Steve,
You asked
"How (if at all) does this fit into the 3rd/1st person discussion this all
started with?"
To be honest, I never tried to fit them together before. You are demanding
reflexivity here ... that my principles concerning how to conduct a discussion
be consistent with the argument I am presenting within the discussion. Always
a useful demand. The best I can say is that both seem to embody my belief that
in all matters of the mind, if we are willing to work hard enough, we can stand
shoulder to shoulder and look at the same thing.
By the way, a couple of you have indicated that you didn't get answers to
questions you directed at me, and you rose to my defense. I confess I got a
bit over whelmed there for a while and started selecting questions for answer
that I thought I could handle cleanly (as opposed to muddily). Please if there
were lose ends, push them at me again.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Smith
To: [email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Sent: 6/22/2009 10:13:50 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Direct conversation
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Russ, and Glen, and Steve, n all
Ironically, I am with Russ on this one! I believe both in the possibility and
the benefits of clarity.
I expected that when Russ and I were done, we would be able to agree on an
articulation of our positions, where they are similar, where different, etc.
In fact, one of the skills I most revere is the ability to state another
person's position to that person's satisfaction. And, in fact, at one point, I
thought I had achieved such an articulation, only to have Russ tell me I had
got it wrong. My guess is that Russ has his feet deeply in Kant, and I have
neither boots nor courage high enough to go in there after him. My son, who is
a philosopher, has as good as looked me in the eye and said, "You aint man
enough to read Kant!"
I studied Kant when I was too young and foolish to know better... but then I
had been raised on folks like Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein so Kant was no
challenge. Today I think I would find Kant a bit intimidating.
I am curious about the implications of "one of the skills I most revere is the
ability to state another person's position to that person's satisfaction". It
seems to have implications on the root discussion... The two ways I can
obtain a high degree of confidence that I am communicating with another is if I
can articulate their position to their satisfaction and vice versa... I
prefer the former over the latter... in the sense that I am almost never
satisfied in their articulation... at most I accept it with some reservations.
But if they can keep a straight face while I reel off my version of their
understanding of a point, then I try hard not to think too hard about it and
call it good. How (if at all) does this fit into the 3rd/1st person discussion
this all started with?
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
