Award for Kindness

[Mindy Newton]

Clarity and precision of communication is fundamental to so much in life.

Does this mean you are now willing to define your terms? You could start with "perspective on perspective(s)."

= Mindy

Edited October 5, 2008 by Mindy

[Paul Mawdsley]

Clarity and precision of communication is fundamental to so much in life.

Does this mean you are now willing to define your terms? You could start with "perspective on perspective(s)."

= Mindy

Nothing but smiles on my end. We are right back where we started with metacontexts. Defining subjective processes has its difficulties if you want definitions that are grounded in objective experience. We can't step inside someone's introspective world and point to something and say, "This is called a subjective metacontext and it does this." It's the nature of the beast. This doesn't mean there is no introspective landscape, or that we cannot know or communicate anything about it. It just means we have to approach things a little differently if we want to talk about the introspective landscape.

The only way to discuss the introspective landscape is for each participant to do their own exploring and identifying, have each paint a (word) picture of what they observed, and have each compare pictures with one another with the intention of trying to interpret and find meaning in the others pictures that match their own observations.

This process has to work more like the sharing of art rather than a process of science because there is no actual shared context. In science there is a built in shared context: the objectively observable world. Existentially, there is no shared introspective world. It has to be expressed and objectified artistically first so it can become shared. Only when it is objectified artistically can we begin to identify its elements and seek definitions.

Does it make sense to ask an artist to define the meaning of his choice of colour, or the perspective of his work? Will this help you to better understand the meaning of his art? The communication of artistic meaning requires more from the interpreter than the communication of science. It requires everyone to do their own work exploring their own psyche, its contents and its processes. It requires that we each attempt to generate a subjective context equal to the art we are trying to understand. And the meaning we find will equal the meaning we can create.

Mindy, I will ask you a simple question: can you make any sense of what I might mean by "perspective of perspectives?" Can you create a context in your head where this makes sense? Can you take the onus of creative interpretation? If you can't, don't just assume that I don't know the meaning of my own words. Consider the possibility that there may be meaning you just don't see yet. It's just like art you don't get. You don't assume the artist doesn't know the meaning of his own work just because you don't understand it. Or do you?

Stepping back from a given perspective to generate a more general perspective that includes the original, and other perspectives, is something I do all the time. I know you do as well. As you step back from a given observation your field of view broadens and includes more elements with less detail retained for each element. But if you can recall the detail obtained from closer observation of the various elements while generating a broader view, you can retain a perspective of perspectives, a context that contains other contexts. This is the general idea of perspective of perspectives and can be applied to the extrospective world or the introspective world.

DF's comments and Brant's replies above are a great example. They seemed to contradict one another up close. My antenna was alerted because I agreed with elements of both perspectives. I considered that the two views might be paradoxical rather than contradictory: they may be two views of the same reality from different contexts. If so, it's the contexts that are causing the communication problem, not a contradiction in views. I stepped inside each of the views, one at a time. Then I stepped back to see if I could create a context that would find integration between the two views while retaining the knowledge of the details I had uncovered of the two views. I realized that both DF and Brant would actually agree if a more general context were presented, so I presented it.

Guess what? I tested my theory and I was right. What could have degenerated into an adversarial flame war (if they each cared enough to fight) quickly came to agreement. This is the power of using perspectives of perspectives.

I think this is important. As DF said, he's considered leaving the forum over such misinterpretations. I did leave once partly because of the same thing. I see everyone being frustrated by the same pattern of problems. Michael shows signs of being tired of it. So does Roger. Ellen left over continued misinterpretations and the dynamics that such misinterpretations create. These are all good people with good intentions who's goodwill is being worn thin by intellectual invisibility.

Barbara talked some time ago about Objectivist rage. This is one of the elements that contributes to this rage. The art of misinterpretation is part of the Objectivist tool kit. Maintain the intellectual invisibility of your opponent and you win the battle through attrition. There is no need to put any effort into understanding anyone. All you have to do is pay attention long enough to build the straw man that you can easily tear down. All this to maintain the invisibility of someone one treats like an adversary when invisibility can even tear friends apart. Is it any wonder there is so much rage in Objectivism?

What is needed as well as an effort at defining terms is an effort at creative interpretation. It requires the exercise of our more empathic skills. Communication should not require that we all think the same way. It just requires that we are trying to describe the same reality. Ultimately, reality is the common context. We need to think like art interpreters rather than like mathematicians when understanding the complexities of someone's subjective context is our goal. This begs the question: s this our goal?

Paul

[Barbara Branden]

Paul: "The art of misinterpretation is part of the Objectivist tool kit. Maintain the intellectual invisibility of your opponent and you win the battle through attrition. There is no need to put any effort into understanding anyone. All you have to do is pay attention long enough to build the straw man that you can easily tear down. All this to maintain the invisibility of someone one treats like an adversary when invisibility can even tear friends apart. Is it any wonder there is so much rage in Objectivism?

"What is needed as well as an effort at defining terms is an effort at creative interpretation. It requires the exercise of our more empathic skills. Communication should not require that we all think the same way. It just requires that we are trying to describe the same reality. Ultimately, reality is the common context. We need to think like art interpreters rather than like mathematicians when understanding the complexities of someone's subjective context is our goal. This begs the question: s this our goal?"

Paul, this is a wonderful statement -- especially "Maintain the intellectual invisibility of your opponent and you win the battle through attrition." You've named a major stumbling block in the path of communication. I think we all should examine our past posts with a view to seeing where and to what extent we've fallen over this stumbling block and onto our faces.

There is another impediment to communication I call "How to instantly infuriate your opponents." It consists of beginning one's post with something like: "Muslims lie when they deny they seek world domination!" -- or "George Bush is the most incompetent president in American history!" -- or "Israeli leaders sanction murder!" -- or.... fill in the blanks.... Such statements emanate from the poster's red-hot fury, and are guaranteed to invoke the same feeling in readers, thus guaranteeing also that mutual understanding will be impossible.

It would be an interesting and probably valuable exercise for OL posters to identify other ways in which intellectual opponents often inadvertently build barricades to understanding others and to being understood.

Barbara

[Mindy Newton]

Paul: "The art of misinterpretation is part of the Objectivist tool kit. Maintain the intellectual invisibility of your opponent and you win the battle through attrition. There is no need to put any effort into understanding anyone. All you have to do is pay attention long enough to build the straw man that you can easily tear down. All this to maintain the invisibility of someone one treats like an adversary when invisibility can even tear friends apart. Is it any wonder there is so much rage in Objectivism?

"What is needed as well as an effort at defining terms is an effort at creative interpretation. It requires the exercise of our more empathic skills. Communication should not require that we all think the same way. It just requires that we are trying to describe the same reality. Ultimately, reality is the common context. We need to think like art interpreters rather than like mathematicians when understanding the complexities of someone's subjective context is our goal. This begs the question: s this our goal?"

Paul, this is a wonderful statement -- especially "Maintain the intellectual invisibility of your opponent and you win the battle through attrition." You've named a major stumbling block in the path of communication. I think we all should examine our past posts with a view to seeing where and to what extent we've fallen over this stumbling block and onto our faces.

There is another impediment to communication I call "How to instantly infuriate your opponents." It consists of beginning one's post with something like: "Muslims lie when they deny they seek world domination!" -- or "George Bush is the most incompetent president in American history!" -- or "Israeli leaders sanction murder!" -- or.... fill in the blanks.... Such statements emanate from the poster's red-hot fury, and are guaranteed to invoke the same feeling in readers, thus guaranteeing also that mutual understanding will be impossible.

It would be an interesting and probably valuable exercise for OL posters to identify other ways in which intellectual opponents often inadvertently build barricades to understanding others and to being understood.

Barbara

Concerning that second "impediment to communication," Barbara, don't you think "the art of miscommunication is part of the Objectivist tool kit," is just one such impediment?

Paul,

I guess that's a really big, "No."

= Mindy

Edited October 7, 2008 by Mindy

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

I guess that's a really big, "No."

= Mindy

Mindy,

Does this mean I don't know what I am talking about or you don't know what I am talking about or both?

Paul

[Mindy Newton]

Paul,

I guess that's a really big, "No."

= Mindy

Mindy,

Does this mean I don't know what I am talking about or you don't know what I am talking about or both?

Paul

It means you're full of sound and fury...

=Mindy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mindy,

I interpret Paul as saying there is a tendency among many Objectivists to behave in a certain manner, not that this is part of the core ideas, nor that all Objectivists are like that. I like the toolkit metaphor since I have seen far too many hostile arguments that totally shut down understanding and persuasion. Yet, from what I have observed, the person promoting the idea honesty thinks he or she is spreading the idea.

This is a case where the idea is good and tool of snarky arrogance is a poor choice to get the job done.

Rand was abrasive as a trademark, but she had her fiction and charisma to show where that came from. I fear that many Objectivists (at least ones with whom I have interacted) imitate abrasiveness in the same manner she did it, except they don't have her fiction or charisma. They are enamored with the art of the put-down. Some take the implications much further and actually replace the ideas in the concept "Objectivism" with this kind of behavior allied with jargon.

I am talking on the level of differentiating characteristic, i.e., differentia. They don't say it that way (and some sadly don't even know what that means), but their behavior reflects this.

I think this is worth fixing. Er... fixing is a wrong term. Every person decides these matters on an individual basis.

I really think it is worth presenting a healthy and efficacious alternative.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

It means you're full of sound and fury...

=Mindy

I am wasting my time and effort here. It's time to accept the things I cannot change and move on.

Paul

[Brant Gaede]

It means you're full of sound and fury...

=Mindy

I am wasting my time and effort here. It's time to accept the things I cannot change and move on.

Paul

Right now Paul there are 17 guests and four members on line. These guests don't post but they do read. Try blocking Mindy and see what happens. Even on OL there is a certain amount of interactive friction, but it can be dealt with besides leaving.

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

Right now Paul there are 17 guests and four members on line. These guests don't post but they do read. Try blocking Mindy and see what happens. Even on OL there is a certain amount of interactive friction, but it can be dealt with besides leaving.

--Brant

Sorry Brant. When I said this I was thinking specifically about wasting my time and effort trying to get through to Mindy. (I was writing while doing some woodworking in my shop and, perhaps, didn't take enough care in what I said.) I've been trying to get through to Mindy over the last few weeks but I don't have any try left.

It will take much more than a little frustration to leave OL. This is my version of Cheers. I like the people here. They're good people who often have trouble communicating, get frustrated with one another, and struggle to maintain their basic sense of goodwill when they experience a sense of invisibility. Kind of sounds like just about every human relationship I have ever encountered.

Despite the fact that Mindy frustrates the hell out of me, as I'm sure I can frustrate her, I like her, I admire her intelligence and insight, and I like reading most things that are not a response to my posts. I find her to be stronger in areas where I am weaker. I can learn from her. I won't be blocking her any time soon. I'm just going to stop trying to get through to her the things I see very clearly but she seems to have no way of connecting with.

Paul

[Brant Gaede]

Paul, if you don't try to change people life is a lot easier.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Clarity and precision of communication is fundamental to so much in life.

Does this mean you are now willing to define your terms? You could start with "perspective on perspective(s)."

= Mindy

If you use the "map-territory" analogy with words and what they represent then defining your terms is equivalent to having a key to the map that shows what the symbols mean. Is this the same as knowing what the map "means"? What about going to the actual territory and seeing for yourself? It is only then that you can access the validity (structural similarity) of the map. In language our choice of terms is only one aspect of communication, the interpretation, especially visualization, represents perhaps even an equally important aspect.

[sbeaulieu]

Clarity and precision of communication is fundamental to so much in life.

Does this mean you are now willing to define your terms? You could start with "perspective on perspective(s)."

= Mindy

If you use the "map-territory" analogy with words and what they represent then defining your terms is equivalent to having a key to the map that shows what the symbols mean. Is this the same as knowing what the map "means"? What about going to the actual territory and seeing for yourself? It is only then that you can access the validity (structural similarity) of the map. In language our choice of terms is only one aspect of communication, the interpretation, especially visualization, represents perhaps even an equally important aspect.

GS,

Visualization, I would say, is even more important. You can't imagine how many times I had to draw something out to get my students to click. One of the difficulties in this type of online community is that we only get to see words...sometimes pictures. As a result, we lose the ability to convey nonverbal communication or pick up on varying inflections which place emphesis on words and such. Although italics, underlining and bolding help, it still has the chance at missing the mark. It is why I prefer to interact personally due to the full range of sensory input that comes with being face to face. Online forums will always lack that (presently).

I would suggest using more basic language. We all started there - again, the common denominator.

~ Shane

[BaalChatzaf]

Visualization, I would say, is even more important. You can't imagine how many times I had to draw something out to get my students to click. One of the difficulties in this type of online community is that we only get to see words...sometimes pictures. As a result, we lose the ability to convey nonverbal communication or pick up on varying inflections which place emphesis on words and such. Although italics, underlining and bolding help, it still has the chance at missing the mark. It is why I prefer to interact personally due to the full range of sensory input that comes with being face to face. Online forums will always lack that (presently).

Visuals have their limitations. There are some mathematical concepts that really and truly cannot be visualized. How does one visualize twisted six dimensional manifolds that occur in String Theory. Or curvature tensors in four dimensions semi-Riemann Manifolds?

I would suggest using more basic language. We all started there - again, the common denominator.

~ Shane

That is the Grandma Principle in action. If you can't explain it to your Grandma you either don't understand it or your thinking is not entirely clear.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

If you use the "map-territory" analogy with words and what they represent then defining your terms is equivalent to having a key to the map that shows what the symbols mean. Is this the same as knowing what the map "means"? What about going to the actual territory and seeing for yourself? It is only then that you can access the validity (structural similarity) of the map. In language our choice of terms is only one aspect of communication, the interpretation, especially visualization, represents perhaps even an equally important aspect.

A fond wish. How does one come to terms with Quantum Reality when the underlying processes and entities are completely out of our perceptual range. The only handle we have on such things is very, very abstract mathematics (for example Calib-Yao manifolds). Quantum Physics simply cannot be visualized or grasped perceptually by human beings - our senses are just too crude. That is why Feynman (and also Bohr) said that no one really grasps the quantum world. Which is true in grasping it at the non-verbal perceptual level. Only the math gives us a hook into it (now there is a visual analogy!) Have ye seen The Great White Theory? Asked Dr. Ahab the physicist. Dr. Ahab, why do you pursue it? Because it tasks me!

Ba'al Chatzaf (I just reread some of Moby Dick)

[Chris Grieb]

Baal; Thanks for the Grandma Rule.

[tjohnson]

A fond wish. How does one come to terms with Quantum Reality when the underlying processes and entities are completely out of our perceptual range. The only handle we have on such things is very, very abstract mathematics (for example Calib-Yao manifolds). Quantum Physics simply cannot be visualized or grasped perceptually by human beings - our senses are just too crude. That is why Feynman (and also Bohr) said that no one really grasps the quantum world. Which is true in grasping it at the non-verbal perceptual level. Only the math gives us a hook into it (now there is a visual analogy!)

I never said the visualization process was perfect - far from it, yet it is all we have. Even the most abstract entities we can conceive of we attempt to visualize somehow, however imperfectly. This does not detract from the value of visualization just because it is extremely difficult in some cases. I can visualize the universe as 4-dimensional space-time continuum which has no boundaries yet is finite in size by imagining something similar, like a blanket with a bunch of folds in it. We can travel forever on the "surface" of the manifold and not ever find a "boundary", because if we postulate a boundary then the question immediately arises "what is on the other side of this boundary?" . Visualizing is an art, as is putting one's visualizations into words, and I would not say quantum physics is impossible to visualize, just difficult. Einstein was quite good at visualizing things that other scientists didn't which was the basis of his famous "thought experiments", I think.

[sbeaulieu]

Visuals have their limitations. There are some mathematical concepts that really and truly cannot be visualized. How does one visualize twisted six dimensional manifolds that occur in String Theory. Or curvature tensors in four dimensions semi-Riemann Manifolds?

You got me on the math part, Ba'al ;) I was able to teach binary and hex conversions visually for the purposes of network protocol analysis. Quantum physics and such...might make my head explode. I never was any good at math. But then again, I didn't go beyond geometry and algebra.

~ Shane

P.S. Let's just say that visualization is extremely important where it can be applied.

Edited October 7, 2008 by sbeaulieu

[Mindy Newton]

Visuals have their limitations. There are some mathematical concepts that really and truly cannot be visualized. How does one visualize twisted six dimensional manifolds that occur in String Theory. Or curvature tensors in four dimensions semi-Riemann Manifolds?

You got me on the math part, Ba'al ;) I was able to teach binary and hex conversions visually for the purposes of network protocol analysis. Quantum physics and such...might make my head explode. I never was any good at math. But then again, I didn't go beyond geometry and algebra.

~ Shane

P.S. Let's just say that visualization is extremely important where it can be applied.

You do realize that this "visualization" is being recommended in the place of being able to define one's terms? Would you substitute visual aids for factual statements to your students? I think it may be that what you are talking about is that teaching is subject to floating abstractions, and demonstrations or visuals, etc., help the student tie the concepts to concrete examples.

But that's not what GS and Paul are urging, not what they mean when they promote visualization, interpretation, changing perspectives, and varying contexts. What they mean is that precise, literal meaning isn't possible, and thus, they needn't define or explain what they mean, and that when they seem to have contradicted themselves, they really haven't, because if you shift your perspective or if you explore their personal context, you'll discover it means something different, and something legitimate.

Now this alternative epistemology and logic is disastrous. It is a prescription for the "fog" Rand writes about, obscuring, blinding, confusing, and clothing the good and the bad, the correct and the erroneous equally. Nothing means anything if it doesn't mean this and not that. Like existence implies identity, meaning implies specificity.

In fact, OL is currently playing host to the epistemological version of the battle between good and evil. If there are no specific, definite and definable meanings, there are no meaningful statements, no true statements, no logical arguments, and there is no reason. Man is unarmed, and pleasing rhetoric that can rouse the mob rules the day.

With no personal judgment intended (but not to ignore the fact that some judgment is implied) I repudiate your approach, Paul, and GS. I urge you to step up and define your terms when asked. That is not much to ask, under normal circumstances. I am happy to discuss non-Objectivist theories, but not in a non-Aristotelian way.

Since you feel free to attack Objectivism, and other posters, (whether you admit it or not), I will feel free to "attack" in the same spirit that you do, your statements, such as, "Objectivists have a tool kit for faulty arguing (paraphrased) which you recently posted, gratuitously. Such "attacks" will not be an invitation to discuss, since discussion requires meaning.

= Mindy

Edited October 7, 2008 by Mindy

[sbeaulieu]

You do realize that this "visualization" is being recommended in the place of being able to define one's terms? Would you substitute visual aids for factual statements to your students? I think it may be that what you are talking about is that teaching is subject to floating abstractions, and demonstrations or visuals, etc., help the student tie the concepts to concrete examples.

Mindy,

Call visual aids a placeholder. Say we use the good ol' concept folder/label visual here as an example. As a supervisor I was responsible for training the Airmen under me. One that I taught knew absolutely nothing about networks...nada...zip...zilch. So, in place of factual information which was above her mental faculties to grasp, I drew her a visual aid...something akin in basic workings to explain and piece togther the facts. The subjects were Local Area Networks and Wide Area Networks. Even by giving her the definition in the book, she could not even open her conceptual folders. So I gave her two new ones, borrowed from what she already knew (this took a few tries). The ones that worked were towns (LANs) and highways (WANs) which connected people to other towns (LANs). I used these visuals to simulate network size (population), addresses (IP subnetting), and bandwidth (street size). By giving her folders labeled LANs, c/o Towns, and WANs, c/o Highways, it worked. I'm hoping that example is accurate :sweat:

But that's not what GS and Paul are urging, not what they mean when they promote visualization, interpretation, changing perspectives, and varying contexts. What they mean is that precise, literal meaning isn't possible, and thus, they needn't define or explain what they mean, and that when they seem to have contradicted themselves, they really haven't, because if you shift your perspective or if you explore their personal context, you'll discover it means something different, and something legitimate.

I see where you're coming from. But there's a difficulty in getting others to see from your perspective. If there's no common denominator between those who are speaking, it will never work. Again, it falls to the communicator to find the common denominator.

Now this alternative epistemology and logic is disastrous. It is a prescription for the "fog" Rand writes about, obscuring, blinding, confusing, and clothing the good and the bad, the correct and the erroneous equally. Nothing means anything if it doesn't mean this and not that. Like existence implies identity, meaning implies specificity.

Agreed.

~ Shane

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul, if you don't try to change people life is a lot easier.

--Brant

I am learning slowly...very slowly. Recently I've been discovering a lot about what I don't know and how I'm not so smart, not just here on OL but in the world beyond the LCD screen. I've been discovering the ways other people are a lot wiser than me. Quite frankly, I have a lot to learn. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Brant.

Paul

[Mindy Newton]

You do realize that this "visualization" is being recommended in the place of being able to define one's terms? Would you substitute visual aids for factual statements to your students? I think it may be that what you are talking about is that teaching is subject to floating abstractions, and demonstrations or visuals, etc., help the student tie the concepts to concrete examples.

Mindy,

Call visual aids a placeholder. Say we use the good ol' concept folder/label visual here as an example. As a supervisor I was responsible for training the Airmen under me. One that I taught knew absolutely nothing about networks...nada...zip...zilch. So, in place of factual information which was above her mental faculties to grasp, I drew her a visual aid...something akin in basic workings to explain and piece togther the facts. The subjects were Local Area Networks and Wide Area Networks. Even by giving her the definition in the book, she could not even open her conceptual folders. So I gave her two new ones, borrowed from what she already knew (this took a few tries). The ones that worked were towns (LANs) and highways (WANs) which connected people to other towns (LANs). I used these visuals to simulate network size (population), addresses (IP subnetting), and bandwidth (street size). By giving her folders labeled LANs, c/o Towns, and WANs, c/o Highways, it worked. I'm hoping that example is accurate :sweat:

But that's not what GS and Paul are urging, not what they mean when they promote visualization, interpretation, changing perspectives, and varying contexts. What they mean is that precise, literal meaning isn't possible, and thus, they needn't define or explain what they mean, and that when they seem to have contradicted themselves, they really haven't, because if you shift your perspective or if you explore their personal context, you'll discover it means something different, and something legitimate.

I see where you're coming from. But there's a difficulty in getting others to see from your perspective. If there's no common denominator between those who are speaking, it will never work. Again, it falls to the communicator to find the common denominator.

Now this alternative epistemology and logic is disastrous. It is a prescription for the "fog" Rand writes about, obscuring, blinding, confusing, and clothing the good and the bad, the correct and the erroneous equally. Nothing means anything if it doesn't mean this and not that. Like existence implies identity, meaning implies specificity.

Agreed.

~ Shane

Your example is nice, and, as an aside, shows you to be an excellent teacher, IMO.

Let me say a little more about the emphasis on interpretations, perspectives, contexts, etc., in the Paul/GS approach to discourse. I am not denying that two people may misunderstand one another because of different perspectives, or because one is missing the context the other knows, etc. Far from it. These are perfectly legitimate concepts, and they can play a significant role in communication.

The dispute is about something else.

Like the abuse of the term, "rights" that liberals make when they say every child has the right to health care, the use of these terms--perspective and context, and a few others, in the recent postings of Paul and GS, is a distortion of their legitimate meaning. Paul's "perspective on perspectives" and "context of contexts," etc., just might have some meaning for him, but if so, he ought to be willing to say what that meaning is. As he explains, he prefers to "paint" his meanings with words he "interprets" to mean something within an "imagined reality." Frank and pointed opinions are slipped in amidst the flighty verbiage, permitting claims and insults to be levelled. No owning up to or backing up these claims can be required, as Paul, for one, is free to re-interpret his actual statement as, "in his context," reflecting a different "perspective" than that of his "opponent."

Whether these tactics are in fact used can be seen in the series of posts from the past weeks. Independently of what terms or phrases he likes, or even of how he uses them, he ought to be forthcoming as to just what he means in his posts. The refusal to do so should enough to set off alarms in any thinking person.

= Mindy

[Paul Mawdsley]

Mindy, surely you have something better to do than keep bashing me. Why don't you just move on?

Paul

[Mindy Newton]

Mindy, surely you have something better to do than keep bashing me. Why don't you just move on?

Paul

I'm always up to fight the forces of evil. You must not think I've got it in for you personally. I thought we got off to a nice start. But I'll defend man's mind wherever and whenever the bat-light shines in the sky!

= Mindy

[sbeaulieu]

Mindy,

I see where you're coming from.

~ Shane