But now, why were you disbalanced? That is: have you *equally* said to "the recent CM thread re Silence" that negative language is "exactly apropos"? KM059e

    {Again,} for balance aims: *Actually* parents know the ++ pattern only. Do you want to show them the +- too? (into the c-space, of course..)

    {I} {dont} agree. IMO, dogma is +A+A, or -B-B (or else *A only* as well as *B only*. Neither the +A-B nor the +B-A can form any dogmatic context.

    That is, if one looks to -B only as if it were a dogmatic speech, this means that there is a lack of systematic view. Indeed, every language action, every speech is dogmatic in itself. Thus the resulting system is disbalanced, if it contains only (+) and (-) speeches, but heaped up together without any logical synthesis, that is our ( - >C).

    Again, I think of all thist in terms of entropy. The system has its own, which sounds too much high , by now, and seems to grow furtherly. Anyway we want to change Then, let's put into that system a bit of negative also language, let's show both the (A) and the (B) speakers the {(+A-B)- >C} logical connection: it will be neg-entropy.

    Of course, also each of the above "putting into" and "showing both" are both a piece of language. But *that* cannot be a "dogmatic speech", because it would not increase the dogmaticity of the whole system of language, rather the contrary.
    ===============

    {Theirs} was a (free) chose, more than a sacrifice: neither another person nor another people led them to death, sacrificed them. KM059h I think their own religion led them to that sacrifice: perhaps the wheat had been touched by the lowest caste. I remember that time, as the Authorities at Padova, where I lived in, set a big money-box in front of the University-door, about 35 years ago. I gave nothing, as I had very little money. But for a moment, that time, I thought I should have put into the box this message: "Try to eat your cows...".

    (I did nothing the same, also because I didnt knew the Indian language...)

    Anyway, giving food as a care is often worse than the same sickness. For instance, in some South-African parks there are sign-boards everywhere forbidding to give food to the baboons, otherwise they immediately forgive their DIY feeding culture and get compelled to pester increasingly the visitors for having more food.

    {What} it means, they die? Let me deep the analysis:

    In Bosnia many thousands of people *killed* for their right to stand on ancestral property, and many thousands *were killed* for the same right, *in an horribly reciprocal, reversing way*.

    Let's call the ones (A) and the others (B) and both lived nearby - under the authority of a leader, Tito. After Tito's death, both A and B found another authority: their own for each side. The A authority said (dogmatically) to the A people: "A only is right, B is wrong, they must be fought.. (cleaned). The B authority said (the same dogmatically) to the B people: "B only is right, A is wrong, they must be fought.. (cleaned)

    That is: both were uncapable of accepting the (AB) connection. The logical result: " many thousands of people die for their right.." What have they learnt? What have all of us to learn? Let me tell it to you: KM059h

    When the Peace-Forces stopped their ethnic cleaning, by occupying that country, they found a "like Hiroshima" landscape. No house was still up.

    Searching for a new peaceful order, they started to supply (humanitarian helps, safety and) social connections, first of all the phone-lines. Of course, they made a survey about the content of each phone-message from both sides. .

    The contents they more often listened to, both from the A to the B people and from the B to the A people, were : "Very soon I will get home back again... Then you will see... I will do to your mother, your sister and your daughter the same you did to mine..."

    {Yes,} Kerry, and the Ruanda Burundi too. I wonder, that the scientists of the World Bank, as the "EducTech" program, believe to raise the cultural standard of some people, like Tutsi and Hutu, if both they (both scientist and the developing people) keep ignoring the {(AB)C} basis of communication, and give them western techology *without the needed negentropic information* (the {(AB)C}, maybe, but we can discuss it further, eventually!). They (our scientists) didnt understand that Tutsi and Hutu will - each one - use the western technology to empower one's own side only, against the other. Our scientists dont understand yet that, with all our tech we give them, Hutu and Tutsi will reach (as time will pass, if they will be very lucky) even the civilization degree - let's say - of the today's Bosnian peoples... Plainly their (our) fault is due to a lack in systemic wisdom.

    "Every lack in systemic wisdom is always punished", said G.Bateson a few decades ago. Well now, who is who will pay the bill? KM059i

    One said very long ago: "The faults by the fathers will fall down over the children."
    Children like "C", perhaps, Kerry?
    Or else, "C" like the Hopi when their turn comes, Jeff?


    From: kowens@teleport.com (jeff owens)

    Re: KM058 Re: [JO03] re AR44

    {Yes,} it must be true that we can not see ourselves very clearly. That would explain a lot of the chaos and confusion in history. And assuming that a tool (education) exists which allows us to see ourself is appealing. I'll even agree that communication is an essential ingredient. But, looking at history I see thousands of attempts to "see ourselves" using models, ideas, science, religion, and other creations. All of these things increase the complexity of what we are trying to see and it is difficult to say that we will ever see a complete picture. Possibly we are looking for the wrong answers. KM060b The chaos we create will never allow us to see clearly, and instead we should be asking other questions. For example: Is it possible to manage the creation of chaos? Can we individually influence chaos in a beneficial way? KM060c


    KM059 re: AR45 Balance carried forward

    {When} A wrote:
    > You could have done better, Indian Chief. You could have said to
    > us, the humans of the western culture, than scientifical data and truths
    > are very useful things undoubtedly, but Woe betide people - if they were
    > too trustful with those who tell they themselves lead people in the name
    > of a truth which they only can control!
    >
    he wasn't blaming the victim; he was pointing out _how_ to do better (by some lights) than simply saying 'our time has come.' I agree, it sounds as if A is dismayed that the chief has apparently been put in the position of telling his people what to do - but everyone knows (think of all those spagetti Westerns ;-!) that a Chief is only a Speaker, not a Commander. In some sense, A's response is commiserating with the chief - what can one do if the people have come to believe their time has come?Can he, any more than A himself, say 'It's your fault, here is what you _must_ do'? That would be the 'inversion of the trend' towards flexibility.

    {Havent} you switched your 1) and 2)?
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {Are} {these} two paras working on the same image? Are we trying to maximize negentropy?
    ______________

    {The} c-fact is, such and such is said. It does not transform to the fact, such and such is true.

    {Im} having a hard time staying active on the list - tho see my latest to Fractal for an echo of thoughts first expressed here.

    {I} think it may be necessary - it would be interesting to try, at any rate.

    {I}was talking to myself :-)

    {They} {were,} and are, *prepared* to die for a principle. Who succeeds in killing whom is not the issue. AR46e Are the Peace-Forces in any better position than the Indian Chief, or the wheat donors, when they themselves (if they are like the rest of us modern, civilized, people) cannot understand what it means, to have a principle worth dying for? Can anyone say to another, _Your_ time is not up? Get up, get a job, eat unclean wheat, sell your mother? AR46f

    {I} think flexibility on this scale looks like non-involvement: it is fear of death which drives the ++ rationale. _We_ must learn to keep our Western, modern hands to ourselves, and let a culture which chooses to die, die with dignity. AR46g Of course, this culture too will die - but it's a bit hard to visualize it's being a dignified passage, isn't it? The whole earth will pay the bill before we let go. AR46h

    UpTH="32" HEIGHT="32">Return to Contents


    KM060 re JO04 Re: KM058 GIGO

    {Do} I see a Freudian slip here? 'Allows us to see ourself' conceals the fact, that while _one_ cannot see oneself, _we_ can see ourselves, collectively. Your 'complexity,' is then the result of trying to reapply this general model to the individual scale, which of course is never legal in statistical terms (does the average person really have 2.4 children?), so various and sundry 'correction factors' are cooked up to 'dis-aggregate' the picture, like Ptolomaic epicycles to correct the obvious non-circularity of planetary orbits. JO05a

    {No} organism has never needed a complete picture that I know of. but a language which is constrained to point at things when talking about relationships is easily misconstrued (esp in written form). Most folks who are asking the 'wrong question' are victims of literacy, trying to take (or make) lang as an *accurate* (i.e. rational) model of the world.

    Ask any illiterate, visit any preliterate culture - everybody knows lang is _poetic_ ('creative').

    {Now} you're talking! @:D


    From: Antonio Rossin <rossin@mbox.vol.it >

    AR46 Re KM059 Balance coming back

    {I} think here is not a correspondence of logical levels between A and you.
    When I wrote that letter, I wrote to a magazine near the "Green" Italian political party. Now, they speak about pollution, defence of earth, ecology and so on. But IMO they dont speak about their (+B+B) position, so they hold their followers on a psychodependent position as regards their "green" BB truth. When they asked me for the copy of the original letter of the Indian Chief, I supposed they would have emphazised *with it* their domain of the "green truth" over their followers. Thus, as they also asked me for any comment of mine, I tried to criticize *with my answer to the Indian Chief* the "green truth", and not really the Indian Chief who wrote his letter about 15O years ago, and to whom I want to *ideally* repeat these words:KM1002a
    " Who knows, what prairies your soul is riding now, Limping Roe-buck.
    " Who knows, whether you were able to put to profit for us your dreadful
    " experience, by saying to our chiefs that, if they truly want to save
    " ourselves from an horrible future, if they truly want to increase the
    " adaptive flexibility in people, first of all they must teach us of to
    " get rid of this demagogic hopeless asking for depending rigidly on
    " others' truth - even if it is clothed with *green*. Only then perhaps,
    " we will be true brothers, after all.
    " We will see. "

    Within these words, I think my aim was clear. KM1002a Rather than criticizing the Indian Chief (to whom I address all my feeling and respect, more than to an elder brother) I sought after his help to say to the "green" chiefs *here*, in my country, what I wanted to say.

    That is, Kerry, wanting to "translate" what you quote in your post:

    > You could do better, (Indian Chief) *Green Chiefs*. You could (have said)
    > *say* to us, the humans of the western culture, than scientifical data and
    > truths are very useful things undoubtedly, but Woe betide people - if they
    > were too trustful with those *like yourselves!* who tell they themselves
    > lead people in the name of a *+B+B* truth which (they only can) *just
    > You want to* control!
    ________________________________

    {Really,} did I sound such? Formally maybe. But substantially I dont think so. I believe I never switched my concern, that is always the same: {(+-)- >C}.

    Btw, last month a television team came here into the Delta of the Po river, and made an enquiry about the future National Park that EC and the Italian Government decided to state. Here, all the inhabitants disagree with the Park option of their territory. As the formal reason they oppose to the encumbrances the park would compel. This is not true, because susteinings and turism will overcome the income of traditional agriculture. The substantial, hidden reason is that local shooters dont want to give up the hunt, and here in the Po river delta shooters are in every farm and they are those who claim more alaud.

    Well, the TV team came to me (as the physician, I am a little authority here) and asked: "We know, all the inhabitants are against the park. The why?"

    My answer was: " the reason is that they have been trained more to "the comitia" than to debates...

    (I now realize the italian term "comizio" doesnt exist in my English dictionary. KM1002b" Let me explain that a "comizio" occours when there is an assembly, and the speaker is one only (that is, our AA or BB option) - whilst a debate is the same assembly, but with two or more speakers discussing together inside, that is our (+A-B) option.)KM1002c"

    Well, my substantial concern was: "they cannot judge freely, because they were trained within the (+A+A) pattern, from their first age..." But I was not able to say this formally.

    All this, Kerry, just to say to you:
    Substantially, I want to suggest that the {(+A-B)- >C} first family communication pattern is the more suitable to form openmindedness (flexibility) in people, and that this condition (mind's flexibility) is introductory and mandatory for the solution of every problem. Of course, *formally* I can express this concern badly. But I can be forgiven, ultimately I am not an academist and formality is not my target. There are those who can do it better. Of course, *technically* I can express this concern badly the same. But I can be also forgiven; my English language is not so fluent and my computering skill is not the best. Anyway, there will be those who can do it better.

    Of course, Kerry, as you said not so long ago, "there is who can and who cannot..." I agree.

    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {Nooot,} Kerry.

    The actual context is entropic only, because there is only the (++) information.
    Let's admit that the working way of the context is "maximizing". Therefore, the context will maximize "entropy" only. Thus, the context is disbalanced.
    But, if into the context there is inserted the (+-) information too - that is, negentropy - the final result will be a *balance* between both entropy and negentropy, and quite not the maximization of one only end of our spectrum.
    ______________

    {I} the same ;-)
    ______________________________________

    {I} disagree - but I am looking at the other half of the glass, now. They were, and are, *prepared* to kill for a principle. Nobody goes to the battle wanting to die: they wanted to kill (and rape, and make ethnical cleaning, as they did *from both sides*). KM1002d

    {This} is a good point.
    Well now, mine wants to be no rhetorical answer. Mine is a proposal only : that is, more flexibility in minds could help both ones and others... and, if they want (and if our academicists will agree, of course) to get more DIY flexibility, they must start from the family framework.

    {Yes,} of course. But this is not my topic.

    Let a culture ("culture" like *C*!) die how they chose. I agree with them and with you.
    But - and just this is my topic - when any C ("C" like culture, again) comes to you and asks for your help, *what* will your answer be? The (+A+A)? or the (-B-B)? That is, let things be as they are? Or the (+A-B)?

    (But if you prefer to be silent... no comment.) KM1002e

    {Try} and err, this is the way. Because...

    . . .because - in a world that changes more and more quickly it is not important to start the journey from the right step, from the positive side more than from the negative side of words. The best way is to be flexible on the road.

    (quoted from http://www.mripermedia.com/Rossin/>)

    Ps. Kerry and Jeff,
    May we have a shared definition of the term "chaos" you used in your last conversation?
    In the meanwhile, I try to give mine:
    "chaos is a context - even simplest - if read without the proper reading-key"
    KM1002f



    KM1002 re JM03 + AR46 wisdom

    Jon:

    > (not sure who is being quoted)

    It was John Croft <JOCR@dct.wa.gov.au > on FW <futurework@csf.colorado.edu >

    > > The secret of real development, this villager said, was to build a
    > > bridge of a kind never seen before, a bridge with a gate at both ends,
    >...
    > to me the problem is deciding what is stupid and what is not, because we still
    > judge stupiditites within a particular framework. thus i might look at Anggal
    > Heneng culture and decide that some aspects of that culture where stupid or
    > distasteful to me, and yet that culture might not work without them-

    Yes, it's not an open-and-closed issue ;-) but the beauty of the image for me is not in the gates, but the bridge - AR47a a new space in which members of both 'other sides' learn together, become a 'development community' in integrated fact, and from which they can emerge into their own 'proper' spheres to work on realizing (communicating) the transformations they have collectively chosen. It seems an obvious constructivist concept, but as far as I know, no explicit (pragmatical) implementation has ever been tried.

    @@@@@@@@@@@

    {These} {days,} it is hard to find anyone who is prepared to think of the words independently of the speaker, on account of the 'relevance' and 'politically correct' positions, that everyone is entitled to his point of view. Likewise your editors would have read your response as _your_ words, addressed to LR-B, and it would never have occurred to them that you were talking to them _as if_ you were the Indian. Flexibilty is one thing; obliqueness is another ;-) AR47b

    {There} is the word 'comitas' but it is used only in 'posse comitas' (getting back to the Westerns again ;-) [comitatus]

    {A} committee is also supposed to be in agreement on the issues, but that idea has been long forgotten :-/ AR47c

    {In} many cultures, it is 'sweet and fitting' to die defending one's land. Whether the Bosnian Muslims are specially attached to this idea, I don't know, but I am sure the (Christian) Serbs share it equally - in balance. AR47d

    {I} think, if I find a C who wants to become silent, there is not much point arguing either flxible or rigid ways of acting. I live with such a one (my father)... AR47e

    {Chaos} has no key, chaos has an infinite number of keys. For instance, now we useflexibility; before I would use consistency. (Perhaps the better spelling is Kaos ;-)) AR47f


    From: Antonio Rossin <rossin@mbox.vol.it >

    AR47 re KM1002 reading key

    {And} for me, the perfect symmetry of this structure, the balance between the two ends, sounds the greatest guarantee that they possess the proper means to choose flexibly "what is stupid and what is not".
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {Of} course (if "obliqueness" means speaking to A for being listened by C) I must but explain that my "C", that time, was not "the editors" (ie., I am a simpleton, surely, but not until that point.. ;-)), but the friend who asked me the writing to be given to the editors. I am (flexibly) sure, the message went to his target effectively.

    Btw, I think of this "obliqueness" that it is the only correct way the parents have so as to be able to speak "first" to their children, without setting any authoritative relation of communication. KM062a In this way the C will be really free to share the communication, to put into action and exercise and learn hir "freedom of speech" because there is no authority who compels (conditions) hir *directly*. KM062b
    _____________________________

    {I} must specify: your "committee" is not my "comizio", that is a quite rhetorical speaking aimed at making people agree politically. {I} am in debt to Bosnian Muslims, for I had forgotten them when I treated this topic with you. Actually I was speaking of the war between Serbs and (Bosnian) Croats only, that of Bosnian Muslims is a further, different problem.
    ________________________________

    {In} the {(AB)->C} relationship, (AB) is the producers' level. The relation between the producers can be either (+A+B) in the "always YES" relation, or(+A-B) in the dialectical relation. The producer can also be one only: in this case, (+A+B) is the rigid, authoritative, psychodependent mind frame; (+A-B) is the flexible one. *The arrow -> indicates the direction of the answer*.

    This to say that, for an answer can be there, *there must be an asking for*.

    Well now, the ask is the act which defines the roles. First of all, who asks is C. Consequently, those (or one) who find themselves in the "producing ansvers" level, are (is) our (AB)

    Therefore, does any "would-be" C want to become silent? KM062c But this one is not the real C! because he doesnt ask. Vice versa, in your quoted case, who asks (for your father's ask) is yourself... you are the real C.
    _______________________________

    {Mmmmm.} Here, you want to pull my leg ;-)

    Eventually, I was questioning about your own reading key to read the Kaos, and not about the infinite ones the Kaos might have. KM062d

    For instance, I have only a key to read it, that is, to make the Kaos understandable. That is: {(+A-B)->C}. Try, please, to use this key. (and err..;-))


    From: kowens@teleport.com (jeff owens)

    JO05 Re KM060

    {Yes,} we can see society to some extent, but even that is imperfect. Politics try hard to read people and at the same time influence their vote. In the end they have generalities and trends. Even our view of history changes over time and differs between cultures. AR48a

    I don't know where my comments are leading, maybe into a new structure for society which is behind one of the doors we will open. My saying that creation (models) may be contributing to the problems seems correct, but also flawed. We may be able to break creation into pieces and say this type of creation is beneficial and others are not. We may be able to look at chaos and find ways to live with it. Probably a Buddhist would say you can't control or understand it completely, so go with the flow and make adjustments. So far I have not been able to come up with anything better. KM063a

    Relating all this back to our origin (Antonio's models) says... We have to be careful that our model does not add unnecessary chaos, hide the truth, etc. and that is where my concern is. AR48b Even the act of applying the model to other cultures feels like the wrong path. KM063b AR48c AR48q For years now I have looked at models for individual communication, behavior, society, etc. and they have convinced me that all models are flawed. So maybe we need to look beyond models to new ideas. Of course, we could call these new ideas models, but now we are just in a language trap. What do we call something which we have not found yet?

    Anyway, I could not get motivated to understand the titles on the group email so responded individually. This must be JO(5) I guess. KM063e


    KM062 re: AR47 + KM1002

    {I} think it is not so simple. As A speaks to B, and B speaks to A, certainly they must be aware and take account of C - but they must remain *authentic* to one another, really A and B, not just 'representatives' or actors AR48e - if only because, as Ive said, you never know exactly what or how any dialectical transformation is going to occur, with this C AR48f or any other. That is, each of them is also a C product of earlier dialogic processes, to which they have to remain consistent . AR48g
    If B really does agree with A, its no use pretending to disagree, "for the childs sake." Otherwise, you create a 'backstage' where*as far as A or B knows* C is not present - but the result is a new dialectical tension between 'real' and 'phony' characterizations {+(+A-B)-(+A+B)- >(?)} AR48h Once *manipulation* starts, all you have is loss of faith (on everyones part). Nothing, imho, shows up more clearly in a child's eye than artificiality/ pretense/hypocrisy/ inconsistency/ tension. AR48i

    Now I will ask your question for you ;-) What is the (?) which pretends to be C, above? It is the 'inner child,' I fear, of A and or B, which is asking to have just the kind of flexible parents they never really had... AR48j By trying to *force* their own behavior into the desired mold, they are dictating how _their_ reality should be, and the result is 100%, guaranteed, bogus. AR48k

    - and you have my answer to the question I asked some time ago: it is not going to be easy for ++ parents to fake flexibility. AR48l

    {But} *meaninglessness* may be no better - when C 'tunes out' the entire bogus relationship, how do you rebuild? AR48m
    _____________________________

    {Only} look at all the lurkers on the net - it has always been that about 90% of subscribers remain silent - don't you think they are *hoping* to learn something, to have some question answered - even if the question is, "how can one ask..."? But in this particular case, he has never asked an honest question of anyone in his life, I think. AR48n
    ________________________________

    {I} rely on modeling: I have ideas in order to do things, and do things in order to have ideas. As long as I can keep this connection, Kaos sorts itself out. For instance, when Jeff says, "Today it is the relentless push of development by cities and corporations that is building the power plants to pollute the desert," I see an awful lot of people who are either doing "the job" without learning anything, or who are "designing" without acting on their own "plans." AR48o


    KM063 re JO05

    {Isn't} the problem with making models the state of mind one had to start with? If we expect the _model_ to give us an answer, then of course it will bewrong AR48p- that is, the changes we make will be too much. OTOH, if we (Buddhistically) believe that the model is a way of clarifying the question, then we can act so as to change conditions as little as possible - and even that will likely be too much.

    {The} best defense of the flexibility model is that it is so flexible! Specifically, the further _back_ - into language and cognitive process, the easier (=less chaotic) its application is. Out at the extreme of cultural interpretation, admittedly it's pretty deep and salty water - but the same goes for any other modeling process too, as the last 100 or 200 years shows.

    {That's} an Owens koan :-) - one of those good questions that has no obvious answer. It does rather make the idea of progress look a little funny, doesnt it, when we don't know where we're going? You'd think, rationally we would have a whole larder of names of things we havent found yet - but still we "talk' in cyber'space'... Gee, d'ya suppose *nobody* has ever known exactly what anything was, and therefore, what it should be called? What's the difference between what we havent found yet - and what we have?

    {One} rule, above all: Reality Copes. (Meaning, never let the ostensible form get in the way of the function.)


    From: Antonio Rossin <rossin@mbox.vol.it >

    AR48 Re JO05+ KM062 + KM63 muddling tongues

    {Whatever} thing you (we) say, keep in mind that *just in this moment* all of us are putting our speeches into a relation of communication.
    Well now, do we want to realize what communication is? So as to rationalize to some extent the chaos today's human communication seems to be?
    That is, so as to decrease the Kaos=Entropy level of the system?

    My proposal about this topic (which also can be discussed, of course) is the quoted below:
    ______________ quote starts ______________

    Fig. 1:   Functions  and  Roles of Language  Relations
    
                       objective axis
                                 I
                               GIVING
                                 I
                2                I                 1
                                 I
       (+)                       I                        (-)
          consent                I               criticism
                 ________________Io_______________
                                 I                subjective axis
                                 I
                 3               I                  4
                                 I
                               HAVING
                                 I
    
    The use of the current language acknowledges 4 functions:
    a - to GIVE
    b - to HAVE
    c - Consent ( + ), as relative to that which is already known - or already told - in that context of collective culture;
    d - Criticism ( - ), as relative to the former role of Consent.

    The possible roles of who takes part in a language relation are:
    1 - Use of the language to Give critically; = the -B in the GIVING level
    2 - or to Give consensually; = the +A in the GIVING level
    3 - or to Have consensually; = from +A (and/or +B) in the HAVING level
    4 - or to Have critically. = from (+A-B) in the HAVING level.

    * S/he who speaks can produce either a critical (1) (-B) or a consensual (+B) message (2) as regards which is already spoken-stated (+A) in hir collectivity.
    * S/he (C) who receives the message can be either rigidly dependent (3) {(+A+B <-C} or flexible and capable of choosing critically (4) {(+A-B)- >C}, as regards what s/he receives from the role of who speak (GIVING). * To make criticism and choosing be possible, the role (4) requests the presence at least of two speakers (1 - 2) in the "GIVING" role. KM064a (The O role in the chart has not been considered.... )

    The structure of all language relations, as well as every structure of human communication relations, foresees indeed the roles and the relations that bind these roles, the functions of these roles and of their relation regarding the nature of what is given in the (family) communication relation, as shown in the chart of Figure 1.

    From this chart some considerations must be made at once:

    _________________quote ends ______________________
    {Mine} also.

    {My} above model should be applied everywhere there is communication. Have you communication with other cultures? You cannot get over this model - which is, i recall, the linear {G <-(AB)- >C}.

    {Calling} (defining) it can be a good topic for our +A-B subjective discussion. But, if "something" were a thing your C (C like neighbour) is asking you for, then let yourself call it with the objective name which C gave it. KM064d

    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {I} would like to know, how they could not be "always they themselves" ;-) KM064e

    {But} this reason could justify both (all) the possibilities.

    {Again,} and agreeing with you, now, I would ask (but *rhetorically*!) for being told the how they could get over the feedback they have had. But let it be where it was origined (ie., in a previous communication issue) because it cannot be worked yet, it has gone! and keep working actually the speech (the dialogue, the communication) I and you are running, we are living now, just in this moment, in! The reason? But of course, only *here* you yourself can make a change! and not in the past history of your having been a "C". KM064f

    {Apart} from the fact that a total agreement sounds very exceptional in human communication, now you're missing IMO at least two possibilities.

    1* the "false" disagreement can be done together with Signals Identifying the Context, meaning "what I am saying is false". This possibility allows C to read the real context DIY, and not for the parents' agreement sake!

    2* The agreement between A and B, whenever it occours *verbally* - ie., formally - works *for C* as a SIC identifying a dogmatic consent. KM064g Now, I am asking, is a formal agreement always indispensible, between parents, when they *substantially* agree? As it *always* (moreover in the less civilized countries) happens? So as to give children always a dogmatic context, quite not flexible? If a parent says a "truth", and this truth is not strategically mandatory for the family's survival, wouldnt it be better if the other (agreeing) parent kept silent? KM064h

    (Indeed the other parent had already spoken and the truth-info had already been given: now, why should the other parent's formal consent make the context become dogmatic, so as to forbid C any try and err chance, any DIY learning context, any place for freedom of speech?)

    Of course it shouldnt; but, look at the "families" surrounding us, and see what happens there... KM064i The "No-contradiction Principle" which keeps conditioning by now all (almost) the families al over the world, does not allow the other parent to be silent, but compels hir always to say YES, I AGREE, as well as to give their C an authoritative, dogmatic context. :-(

    {How} would this manipulation be? Is it making the context become dogmatic? IMO nothing should show up up more clearly in a child's eye than artificiality /pretense/hypocrisy/inconsistency/tension of so many useless dogmes... which s/he shall undergo for hir parents' love - or authority - sake.

    {Wait} a bit.
    First of all, if one never had really flexible (+-) parents, one will *never* ask for flexibility. He would not be able to think of this matter at all. KM064j
    Second: C is *conveniently* s/he who origins the ask, and just this ask is, conveniently, the power which settles the ABC roles and the whole structure of communication. Then, is there no C's demand? There is no communication but Kaos of speeches only... (always, two ends of our spectrum). KM064k

    {But} everyone of us is *always* trying to force one's own behavior into the desired mold! And I call this result "subjectivity". Whatever else is it? KM064l

    {I} agree, of course, as usual ;-) But now the real question is:
    "Well, we have decided it is not going to be easy for them. But, can we *decide* anything for them? Beyond their asking for? Who gives us this social power?" The Hopi, perhaps, Jeff? KM064m

    Still, actually, if they had not the needed (+-) information context for being allowed to decide anything DIY, shouldnt ourselves, as the Educators, give them the needed thing? "the needed thing" as the (+A-B) DIY context, I dare say, KM064n *not* as our decision over them - in this case, the decision over them would be "let things go on as they are". (All of us are deciding it, really...)

    {My} "how" is rebuilding after hir asking for, of course, waiting under the tree. Wont s/he come again to me? Well, s/he has become autonomous. Will s/he come again, asking for "meaning"? My likely answer will be:

    "Think of this meaning - possibly - DIY, my dear child.. "

    (Of course, there is always oblique speaking ;-) to say the truth) KM064o
    _____________________________

    {I} think, as said above, its better keeping silent under the tree until they will ask instead of giving any agreement to their Kaos. My firm belief is I cannot answer if there is no C's demand. In the net, I speak once, just to show I am there, and then I wait. Art is long... (and life is short...;-))

    Here, in our little group, I am speaking very much: but the topic we are speaking of is communication! That is, we're discussing about the C's demand first of all. In the net, there is no real C's demand. All of them speak to answer, not to ask. KM064p The real, substantial, objective C' s ask is not taken into account, neither by those who (formally) answer, nor by those who - but rhetorically only - ask, but for consent only. Their is navigating the Kaos see, without any direction. IMHO, the only objective direction is *- >C*.

    So, we knew, as here we are the +A-B reversible roles, our asking either is rhetorical only, because we are discussing only together about how to answer the real C, and not answering C yet (OTOH, my "inner C" deserves an oblique speech only ;-)) KM064q

    {But} I am questioning again,
    "*wherein_the_real_C's_demand_is_,_there*? Are both those who are doing the job and those who are designing it, really listening to the C's real demand?" KM064r

    Of course, if they had not listened to that, the reason looks all of them must have been trained in some ++ or (--) learning context, where the answers had been always run after the authorities' joint consent only, rather that after the C's use and asking for. KM064s

    But again: does your ++ context allow any real C to ask? You know well, Jeff...
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {IMO,} thinking models can never be wrong. Making models become effective is always wrong, *if there is no C' asking for*. Of course, the model makers-givers are A and B, the people is C. AR48p

    {Again,} it is the wrong path, if it were applied on others after the appliers' asking for only. It is vice versa the right path, if it (the same model) were applied after the demand of those who eventually ask for that model to be applied *on themselves*, and not on other bodies, you know well, Jeff. KM064t


    KM064 re: AR48 reprise

    {What} {shall} we call it, on the horizontal axis (between 1 and 2), where 'the average reader' (TAR) would expect 'communication' to be? That is, doesn't 2 _think_ she's communicating with 1, and of course vice versa? (Does this move into another level of the dialectic?) AR49a

    {Is} it sufficient to say stimulus and response, maybe? AR49b

    {I} have been taking your argument to be really, that "if this third person has the lucky chance of associating with a 1 and a 2, then his personality will become flexible."... AR49c

    {What} cannot be said, we must pass over in silence, said Shopenhauer (?). [Wittgenstein 6c27]
    @@@@@@@@@@@@

    {Its} only a matter of whether they remain in the relation which C perceives themto be. Since C _does not see herself_, her presence or absence cannotbe a defining factor of the AB relation; therefore, when that relation changes,there needs be some SIC which can (in time) become apparent to C. AR49d

    {Naturally.} For A and B to relate in regard to C, C's existence cannot be used by them either, as a 'reason' to make a change. There is therefore an obligation to live one's C-moments _responsibly_, so that *here* you are prepared with consistent antecedents. To thine own selves be true... AR49e

    {Anything} is possible, authentically. The only question is, how many different contexts you want to throw your child into 'all at once'; meaning, creating a new one before the preceding one is quite clear.

    A novel does not have to fully develop only one character at a time; there may be a half dozen milling about the first few chapters before the reader learns to recognize them. Likewise the plot consists of more than one theme which only later will be brought together. But a writer does not bring in all the townspeople by name, or a great tangle of altogether random patterns, if s/he expects to have a reader finish the book. AR49f

    Btw, I use the same argument to distinguish education from experience. "School" functions to control and limit the range of circumstances in which the learner's data-integration processes work. (It is _not_ to control what data is available - this is only a modern (ignorant!) interpretation...)

    In other words, as long as you can keep track of your SIC, the more the merrier. (One might even argue that flexibility arises entirely from just such multiplicity, and rigidity is _lack of imagination_... ) But since it is always easier to lose variety (through confusion of SICs) than to create (or recognize, or preserve, or propagate) new ones - in this sense I guess I am saying flex is indeed neg-entropy.

    {I} don't agree it always happens anywhere - as in our quoting, agreement can go without saying- or that anything is indispensible. I would say that on the level of context signals, express agreement _or disagreement_ is going to be more rigidity-oriented than any implicit strategy: (ask Horatio!)

    {Agreed-} the parent who has never said _Didnt I tell you_ or _Ask your Daddy_ doesnt exist.

    {Remember} the continuum... Few families are going to be absolutely consistently ++. All C needs is one experience (But Daddy, didnt you say...?/ Never mind what I said, do it! ) to begin to suspect something. AR49g

    {There} can be our dear parents' _interpretation_ of our demands... AR49h

    {*Always*} is much better than *sometimes*! The hypocritical person's force is turned on and off, according only to their own judgement of what is "appropriate." Thus there is tension between 'performance' and backstage relaxation. AR49i

    {Truly,} I dont think we can decide anything for them. However, we can work to change the context, so that they may finally ask: Where did my confidence go?

    {just} so.

    {Or} to pray to the Higher Model ;-)
    _____________________________

    {Perhaps} this is due to the lack of SIC: everything falls into the lowest category, i.e. opinion.

    {Since our inner C is _in potentio_ to our inner AB, 'speech' is inevitably oblique...

    {For} myself: 'in order to' is '->' so the practical world reflects the inner world. For the others: no, they never heard of listening, much less sitting under a tree ;) AR49j

    {The} authoritarian or administrative pattern is built of _predefined_ roles, as if all questions have already been asked. AR49j (I am also very skeptical that the modern idea of 'lifelong learning' and 'flexible roles' is going to amount to anything different...)
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {By} definition, another culture has differnt SIC, so those who would ask don't know how.

    Therefore the first step is to sit under the trees or on the bridge together, and _together_ learn how to ask questions. ...Of course, experts' time is too valuable for that! AR49k


    UpReturn to Contents
    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR49 re: KM064 serendipity

    {I} think that twin communication between two "peer" roles (eg., two adults) is another thing than communication with educative-formative aims.

    First of all, that communication may exist between two only poles, there must be some difference, that is, the info which passes by communication. Therefore, no "peer" roles in one act of Comm can exist (but as time passes, and the roles can be reversible, a certain kind of peerness could be reached if the relation continued). That is, each act of Comm always foresees both GIVING and an HAVING role, thus the relation is vertical each time. KM065a

    Things change with Ed Comm, for there is the possibility that two "teachers" *agree* about the possibility of giving the learner two disagreeing truths, so as to make hir trained to choose DIY. The most basical of this Comm context is the family, naturally. But also a single teacher can act this context, if s/he works using consciously the ambiguity in speaking (ie., s/he has both +A and -B inside hir brain). KM065b

    Therefore, only in Ed Comm we can have an horizontal relation between two (+A-B) "speakers": because they have nothing to communicate between them, thus they are really "peer". Both of them are putting into the Com context two reciprocally incompatible "subjective" truths (thesis and antithesis); a third person - our C - if s/he consciouslt shares the context, can draw out hir "objective" truth, so comunication occours. KM065c

    Thus: (but I must correct a bit my below state[ment])

    {Here,} you are referring to "Comm between two only roles", of course. (I think here, i would need of having my book completely edited...)

    {Truly,} I must be edited.

    @@@@@@@@@@@@

    {But} the changement at issue would be from the horizontal (dialectic) axis, ie. disagreement, to the vertical (command) axis, ie. agreement. While A and B were in symmetrical, dialectical, "horizontal" relation, they empowered C, because they gave hir the choosing option. When they change, and pass into the executive-command-"vertical" relation, the operative choice has been done and they take the operative power on themselves..

    Now, my question is: have they really respected the horizontal function of language, of Communication, before entering the vertical, command relation? Has C really been able (allowed) to express hir choice? KM065d That is: had the responsible roles been capable of providing the {(+A-B)- >C} context, before going to be executive?

    That is: were all of them educated, *trained* to realize the {(+A-B)- >C} context, since the family framework, since their family communication pattern, so as to perform this task at the best?

    Indeed:

    {Naturally.}
    ______________________________

    {(Btw,} I am not a writer, actually. I think I am only an outliner.)
    ______________________________

    {I} agree: really, I remember the continuum as well as you remember the ends..

    {There} ]it[ is. And, wouldnt it be our below "desired mold"? KM065e

    {My} guess, on this point, is that the acknowledgement of this "forcing into" can moderate the oppressive results. And it can free the freedom. KM065f

    Further, one who wants to force reality into any (one's) model, *after one's own internal demand*, might take oneself far away from reality. KM065e But, if one had been able to get rid of one's own internal demand, waiting for the *external* demand coming from C, one could get oneself more near to reality, that is, serendipity.
    _____________________

    {And} {Jeff }argues:

    "> > What do we call [ask for] something which we have not found yet?"

    Thus, the responsible roles must show them the thing they have to find. This is a matter of Educative Policy. *After*, it becomes a matter of politics, once the Educative Policy makers have taken it into account and spoken about, and once the media have reported it. Then, by politics, the plot becomes official. In my little environment, this is the way my "LFS Project" has travelled to become executive. Likely, we should identify the Ed. Policy Makers in the Internet. KM065g
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {Yes,} of course. Any proposal? Anyway, I would start from the recognition of the two main SIC that seem to be common to all cultures.

    The one is: whether speaking +A+B (identifying the authoritative, traditional Ed context) or +A-B (identifying the openminded flexible Ed context).

    The other is: whether speaking first (identifying the role of who asks, the HAVER) or second (identifying the role of who answers, the GIVER).

    I would call these "Meta-SIC", because all the others, at the meta-level, dont matter. KM065h


    KM065 Re: AR49 serenity

    {'As} time passes' - I think this is the magic spell. TAR expects a kind of Newtonian function, that stays the same regardless of time, but for the dialectic, time is a real element. A who listens to B is not the same A who spoke first. AR49*a

    {And} she takes _time_ to present (just as she may take space to represent) first one, then the other. AR49*b

    {Or:} what is communicated is not the 'meaning' of their statements, but the power relations: either 'really peer,' or a de facto inequality: this too will be seen and learned by our C. AR49*c

    {If} {there} is an 'obligation,' there must be the possibility of reneging: who does so of course is not fully trained to realize anything, but willfully confuses horizontal and vertical and subject and object. Moreover, I suspect, they are likely overly dependent on _speech_ as their only mode of communication, (and imagine that comm flows anytime anyone says anything); in short, that they _control_ C's learning process.
    ______________________________

    {Quite} {so.} Now: what is the essence of interpretation? Why, the suspension of _this_ reality while we fit together the 'significant,' 'meaningful,' 'relevant' pieces of _that_ reality. (Of course, it is inevitable, except for the Buddha and his close friends under the tree...) It is the creation of an AB dyad where there was none before. The parent's ideal C (who "should" learn) _substitutes_ for C: {+A-B)->CsubB}. AR49*d

    {Definitely,} acknowledgement is always a good thing. Hmmm It is the recognition of the dyad which was really there (but which, perhaps, one had "no time" for). From 'the reality' and 'my interpretation' I am changed: {(+A-B)-> B'} AR49*e


    _____________________

    {Haven't} we found them yet ;-? AR49*f
    @@@

    {In} the context of the Net, (where [054] "the SIC is above all, feedback") and where everyone is their own publisher, everyone has their own answers. 'Having questions' in fact _gives_ another Authority to answer. And even to suggest that there is an overarching Metalevel will raise the hackles...

    Every exchange of messages is taken on its face as between only two. That is, if it appears to be a (C)question and (say B)answer, the (meta)question has to be, Where is the +A when there is no shared context, and no signal to identify it? Thus, first, questions are read rhetorically, as if for the sake of asking, and the exchange 'collapses' to only an AB exchange, for the sake of only a hypothetical C. Second, discussion of metalevels (for instance, to erect signals) also collapses, because there is nothing to distinguish it from 'ordinary' conversation.

    Specifically: the best threads are those to which someone _else_ contributes ("I dont mean to intrude...") - the interrupter locates hyrself as _one who has learned_ (or at least is trying); i.e. C. -But mostly, people are too polite...

    And the Great Subjectline Debate is the supreme instance of collapsing levels. Someone says, Why dont we have (News) and (Announcements) and (Opinion) categories - being willy nilly +A. There may be some chat ("What about Cancellations? or Reviews?") but there is no discussion of signaling as such. "The problem" is seen to be those 'replies' which have lost relevance to the original subject, and thus the 'solution' is _simply_ a matter of labels; individually, people either adopt the practice for their own posts or they dont. There is no strategy and no decision; nothing, in the end, changes. (No one becomes an editor, noone is unsubscribed for failure to label, no message is reposted for the sake of a 'better' label, etc.)


    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR49* Re: KM065 and Jay

    {This} may be agreeable, under a certain POV. But, what means "spoke first"?
    Think of an act of Comm between two roles, let's call them X and Y. There is also the thing to be communicated, conveniently, Z. Now, X possesses Z, s/he is our GIVER. Y needs of Z, s/he is our HAVER. One of them *speaks first*, conveniently our Y, that is, Y starts the ask for Z to pass from X to Y, that is, Y starts the act of Comm at issue.

    Well, my POV is, until *that act of Comm* has not been performed, Y is always the same, ie. our HAVER, and X too, ie. our GIVER. KM066aOf course, before Z has passed, X and Y talk together, they can discuss the passage of Z, one at a time speaks and the other listens to and the converse. Really, they get more information about Z, about themselves, possibly about other things. But, regarding the act of Comm at issue, regarding the Z at issue, X is always the same GIVER - even if momentaneously s/he is listening to Y, and Y is always the same HAVER.

    But, as you said above, "for the dialectic".

    Well now, we must agree, about the meaning of this term. In our {(+A-B)->C} context, is "dialectic" the +A-B relation only, or is it the whole? (The reason: I agree with your above statement if we admit that dialectic is the +A-B relation only, as in itself.). KM066b KM074c

    {(Or} else, if the learner was previously trained to "translate into negative language" within his brain the teacher's speech...) KM066c

    {This} point asks for deepening.

    Coming back to our XYZ.
    Now, X is our (A, B); Y is our C; Z is what is carried by the arrow (->).
    C, as s/he is the natural HAVER, asks for having goods. As s/he becomes conscious about hir own being in need of Z, *s/he speaks first*; (A,B) answer (speak second), Z possibly passes and the communication occours.
    KM066d Of course, C is naturally aware of the "power relation" betwen hirself and (A,B) for they possess Z, and this is the reason of hir asking just *them*. KM066e (This model of Comm Ed would be the aim of our campaign)

    Instead of this, the usual Comm model is another, as below:

    There is a power relation between A and B. That is, one of them, conveniently A, asks for, and obtains, the consent of B. Theirs is an (A+B) vertical relation. Z is now *the consent*, and not the natural goods which C needs to use. Furthermore, all the SICs say that *asking for consent is good*.

    In this bad relation, (A+B), who hold the power, ask for C's consent - that is, *they speak first* to our C. Here, Z is not the natural goods our C needs of, but the consent both A and B want to have KM066f (even if, between themselves, they can discuss "dialectically"... but formally only!) KM066g

    The context becomes {(A+B)<-C}. The (A+B), because they ask for Z, *speaks first*. C, because s/he is asked for Z, *speaks second*, ei., s/he answers "I agree". KM066h

    Of course, also in this "family" the *natural* goods pass from AB to C. But the meaning of these goods is not their value of use for C only. It is also (and moreover, unfortunately) the "status symbol" for the authority's consent... they become objects of consume, not of use any more.

    Therefore, our C is trained to (++ maximizated) consumerism. Indeed, Z (which in this case is the *permanent need* of authority' consent) is carried by the goods C must be given still, and not by the goods which s/he has yet- ie., which s/he is not in any more need of...
    ____________________

    {Kerry,} this is a point I bypass usually.

    I have no need of any "*subjective*" interpretation, there are too many people who already interpret even too much.
    What I want to do, is allowing my C to make hir own interpretation (thus "objective" interpretation as s/he is my "object") s/he needs of since s/he asks me for. KM066i
    NOTICE: HERE I AM SPEAKING ABOUT GIVING "LANGUAGE" with verbal Comm.

    Well now: IMO, language in itself is always "positive" as regards one's own model (mould) into which one forces the reality one wants to describe-interpret.
    Then, what better else can I do, than traslating the "positive languages" I heard in any {(A only)->C} Comm context, so as to realize the {(+A-B)->C} context and make C *able to choose*?
    This task is easy (besides amusing, often ;-)) because, we know well, today's speakers say all - and the contrary of all. One must collect the fit words only, (ie., the -B ones) and make the A-B link, this is all.

    {Again,} the change we are going to obtain is that from the vertical axis - where dialectics is resolved and where one can be either the result of any AB relation - thus a positive GIVER - or a C asking to be given - thus an HAVER - to the horizontal axis, where you can share, being A to B or B to A, in building a more flexible, openminded, free context for all the Cs to come

    _____________________

    {Substantially,} I agree with you, Kerry. But formally, ie. officially, not yet...

    { > I} agree with you Antonio about the way children's > minds are formed.
    >
    > The question is how do we create a global political
    > system that serves humans instead of corporations?
    >
    > That is the necessary first step I work on -- mostly
    > by trying to show the insanity of our present course.

    I guess:

    Every political system, as well as the global one, is formed by representatives and by representates. Democratically, the representates delegate the representatives. Everyhow, all the representatives-politicians, to keep being such, are very carefully in recepting the feed-back coming from the mass. Thus, what is the level of intervention, whereinto the information has to be put?

    * Is it the level of representatives? It seems a very unuseful thing (even if theoretically only), as the new representatives would soon adapt themselves to the existing feed-back - and the feed-back would be still the same.

    ** Is it the level of the feedback? It sounds better - to us at least, as it is the target of our campaign.

    Particularly, we emphazise a change in the mass' demand for social aggregation, from a social context where Communication is sustained by the most agreement among the official speakers for the obtainment of strong consent and gregariety - to a new social context where Comm is sustained by the most dialectics among official speakers, towards freedom of speech, openmindedness, flexibility and, last but not least, possibility of choice.

    We have realized that such a mass' demand origins since the first Comm family pattern, whether it is based on the most consent between both parents (the odd "No-Contradiction Principle"), or on the most dialectics between them (we call it "Dialectic Education"), and thence onwards to the whole society.

    Well now, how can we give the mass the proper Educative Information? That is, how can we obtain the mass' asking for it?
    # By showing them "the insanity of our present course"? I think it cannot be very effective. Indeed, representatives-polititicians listen to their supporters only, and dont listen to any criticism - collectively, most of all. As seen above, representates-mass are tose who give the "insane" feed-back, that is their own thinking way. But I remember, when I was a professional psychiatrist, I never realized that saying to any "mental insane": "You are behaving as a mental insane", that is, showing hir the insanity of *hir own* present course-thinking way, had even been successful.

    ## By showing them the new Educative proposal not like a criticism, but like a modern care against the worst evil which parents worry about, the risk of drugs addiction for their own children? Perhaps: this topic may have a stronger grip on the collective consciousness.

    Eventually, we also have the "Less Flexibility Syndrome". At the present time, this sounds an argument for academicists only - more than for the mass. Anyway, an official Pilot-Project based on this topic has already started here, supported by the local Town-Councillorship.

    In conclusion: the stake sounds great, and the job is worth to be pushed onwards from every side.


    KM066 Re: JH01 + AR49* More/ merrier

    Welcome, Jay! > >Every political system, as well as the global one, is formed by
    >>representatives and by representates.
    >
    > I take a fundamentally different approach to understanding
    > political and social systems.
    >
    > Every political system is formed by INFORMATION FLOWS. In order
    > to understand what I mean by this, consider the following
    > heuristic MACRO SYSTEM describes American social systems at
    > a highly-aggregate level (it is not intended to be a "model"
    > for predicting individual behavior).
    Isnt every 'system' formed by information flows? In fact, doesnt every system _operate on_ that flow? Do you see a highly-aggregated way to make any change? (Info-tage, hmmm)

    ==============

    {Noooo,} there is no 'natural good' Z in the world of information. There is only what we've called power, and any particular 'message' only acts as a conductor. +A+B (having kind of gotten used to the top of the alphabet) communicates unanimity and vertical structure; +A-B communicates equality and horizontality.

    She who has need of power asks, and gets either a ladder by which to climb up and join the majority, or a trampoline, which she can either bounce on or help hold, as she wishes. AR51a

    {I} choose to call AB a dyad, and the transformation _process_ the dialectic. So we disagree, at long last ;) AR51b

    {Sure,} if there has been *time* for that training (talking over with some Other). {'becoming} conscious' begs the question - if C *knows* she needs some Z, then the transformation (transaction, in your framework) that we should look at is that one where she gained that knowledge: this is Jeffs question. But C can *sense* there is power, and can say, Gimme some of that stuff that youve got, without knowing anything about it (without knowing that she *has* it already, to use negative language). AR51c

    {Of} course, C asks them because they have been the source of power heretofore. 'Z' is just some of the mumbo-jumbo of power, like learning to flip the switch in order to have light. AR51d

    {Distinguishing} 'goods' from 'power' seems like an unnecessary complication of the model. Certainly, there _may_ be times (as in school) where I know the teacher has the answer (and I have learned that having answers is important, however I get them ;-)) - it is clearly a great strain on the teacher to decide if I want 'just the answer' or am checking my understanding, 'man to man'. _The only way the teacher can change my brain-frame is to show that - no matter how often I 'get the answer,' there is always another question - which s/he knows._ OTOH, _I_ may become convinced that the teacher is 'playing with me,' giving me incomplete answers _on purpose_, to keep hyr power over me. I don't see any way to "prove" one hand over the other from *inside* the relation, that is, for me to convince hyr that 'I already know,' or for hyr to persuade me that she doesnt _care_ to have power over me.
    Note: in both cases, it is I who am asking. (and in either case, the institution is the third element: +A) AR51e

    {That} is to say, dyadically. But I dont think its a very useful distinction in practice - I still incline towards describing it as another iteration of the dialectic process. AR51f

    {In} my imagination, the ++ family *ignores* C: why should the parents give power (to _disagree_) to this scrawny child? AR51g

    {My} only intention was to elaborate a point - that it is really difficult to talk about any single 'communication event' without mentioning the other levels which surround (precede, accompany, embed) it. So far, the {AB,C} seems to have worked - only now the question of what goes on between A and B has gotten everything mixed up. AR51h


    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR50 Re: "and Jay"

    (Antonio:) > > Every political system, as well as the global one, is formed by

    > > representatives and by representates.

    Jay, you say:

    > I take a fundamentally different approach to understanding

    > political and social systems.

    >
    > Every political system is formed by INFORMATION FLOWS....

    But we can consider that every system is formed by COMMUNICATION, at least because Comm is everybody's way to approach every thing, as well as every piece of information. > ... In order

    > to understand what I mean by this, consider the following

    > heuristic MACRO SYSTEM describes American social systems at

    > a highly-aggregate level (it is not intended to be a "model"

    > for predicting individual behavior). As you can see, my view

    > is nearly the inverse of what we have been led to believe.

    > If I am right, our so-called political system cannot save us

    > from the coming collapse.

    Very well. This is your Piece Of Information. So, you hold a dialectics. To understand what I want to mean by this statement, let's call your above "what we have been led to believe" (+A), and let's call your Opposite Piece Of Information (-B). Then, the dialectics you bear is (+A-B).

    But now, the problem to be faced becomes that of delivering the (+A-B) information to people. Let's call the "delivering to people": (->C) .

    Thus our problem becomes {(+A-B)->C} - and it is a communication problem we are going to solve (to answer).

    First of all, because we dont want to consider the possibility of forcing C to accept anything, then our C must express the ask for being given any answer.

    Before answering, as usual we analyze the ask, that is, we analyze the mind frame of the asker. This analysis show us three kinds of mind frame.
    1 - the (+A-B) ie., openmindedness, flexibility, capability of choosing DIY
    2 - the (+A only), ie., narrowmindedness, rigidity, psychodependence on one trut only - the (+A) truth.
    3 - the (-B only), ie., narrowmindedness, rigidity, psychodependence on one trut only - the (-B) truth.

    Really, the 2 and the 3 are the same. Indeed, (+A only) means (+A+A), and (-B only) means (-B-B).
    Therefore we can rightly say the main kinds of people's mindframes are two oly: the (+-) and the (++) or (--). This difference sounds influential. Indeed, the addition of equal signs (whether the "+A" or the "-B" doesnt matter) leads to *maximization* as a trend.

    Vice versa the subtraction between different signs ("+A" and "-B") leads to *minimization*, that is, to invert the previous trend.

    Now, let's call the first of these trends "maximization", like increasing entropy, and the second "minimization" like neg-entropy of THE SYSTEM. Notice that here I am speaking of the general structure of every possible systems: would the analyzed system be the politics or the social, or the economics one, it doesnt matter.

    IMO, what conversely matters is that both the (++) and the (--) mind frames are fated to give themselves up to (their own) advertising, and that advertising, would it be the (++) or the (--) one, leads unavoidably to maximization.

    Thus, I have nothing to criticize to our actual *human* systems, as regards their structure and their logics. What I want to change, what leads all of us to collapse, is the *maximization trend* of every human activity, and it is not due to "corporations" or to the same advertising, ie., to the *representatives*. It is instead due to the particular mind frame of the *representates*, the mass. The mass' mindframe in its turn is due to a particular pattern of first family Educative communication, spread all over the world, as it is based on the "No-Contradiction Principle" rather than on the full dialectics in educative dialogues between parents.

    I have little doubt, once people were more equipped with the (+-) than with the (++) or the (--) mind frame starting from the basical family's communication framework, they will be capable of getting rid of every maximization, in economy as well as in politics, in powership and so on.
    Getting rid of myself too, who is emphazising until boredom this changement - as the (+-) mind will be capable of making changes DIY.
    ___________________________________

    I will be pleased, Jay, in continuing this discussion. Anyway, one can see more about this {(+A-B)->C} new communication model at my (ugly enough) (+A-B) Web-page: which is linked at the bottom of your wonderful (-B-B) Home page:

    See you
    Antonio

    Ps. Jay,
    I read just now your : Re:
    KM066 Re: JH01 + AR49 More/ merrier. I can understand that there is not taken into account the problem of how to "teach" flexibility DIY.

    What do the 4P supporters want to have as followers, either narrowminded psychodependent people, or autonomous flexible people? What guarantee may the first give, to be thenceforth free from further advertising suggestions towards maximization of consumes?


    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR51 Re KM066 triadic POV

    =================
    Welcome, Jay! :)
    =================

    {I} remember we once have spoken about "digital" linguage and "command" linguage.
    Is it possible, you have read my above statement in terms of "command" or "relational" Z communication, there where I wanted to speak in terms of "digital" Z 'natural goods'?KM070a

    {And} I agree...

    Perhaps, this "obstacle" could be overcomed, if you, instead of starting from a dyad, would start from a tryad. I always try to do so. (At least, I am always looking at whom my speech would be obliquely addressed to...)KM070b

    {My} C is more simpleton. S/he *realizes* where there is Z as the natural goods s/he *naturally consciously* needs for hir life of, of and asks for. The reason: s/he has not yet been currupted - conditioned - compelled by the (++) powership's language to ask for (power) consent. KM070c

    {Mmmm.} You keep looking to power, I keep looking at *nature* goods. KM070d

    {Kerry,} here we are plainly speaking on two different logical levels. You are speaking about the "school" level. Sorry, I am not qualified to enter discussing into it, specifically.

    I am speaking about the first family Comm patterning level - from 0 year to the school age of the child - where the latter's mind can be turned by feedback-environmental pressure either towards the (++) psychodependent rigid frame, or towards the (+-) openminded flexible frame. I recall this last would be the goal of our campaign.

    I am very qualified to hold this discussion, as well as every parent does - and as every Educator should do - in an advanced civilization. KM070e

    {But} we know, everithing is communication. Then, also the dyadic dialectic (as an action) is communication... to whom? But to the real C, of course. I always prefer to think about the open systems, to pragmatical aims, rather than to the closed ones. KM070f

    {Nevertheless} children, even if ignored and scrawny, do exist really...

    {Of} course everything - "what goes on between A and B" - is fated to get mixed up, if the observer looked at it from *inside the AB dyadic only relation*. It should be better, IMHO, if the observer would look at it from outside, that is, from the C's POV... KM070g


    KM070 Re: AR51 Between or betrine -> Citrine

    {I} wouldn't say so - but (keeping an eye on 'presentation') any suggestion that 'transactional' communication is important to Dialectic Ed is going to put a lot of otherwise interested people off. Further, the power issue is interesting to me, and I would like to see how far it can be kept consistent:

    For instance when Teacher 'teaches' me that 2+2=4, is it really a 'piece of 'Z information' that I want for myself, or a magic wand (I called it mumbo- jumbo before) that I can wield over others who don't 'know' this 'fact' (just like T wields it over me)? Isnt it _sufficient_ to explain the process in terms of A the 'storehouse of knowledge,' B the speaker who is in relation to it -> C my eager shining faceful of greed? AR52c
    ______________________________________

    {The} 'payoff' for my side is that 'C' may be only a state of mind, and thus may be some third discrete person, _but also_ may be within A (and or B). I say, 'we disagree"; you say 'I agree." If we leave it at that, truly there is no communication. AR52d (And isn't is interesting how much of mass-media "reportage" follows this pattern?) But as I wrestle with the obstacle I myself may come to a new understanding, and the same for your part. To wit: you see C (as in separate!) in a spatial distribution; I prefer to think a time-distributed pattern is equally valid. AR52e

    {To} some extent, power and information are again chicken and egg... but did your kids ever ask, Daddy, what is 2+2?

    {Power} is a _relation_, and I am becoming convinced it is only relationships which we perceive - and only goods that we can talk about (to anchor our _description_ of the relation). Per my recent CM response to Phil (who has just discovered that "being is not possible to define"): "Does a statement *fix* a state, or does it tacitly recognize that there is nothing to be said, nothing sayable, about a relationship; that we can only point at it by reference to e.g. 'the performer'?"

    I suggest, as soon as you work with a _literate_ consciousness, you get the trap before the jenny ;-) by trying to work _backwards_ from the terminology to the referent. (For instance, he says, "If being is a process, defining a product defines something else..." without noticing that he has slipped from talking about reality to talking about _talking about_!) Its no wonder the world is a mess...

    {> as} every Educator should do - in an advanced civilization.
    ~~~~
    But every parent, in this advanced civilization, is the product of education (doing business as School).

    Our campaign quite rightly is aimed at parents' relation to their child, but insofar as it proceeds by diiscourse, and in the hope to change their minds about what they are doing _as parents_, we are teaching: it is a kind of schooling. (Dont worry, by the time the campaign is 'done,' you will be very well qualified ;-))

    {I} know, we used to say everything was communication. I think one of the strong points of this campaign is that it _analytically_ demonstrates the contrary; that is, communication produces a change (of status, I might say) - the Batesonian difference. AR52f">

    {I} would say, the dyad has no inside. As soon as A and B _look at_ the AB dyad (pragmatically of course), they have a dialectical relation: they are communicating. AR52g


    From: jeff owens

    JO06 Re: KM069 Re: JH03 that long?

    Kerry wrote:
    >Of much greater concern at the moment is the propagandistic effect
    >this 20% has, _by virtue of_ their not being able to admit their addiction.

    Kerry, your comment triggered a thought that has been bothering me.
    We talk about all the problems and at the same time live within and support the system. So even if we recognize our addiction the society can not. KM071a I think if the society recognized this addiction it would collapse. Once the basic principles of growth, competition, and domination are scaled back, the structure of society would be severely damaged. We could probably prove this by looking at what holds us together (the glue). Then look at a more sustainable society and ask what holds them together. I don't have good data on this, but it seems most sustainable societies have bounded growth, and cooperation at their hearth. Most are also deeply religious. These things are contrary to our economic and business systems where the only goal is accumulation of wealth. KM071a AR52a

    Most of society would argue that business is compatible with religion and more business is the answer not the problem. But, they can only see our culture from the inside and deny that the growing problems are endemic.

    So.. Your point that we are dying and need to leave a message on the answering machine sounds right. It is society that is dying and possibly taking most of the earth along with it.

    My conclusion is: fixing the problems from inside society is very tricky. We can spend resources for lobbing and controls, but those things do not change the basic structure of society. You can work on corporate ethics and power, but this has to be done from a position of power (money=power), it also needs to be world wide. In order to attain this position of power you have to accumulate money and support the system. Another response is to step outside society and poke it with a long stick. This might be possible in cyber space. To some extent it can be done by counter culture groups and those working on voluntary simplicity. This is also compatible with Permaculture. KM071b

    Today I obtained a local "green" resource guide that was placed in all the libraries. For the first time I found an article on Permaculture and several advertizements for various Permaculture activities. There is also a magazine starting up for this area. This indicates that others are coming to similar conclusions. Those of us who share this view may be wasting our optimism and hope, but it is fun trying.


    UpReturn to Contents

    KM071 Re: JO06 Welcome

    {ref}{ URL:}

    The Greening of Education

    Schumacher Lecture
    Bristol, England, October 29, 1994
    David. W Orr

    [quoting Vaclav Havel, "The End of the Modern Era," New York Times (March 1, 1992).]

       We treat the fatal consequences of technology as though they were a
       technical defect that could be remedied by technology alone. We are
       looking for an objective way out of the crisis of objectivism . . . We
       cannot devise, within the traditional modern attitude to reality, a
       system that will eliminate all the disastrous consequences of the
       previous systems . . . We have to abandon the arrogant belief that the
       world is merely a puzzle to be solved, a machine with instructions for
       use waiting to be discovered.
    
    Havel, I think, has it right. The planetary emergency unfolding around us is not a crisis of technology, although it certainly has technological aspects. It is rather, first and foremost, a crisis of thought, values, perceptions, ideas, and judgment. In other words, it is a crisis of mind which makes it a crisis for those institutions which purport to improve minds. This is a crisis of education, not one in education.

    And how have educational institutions responded to the manifest deterioration in the human prospect? "Most colleges," in Dartmouth Professor Noel Perrin's words, "act as though they have all the time in the world." Yale historian , Yaroslav Pelikan , goes further to question whether institutions of higher education will ever "address the underlying intellectual issues and moral imperatives of having responsibility for the earth with an intensity and ingenuity matching that shown by previous generations in obeying the command to have dominion over the planet."

    |   In the face of overwhelming evidence that we have only a
    |   matter of decades in which to prevent irreversible and
    |   disastrous changes, colleges and universities continue to
    |   equip the young for short-term success in the extractive
    |   economy, not for long- term success in a society of
    |   sustainable and resilient communities. The hard truth is
    |   that the planetary emergency now upon us is not the fault
    |   of the uneducated, but of the well educated sporting degrees
    |   from our proudest educational institutions.

    ...Ernest Boyer, perhaps the most prominent authority on higher education in the United States, for example, has proposed what he calls a "New American College":

           ...an institution that . . . takes special pride in its capacity to
           connect thought to action, theory to practice. This New American
           College would organize cross-disciplinary institutes around
           pressing social issues. Undergraduates at the College
           would participate in field projects, relating ideas to real life.
           Classrooms and laboratories would be extended to include health
           clinics, youth centers, schools and government offices. Faculty
           members would build partnerships with practitioners . . . the New
           American College, as a connected institution, would be committed
           to improving, in a very intentional way, the human condition.
    [Ernest Boyer, "Creating the New American College," Chronicle of
           Higher Education (March 9, 1994), p. A 48.]
    
    ...Whatever the institutional form and pedagogical details, post-modern education has six essential tasks. First, whatever else they learn, the young must master the analytical and practical skills necessary for them to make a rapid transition to a post-fossil fuel world. They must learn, in other words, how to run civilization on current, not ancient, sunlight. Accordingly, educators must confront, in economist Richard Norgaard's words, the many ways in which "modern values, knowledge, organization, and technological systems reflect the availability of fossil hydrocarbons." In subtle, unstated, but powerful ways the modern discipline-based curriculum has been shaped by the assumption that humans have solved the energy problem. We haven't, but our students must.

    Second, post-modern education must equip students to think in systems and patterns and extend their sense of time to the horizon. We can no longer safely and confidently educate only specialists whose bailiwick is the hermetically sealed discipline. We must equip our students to think "at right angles to their field of specialization." [Richard Norgaard, Development Betrayed (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 47.]

    ...Third, in the face of epic changes looming in the century ahead it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that: "Long before 2030 the trend toward ever larger cities and an increasing ratio of urban-to-rural dwellers is likely to have reversed." Accordingly, education must equip the young for a post-urban world.

    ... British sociologist, Raymond Williams once put it this way: If we are to survive at all, we shall have to develop and extend our working agricultures. The common idea of a lost rural world is then not only an abstraction . . . It is in direct contradiction to any effective shape of our future, in which work on the land will have to become more rather than less important and essential. It is one of the most striking deformations of industrial capitalism that one of our most central and urgent and necessary activities should have been so displaced in space or in time. ...

    Fourth, the young must learn how to reduce the human "footprint" on the earth, by which I mean lower the total amount of energy, materials, land, and water necessary to sustain a good life. Over a lifetime each person in the United States uses onaverage 540 tons of construction materials, 18 tons of paper, 23 tons of wood, 16 tons of metals, 32 tons of organic chemicals--10 to 15 times as much as people in the "underdeveloped" world use. If environmental decline is to be reversed, Americans, by one estimate, will have to reduce their consumption of energy and materials by 50-90%. ...

    Finally, the great danger of contemporary education is that it will produce only technicians and specialists. But true education must be more than merely the transmission of facts, information, techniques, and know how. It must aim to provide the young with "know-why as well." As E. F. Schumacher once said, real education would "clarify our central convictions . . . for it is our central convictions that are in disorder." If education is not to be "an agent of destruction," in Schumacher's words, it must aim "to produce more widsom." When education does this well, it clarifies what's of lasting importance from the ephemeral and equips us with ideas and ideals large enough to overcome cynicism, anomie, nihilism, and pre-occupation with self. [E. F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful (New York: Harper, 1973), p. 94.]

    {In} my optimistic moments, I see the cybernian potential as really just the leverage needed. I can also see it an unlimited Net as the main 'danger' the social engineers face, and why, _if_ it is going to produce any change, we had ought to be using this storm before the lull to get alternative routes and connections in place - support your local Fido BBS!


    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR52 Re: Jay[03]+ JO06 + KM069 - limericks

    Jay wrote: > This has been a real-life example of how to change the > behavior of society based upon my heuristic. This is how > the system works here in America -- economic self-interest.
    KM072a Here in my country, the reality is different. Here we have a "green" political party, and they think like you. But they have little success with real people. They have stayed *for decades until now* on an average about 3 percent. Here real people would not elect "pro-GM-recycle errand boys", because the real people here want to use the new cars also as a status-symbol. They prefer "maximized" cars, and not cars "minimized" by recycling. Here people dont elect "green errand boys" because real people like the maximization whilst greens like the minimization.

    OTOH, here people are (++), and greens are (--). Real communication cannot exist between them. And, since the first raise up (++) children and the second bring up (--) children, real communication cannot exist in the next generations neither, so 97 percent of people will remain to maximize.

    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    (Jay again:)

    > ... I don't expect civilized society to survive the next 100 years.
    Jay, I dont expect both (++) and (--) societees will survive, if we dont succeed in raising up more flexible (+-) children.

    A.

    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    (Now Kerry - KM069 Re: JH03 that long?)

    > All that remains > is to put it out there so that _when_ the innocent masses ask, they get a > response - albeit from our answering machine ;).
    As an alternative btw, we have the LFS project too... KM072b

    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {I} would have some reservation, about all fundamentalist people.
    IMO, they keep alive the "maximize!" (+A+A) virus inside, even if not aimed at accumulation of wealth only.
    So, our problem would not be overcome, but hidden only... until the next time.

    {Yes,} I agree.

    Is it possible, Jeff, to know more about this magazine of Permaculture area? Are they in the Internet?
    I would like to present my LFS Project to them.
    My concern about it is the following:

    "Yes, all of us must agree with ecology of environment. But we must parallel it with ecology of minds, that is, by growing up more flexible people and so on... until the LFS Project."

    I tried to present this concern - in the form of the LFS Project - to the Green Party here, in my country. I didnt succeed - not because I have got no positive answer back, but because I have got *no answer* at all.
    Notice that the same Project has successively been taken up *officially* by the Town-Councillorship of my town, and then inserted in a greater project called "Healthy Towns" which has a national importance.

    I also want to remark I didnt send the Project to Greens by mail. I have passed it to them by hands of a friend (?) who was a "Green" Member of the Italian Parliament in the former issue. It happened one year ago, he lives 50 miles only far from me - but I didnt go to meet and see him any more, simply because I want to wait for his answer here, sitting under the tree. (Both of us have phone-line, of course...)

    A.
    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    And, finally, to Kerry (KM070) who wants me -> fully crazy with all these "betrine"? (no, "Citrine" - that dont exist in my English dictionnary. KM072c

    {Noo,} it is not sufficient, if you were really interested in the power issue.
    For this target, you must recognize where the ask starts from. KM072d
    Does it start from A? the relation will be "of Command".
    (Does it start from B, the second "GIVING" role? It woul be impossible, as "asking" means "speaking first", and we agreed conveniently that who speaks first in the horizontal axis always is our A, and not the B). Does it start from the natural C? ie., who needs natural goods, news and data, not the "magic wand" of holding power.

    For instance, when Daddy 'teaches' me that "there is the door" and points the door out to me, there is a difference in whether he spoke first, thus after his ask, or I spoke first by asking to him: "where is the door?" KM072d


    ______________________________________

    {Some} times, Kerry, I should have spoken to you about the Liar's language paradox. That time, I remarked that some "reflexive" statements mean "nonsense", eg., "I'm lying". In that occasion I had enlarged the concept to *all* the reflexive statements, eg., "I'm saying the truth - I'm good - I'm right" - and so on. Indeed, if the first was a contradiction in terms, the second is a tautology only. Therefore, both are nonsense.
    KM072e

    Now I am going to enlarge the concept further, in this way:

    *Every "dyadic only" communication is nonsense*. Every Comm inside a same logical level is nonsense. Every Comm without difference (of logical levels!) is nonsense.

    Come back please to the above: "I say, 'we disagree'; you say 'I agree.' If we leave it at that, truly there is no communication". But we dont... KM072f

    I want to recall, we started our discussion together seeking for the (+A-B) context (to be given ->C).

    Now, you say a thing (eg, the above 'we disagree'). Call it (+A). KM072g Then, of course, I must add my thing to hold the comm. But, must I say 'I agree'? KM072h By doing this, I would realize the (+A+B) comm we want to reject.
    Rather, must I say 'I disagree'? As I really said? Clearly, if I disagree with you, on a side I disagree, but on the other side and contemporaneously I agree with you about our (+A-B) goal. KM072i

    Therefore, may I say to you "I agree" or "I disagree" in any dyadic only Comm, it is the same thing, it is a nonsense. KM072j

    *But things change heavily*, if the comm was tryadic - I mean, A and B with any "separate" C. KM072k

    Indeed, if this discrete C listens to some A and B formally disagreeing as in the (+A-B) language relation, this C can collect here ant there useful news, data and so on, also some nonsense perhaps without any compellig command. But, in the moment that one of them, A or B, says "I agree", the Comm becomes (+A+B) language and, were A and B the social authorities, an action of "command" Comm with a very powerful sense.

    Thus, I can say, Dyadic only Comm is nonsense - like poetry. In this kind of Comm., I prefer the Limericks. KM072l

    (Please do not agree. ;-))

    {A} new understanding... valid for whom? If there is a real C asking for it, I agree about its validity. If there is any potential C asking for, I also agree.. under the tree. If the C is Myself, it is the "C inside", what use can I make with any understanding fated to die together with me? KM072m

    But I also know, Kerry, a "time-distributed pattern". It is the (- >C), ie., unto thy neighbour - not for God sake, but for {(+A-B)- >C} logical consistency - which is the overcoming of time (of Death). KM072n

    {(of} recognition, I would say. It can open eyes - if there were any...) KM072o

    {Yes,} but dont' limit the field to two old cyberspeakers only, please. The dyad can find its place into the tryad, and not the reverse. KM072p


    KM072 Re: AR52 There once was a cognitive dissonance

    {It} might be more useful to clarify, this is how the system _says_ it works - in fact, it relies heavily on friendship and trust and tolerance and patience (even if it doesn't do anything to _sustain_ those factors, but takes them for granted, rather like infinite extractive resources). I grant, economic self-interest has come to play a larger part than it used to, but it is a long way from representing the full picture. Imo, if you design a strategy for change that relies _only_ on this one part (say its 20% of the 'American way' - thats enough to make it appear to be a 'major' element), all you will have in the end is another gimmick for the really skillful economic-artists to conjure with.

    @@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {Yes,} what news is there from the Mayor's office? AR54a

    {If} 'between' (be-twin) applies to 2, then there should be a word for 'in the middle of three'; i.e., be-trine. My dictionary defines citrine as a color "light to moderate olive." (I thought it was a fruit.)

    {Really}{?}


    _____________________________

    {Regardless} of the 'content' of our statements, if they just lie (no pun) there, it is no use to call it communicaiton. The question of agreement was merely a ready example.

    {But} we _could_, as a logical possibility, and it is right to call it nonsense (if we have no other use for the word) - and it is the reason why most people are _determined_ to 'make sense' of any statement. So the 'comm problem' is: how to condition a statement (or exchange of statements) so that the sense that is made of it is in fact the sense that was _intended_ to be made of it? AR54b AR55a

    Obviously, one fundamental way to do this is ++, but it is not 'progressive'; it does not lead anywhere; it is like a mathematical function V=0. The flexible +- comm is ambiguous - but there is 'uniformity' on the _second level_ (like a derivative, acceleration instead of velocity) where we _agree_ to tolerate ambiguity. (this is enough for 'ornery folks.' One could conceive of higher orders- in fact, I have experimented with 'tensor communication,' but it is *very* hard work.)

    {But this is nonsense ;-) because my saying 'AB is a dyad' followed your 'AB is a dialectic.' If you dont think that is a disagreement, please, what is a disagreement? AR54c

    {There} is an infinitude of things to say, to think, to explore. What is a dyad? What is *not* a dyad? What of family counseling in which dyads and triads are stock terms? At any rate, your choice of terms (thus your disagreement) was already _given_; for you to say "I disagree" is ++ with respect to the topic of AB.

    {Knowing} this, I thought it was a safe example.

    {You} may not. _At the time of saying it_ it is ambiguous; only retrospectively, according to whether there is a sequel (in a mind or in email) can one say it is a dyadic nonsense or not. AR54d

    {I} think my point stands: here we have abundantly demonstrated that our own minds can hold the C relation. AR54e

    {A} Doctor in Taglio di
    Po began to argue with me.
    On seeing the fracas,
    He tried to tell us,
    «Please do/do not agree. ;- » AR54f

    {Heavy} change, but C is not always just one person. Many times you have said, 'I am thinking.... done!' What can this mean except that you 'changed your mind' about what to say? (The idiom is redundant because I need only say _you_ changed.) AR54g

    {My} interpretation has been different: _on hearing_ A and B exchange comments, C *immediately* changes. (The 'aha!' experience is an extreme instance, which lasts long enough for one to recognize it - but little ahas are popping off all the time.) If C goes off to 'think about (+A-B)' then we have to deal with the relation of C-before-thinking and C-after-thinking. But this is, of course, the mental dialectic taking place in time.

    {Agreed.}

    {If} my concept of cyberspace as elongated (comm-)time has merit, we may be able to watch this process, as AB, AC, BC _appear_ to be separate, yet coalesce in a triadic balance. AR54h


    From: Antonio Rossin

    AR54 Re KM071 + KM068 + KM072 + JO07 minimize!

    > In the context of the 'Papuan bridge,' I'd say it isnt whether 'a practice' is
    > good or bad, but what antecedents it has - where it fits into the local
    > worldview. If it is a _small change_, it will likely seem okay. If it is too drastic
    > a change, the gate will probably be slammed on it.

    Of course.

    IMO, the needed change is turning people from having the bridge behind to having the bridge in front. They just dont look at the bridge now. Therefore the change from (++) to (+-) is bound to sound diametrical, drastic at the most to them.

    In spite of this, paradoxically, the (+-) free discussion is already the reality of many families. Unfortunately parents refuse to agree with the (+-) concept (even if they agree *actually* with the +- practice) so they live it and show it to children like a drama to be avoided, so they condition children not to share it.. In only a word: the word "dialectic" is felt and thought like "evil" by most families. KM074a

    Therefore, our logical abstraction about Dialectic Ed is good (would it be!) for intellectual people only. People in the road need (accept) speeches involving immediate profit only, and they believe dialectics id the opposite. KM074b Could this needed profit be the Primary Prevention of drug addiction? We have stuff enough about this topic, even a book (do you remember, Kerry?) and a Project aimed at this looks easy to be written out.

    @@@@@@@@@@@@@

    {The} Mayor brings the Project everywhere he goes to (outside the town).

    Inside our collectivity, the Councillos (a teacher) said just yesterday to me that some mothers at the middle-school asked to her about how to do to prevent the yout's discomfort. Those did not know the project, as it was delivered to the maternal school only, last year.
    They agreed with delivering the Pro to the middle school too, this year.

    {My} POV about the above 'comm problem' is another, rather opposite.

    Once I was in the mountains. I was at the parapet upon a precipice, and I made my daughter sit up the parapet. She was about two. I held her very firmly, hand in hand. At a certain point I said to her: "Raffaella, jump down" She tried to do it quietly... And now my 'comm problem': how to condition a C so that the sense to be made by hir of any statement-input could be independent, critical about that which one wanted her to believe? Even if this one were a parent? Of course, I thought of successive parental figures, such as advertisers, some politicians and so on.

    Surely, I said to myself, if that time together with my "jump down" (+A) her mother would have said "dont do it" (-B) the behaviour of C (Raffa) would have been different, more autonomous at the end. And safer for herself. Now the problem is: should a child learn that "the words of hir parent" could be dangerous? Yes, of course, if we want to train hir to think the same, in the social life, of advertising and worse others - like enticers.

    {Imo,} a disagreement happens when Z (the "thing" which passes in the comm relation) increases the tension between two (in the simplest case) related, ie. communicating bodies, that is, it increases the inner tension of the system. If our Z were the report about any given good, that is it is "meta-Z", there can be dissonance between what the report says (eg, I agree / I dont) and the real result in increasing/decreasing the system's tension made by the given good. KM074d

    Usually, cultures have their own SIC to understand the truth of any meta-Z. (I would say, whether that meta-Z were positive or negative language). Eg, Cybculture has the ";-)" as this SIC (Signal Identifying the Context). Of course if a person knows the "SIC for truth" of another person, or of a class, or even of a people, s/he will be easily successfull in tricking the latter.

    Btw (;-)), advertisers and other seducers always are seeking such SICs. The (+-) educational pattern (there is neither real agreement nor real disagreement) could train children to make DIY criticism about every (even ++ positive-like) piece of language. In this way, they would become DIY sheltered against advertisers and other kinds of seducers.

    (Do you agree? ;))

    {Not} retrospectively only. As we can draw a general rule out, I'd say: always. Anyway, agreeing that dyadic Comm happens between two bodies, and tryadic Comm among three, then:
    {Of} course, Kerry. I know very well that Kerry is made with (+A-B), that is the critical thinking, and (C) that is the coming result. In its turn, this (C) can be both the Kerry's income (this should be the inner C your refers to) and the Kerry's output (this last would come to build the ->C)
    But, I would say, the inner Kerry' C as the Kerry's income, is an automatical function of comm! It succeeds (or doesnt succeed) independently of our conscious wish. Then, we dont' need of taking it into account. KM074e

    Now, could we think that dyadic Comm is, eg, the Comm between Kerry and Antonio only, and tryadic Comm is that among A, B, and an external C? KM074f
    ________________________________________

    {"Is} that a Limerick?
    (the fracas rose again)
    We must get out of it!"
    "But we don't speak in vain:
    we're making Limericks."

    ________________________________________

    {Yes,} but my thinking machine is {(+A-B)->C} as a whole, as a system. KM074g

    {Agreed.} (It sounds a little like explanating the Holy Trinity... O:-))

    @@@@@@

    > ..I have observed in our society a strong desire
    > to deny that some problems exist. This has contributed to the
    > conclusion that society has reached a point where it can not deal with
    > some of the major problems. If this is true, then society will
    > eventually die.

    (But it is a very true (logical) working hypothesis. Well now, do we want to try any true (logical) solution hypothesis? Or do we prefer staying at the window?)

    > But, there are lots of unknowns in my statements.
    > Possibly a new variation of society will emerge with solutions.
    > Possibly, we will have a major disaster which will help trigger
    > solutions. It is all very vague.

    Possibly, we must roll up our sleeves and Do It Ourselves.
    There are many working fields.
    There is the economics, as Jay knows well.
    There is the Permaculture, as you know well.
    There is the Family - where we are (entering) working.

    > The list is very long
    > and many of these problems have been with us for hundreds of years.
    > One conclusion is that the collapse will be slow and consist of our
    > not being able to solve problems. What I know is the history of my
    > own life and that reported by others. My experience says that our
    > society distorts history and prefers ignoring the problems.

    I am suggesting that there is a general rule for the whole list, and this rule is an imperative command which "our" society tells all of us: "Maximize!" I also suggest that this rule origins in the (++) family pattern. Try to change it to the (+-): the trend would become reversed, so as "minimize! Of course, minimize consumes...


    KM074 Re: AR54

    {It} has had its unAmerican associations, at any rate - but the Wicked Witch is Dead, now. I think what is off-putting is any expectation of _continuity_; that parenting is not an occasional thing like shopping or going to the movies. The style of choice is to do what feels good *now* and not think about the larger picture. 0T0H, when X=0 (or any constant, of course, but I was reluctant to use a c- word), one can slice and dice it as one chooses, without making any significant difference.

    {If} they are indeed doing it in practice, it may be best not to speechify anything, but work with the examples in real life to show how the same strategy can apply in other areas.

    -------------------------

    {> My} POV about the above 'comm problem' is another, rather opposite.

    > Once I was in the mountains. I was at the parapet upon a precipice, and
    1 > I made my daughter sit up the parapet. She was about two.
    2 > I held her very firmly, hand in hand. At a certain point
    3 > I said to her: "Raffaella, jump down" She tried
    > to do it quietly... And now my 'comm problem': how to condition a C so that the
    > sense to be made by hir of any statement-input could be independent, critical
    > about that which one wanted her to believe? Even if this one were a parent? AR55a

    Taking all the elements together (triadically?,) your 'statement' is not only words; therefore, the conditioning must involve some similar events in which

    4. I will make my daughter sit up the parapet.
    5. I will hold her very firmly, hand in hand.
    6. I will not say anything.

    and again,
    7. I will let my daughter climb up the parapet herself.
    8. I will hold her very firmly, hand in hand.
    9. I will say to her: "Raffaella, jump down"

    and again,
    10. I will let my daughter climb up the parapet herself.
    11. I will not hold her.
    12. I will not say anyhting, even if she jumps...

    > Now the problem is: should a child learn that "the words of hir parent" could be
    > dangerous?

    In that way, I think she will learn that words as well as precipices are dangerous. AR55a

    ------------------------------------------------------

    {Let} me see. 'AB is a dialectic,' is Z; and because it seems like a clumsy use of the language, I offer 'AB is a dyad' in its place. There is some (anticipated) tension, if only because we have approached this ground before (without resolution), but I dont see any meta-Z.

    Then, I took up the subsequent exchange as an example of how two statements _may_ be let stand:
    (I said "we disagree"; you said, "I agree") where Z= our differing views of AB. For my part, there is the same unresolved tension (to me, your response was ambiguous: you might be agreeing to disagree (i.e. you *really want* to continue to talk about AB as a dialectic) or you are agreeing *that* we disagree (and advise me instead of starting from a dyad, to start from a tryad, "I always try to do so."). The latter is more likely (let's call this the Z) but it also seemed to be missing the point of the question ( AR49*n ) and we can call this entire sequel of scrutiny, meta-Z. (Btw, I am going to propose to Larry's new list that it is this business of distinguishing metalevels which is essential to Critical Thinking...)

    (By way of complicating things further, I now see that I _inferred_ from your "admit" that this was your position. Shall we start this dance over? @:-)) AR55b

    --------------------------------------

    {We} need to take it into account if we wish to distinguish between 2 people's 'free speech' and 2 people communicating. [which is where it all began]

    {I} (internally) understand what you are trying to say, but I think its a complicated way of saying that one may change (= gain understanding) by various kinds of transformation or _reflection_ of a thought: 'by oneself' (e.g. introspection), by expression (on paper or on the ground, or in thin air), by "comm" with another, and by _listening_ to two others. Personally, I am quite satisfied that the same {} can bracket each of these, without further classification as unary or binary or trinary of whatever, even as I recognize that there is quite likely to be 'nesting' of one inside another.
    _________________________

    {No} "buts" about it. You are a system, and your writing is a system, and our conversation is a system, and this list is a system.


    AR55 re KM074 meta-dialectics

    [...]I learned it the hard way:
    *ONE CANNOT SPEAK FIRST TO WHOM ONE WANTS TO CONTEST*.
    KM076a
    Then, if what one wants to say is a piece of news, one must wait for being called to speak. Or else, one must seek whether somewhere there is any specific (enough) ask for.
    -------------------------

    {It's} {not} so clear to me.

    The originary concept was: KM072q

    Ultimately (oppositely?) the 'Comm problem' I faced was:

    How to condition a statement (or exchange of statements) so that the sense that is made of it is in fact the sense that was _intended_ to be made of it, that is, the (+A-B) ambiguity? KM076b So as to make one (conditioned to) intend that sense DIY? (The above, of course, once taken for granted that we, as the Educators, want to give our speeches a *formative* sense most of of all...)
    ------------------------------------------------------

    {As} you want.

    Anyway, Imo, we should go farer.
    For instance - thinking of our recent poetical debate - I am just coming to considered that "language" always is +(+-), that is, it is always positive. In this case I parallel "language" to the culture of any people, in the sense that it is the amount of every statement which has been stated in that determined culture. In this view, "language" always is "objective". But the language is made with speeches. To explain better this point, *now* I am making a speech, and not "the language". KM076c

    Well now, a speech can be either "positive" or "negative". True ambiguity, and impartiality, are a mere abstraction. KM076d Really, beyond our engagement in saying our best, we can both admit that you has been able to oppose almost each one of my statements with good arguments, and I each one of yours. Ours has been always (+A-B) dialectics, actually. We could also think that, improving our freedom of speech and/or searching further for bibliographic/scientific data, our debate could have been increased even more.

    But now, I complain, why does the product of so many dialectic discussion (not ours only, of course) go lost?
    Why must the concept of dialectic value scatter into a myriad of.... dialectical discussions?
    Why we ourselves, who trust in the dialectics, are as much ready to discuss dialectically the same value of dialectical discussion? Thus inefficaciously, as regards the social use of the same?
    KM076e

    Conversely, those who trust in the consent are mostly effective, in the exploitation of consent. They collect consents and unite people. They succeed in corporate work. Economically, socially, democratically they win, so they hold the power. They make what they want, and we continue to debate. KM076f

    Will it even happen, that we agree about the {(+A-B)->C} principle of dialectics, actually? Are all of us able to gather under one only flag? Otherwise... KM076g


    KM076 re: AR55 meta-meta

    {Then,} one who has spoken first is at a disadvantage? Is one suppposed to be surprised when someone contests? 'To take the bull by the horns' is an old custom here, even if the corrida has been banned in Madrid.

    {Well} put. What we're really after is that second-level comprehension, and I would say that if there was a single-level way to do it, we would have found it by now. But the history of Education seems to show that is guaranteed to fail.

    -----------------------

    {I} take this opportunity to unveil my latest monologue (below [ted1).

    {Or} ends of a spectrum.

    {These} are good questions for the CT folks - but (sinceI already know the answer...) it will turn out that there is a shortage of SIC, especially in written *speech*, to distinguish one level from another.

    Our 'poetry,' as it may have been, was very experimental and therefore clumsy, in 'spelling out' where it was in regard to which referents - but with practice, I think a shorthand (like music notation) could be found. I had written once, also, that there wasnt anything any thing an AI simulation program could do that an intentional MOO couldnt do better. Imagine a coherent *group* of discussants, who would elect parts to play in the pursuit of an issue: say Joe and Schmoe are the "original disputants", Mose and Throes their "seconds" who would take up the "meta-dialectical discussion", Noel and Uriel "thirds" if *their* discussion generated a need for further meta-analysis. But, barring such a mutually-understanding group springing into existence (or the elaborate education to bring it together from a random bunch!), perhaps signals can be constructed to serve the same purpose for two people, JoeMoseNoel and SchmoeThroesUriel - I mean, of course, for the third party who will be trying to make sense of the proceedings.

    {They} make what they *think* they want, but isnt it strange that they are never satisfied? Whereas we can be satisfied with every post, even tho we continue to debate ;) This is the power of DIY, that whatever I cook for myself is a fine meal, whatever I build with nails that I have salvaged and straightened and a hammer whose haft I have fitted is a fine, functional adequate structure.

    {There} is one level to this discussion remaining: that *even if* the {} principle is arbitrary, that there is value in propagating it *as if* it is a force to reckon with, and rallying people to the cause *anyhow*. Even Jeff's skepticism can be contained within such a container ;-)


    Up Return to Contentsthe end - so far