More creation of symbols...

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Maddog: "Vale Jeffrey Clark"
• Previous message: T. V. Sethuraman: "Bahuguna's Fast and Urgent Appeal"

In an ongoing discussion Vance Geiger writes:
Since symbols are basic to communication between people they can hardly
be superficial.
Reply:
What about the level of miscommunication that takes place between people,
especially regarding abstract concepts. What about the idea that there
are acceptable levels of miscommunication between people that are established,
most likely at first contact between the people involved, and it is within thoseestablished boundaries of miscommunication that information exchange takes
place. Establishing what symbols each person uses, the degree to which they
the symbols, are alike, creating new ones if there are no existing symbols
shared and continuing interaction becomes the pattern for introductions that
lead to communication.
Granted, with that in mind I can hardly claim that all symbols are superficial
but in the same light I can not accept that they are all filled with deep
meaning that is shared by all who are aware of that particular symbol.

And this is avoiding exactly what I mean when I use the term superficial!
As that I am not exactly sure. *sheepish look*

Vance Geiger asked another question and let me know if I remembered this
wrong:
Are individuals only individuals when they are not doing what every one
else is doing?
Would not this depend on the context or some specific collection of
individuals. Why focus on the action or doing of individuals to divide
them up for study? Frequently I sit in a room for hours at a time doing
just what I am doing now, playing on the net, and I am with another twenty
or thirty individuals. There is, often, no other connection between myself
and any other person in the room but we are all engaged in the same activity.
Personally, I would want to divide individuals up based on why they are doing
whatever it may be they are doing. Take the computer lab example, we are all
here playing on the net but nobody is doing exactly the same thing as the
person next to them so that a description of exactly what each is doing providesnothing insightful about this collection of individuals. But if you were able
to establish why each person is reading a particular newsgroup, who they are
emailing or playing which mud/mush/etc.. then insights can be gotten for
how a resource is being used, just for one type of insight.

Well, thats enough diarrhea of the keyboard for today.

cas
11casmith@bsuvc.bsu.edu

• Next message: Maddog: "Vale Jeffrey Clark"
• Previous message: T. V. Sethuraman: "Bahuguna's Fast and Urgent Appeal"