Message-ID: <19991207014631.AAA29112@jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca@LOCALNAME> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 18:15:20 -04 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: Transferring Environment-Related Technologies To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
> KM> "Let's say for [our present] sake that in this case the 'product'
> KM> [of mutual comprehension] really *is* a real benefit for the farmers
> KM> [_and_ the businessmen]; then, isnt it the [*con]junction, [which]
> KM> continues to prevent [their realization]?"
>
> The language it takes is the language that's spelled out more by
> actions than words themselves, which after all are only pointers. When
> a frame of reference is lacking due to an absence of clearly appropriate
> precedents, it may be necessary to provide graphic examples, either by
> associating with a local person who is willing or by supporting the
> creation of the antecedent at ones own cost.
Douglas, I wish I had your ability to get straight to the heart of things! Yes, the referent, the _ground_, is what is *really necessary and sufficient; all our best efforts in 'language' or 'graphic examples' or 'stories' are simply makeshift and artifice -- but at least, anybody can do it, with no batteries required, while shifting real parcels of land or *embodied cultures is something else again. That is, as long as one doesn't start taking the sizzle-story as *just as good* as the steak- reality, one can go quite a ways towards 'constructing a shared reality.' (Hmmm - now *I'm using the 'lost tradition' gambit: wasnt it the West which prided itself on having its 'feet on the ground'? How did it come to this _hubris, that only words and gestures were 'relevant'?)
> > ... [doing their level best to share their own experience, even if
> > 'those people' can only listen to their stories].
>
> This is my point. Stories are cheap. Those people need to see it for
> themselves and b able to apply the results to their own possibilities and
> circumstances.
Should we posit a new word, or can I get by just saying 'real' stories? That is, *empty stories ('fronts'?) may be 'quick and dirty,' but recounting one's own human experience *believably is not easy or cheap. (It takes years, for a start.) I said, 'only listen,' but interestingly, it's those underdeveloped, impoverished, fatalistic farmers who have the sharpest eye/ ear/ flim-flam detectors...
> KM> [By] gaining the unexpected understanding doing that will bring,
> KM> as well as [giving] credibility [to the other party] [both will
> KM> have] successfully assimilated [and been somewhat assimilated to
> KM> each other's (_appreciate_ is perhaps the more vernacular term)]
> KM> culture."
>
> I don't think that language springs from linguistics but rather from
> the physical reality of the people involved.
My translation wasnt very clear. ;-) The paradigm I use derives - of course - from my having lived 'locally' in Nepal for several years. I dont pretend for a moment that I'm Nepali (at whatever level of one's discrimination, the 'inside/ outside' boundary is always there) - but I have (successfully, imho) 'assimilated' the levels which my friends and neighbours were able to expose for me. We'll have to ask them what they got from my stories, but it never occured to me to sell them short -- you can guess as well as I which level I would have been exposed to/ on if I had!
As for 'linguistics,' I find it quite worthwhile to apply the above 'reality- test' on a word-by-word basis. For instance, 'assimilate' is not wrong, insofar as 'making [oneself] similar' is the root meaning. I suggested 'appreciate' as it (literally) raises the ante somewhat, in the same way I can assimilate a meal you serve, but its my *appreciation that may get me invited back again ;-)
> This is why Eskimos have
> and use an extensive vocabulary where snow is concerned, Bedouins
> regarding camels and certain South Pacific islanders re duangs.
> Without the shared experience (and probably the *need*), the words are
> left dancing in the wind. They neither sink in nor take root.
It is in this sense that the highest use of a global communications netowrk, imo, is to 'reify' the level of language-use as a ground of experience. To take this present case in point: I do not know beforehand what your language is (that is, what you 'mean to say' by the words you choose), and it is highly unlikely that I will be able to share enough of *where you're coming from* to *ever say 'I knew what you meant before you spoke.' As far as I can see, all we can do is act (speak) on the 'precautionary principle' -- *Don't Assume Too Much* -- about what is 'acceptable' or 'obvious' or even 'assimilable.' (Now, before someone assumes that I mean 'never assume anything,' isnt it obvious I don't? On the contrary, one has to 'start somewhere'; the point is not to insist that the point one chooses is always the right one.)
> KM> (Here is the crux, for in my experience, there's no 'trick.' All
> KM> it takes is remembering that one is a human being.
>
> All might be a little too strong a word here.
I learned it from some darn fine teachers -- so fine it never occurred to them they were 'teaching.' They just showed me what they know, and let me *remember it all by myself. When they saw I had gotten that much, they showed me some more -- sort of like bringing up a child, you know? It's my honour to call them Uncle and Mother and Grandpa and Sister.
> KM> ... if step one is to share
> KM> experience, isnt *humanity the experience we all share?
>
> I would not underestimate the importance of what you describe but I
> believe this is never-the-less only a good start. There is got to be a
> convergence of goals and this has to be felt by the local group.
Suppose you and I meet, out in the middle of a listserver somewhere. What goals shall we have? How do we measure or feel convergence? Again, I start with an assumption of a shared experience of humanity. (If that fails, I start to move quietly in a different direction!) If it is affirmed, wont we have *mutually established a fundamental goal? - viz, that convergence not only is possible, but we feel it is a Good Thing. The details of where and how far and fast we go from *here we can work out, I suggest, by exactly the same recursive algorithm.
> KM> Poetically, isnt it the experience of taking that first step?
> KM> (Psychologically, the 'lost tradition' may be that of admitting
> KM> the first *misstep, when one fell on one's butt.
>
> That is honest and human but my experience has served to emphasize a
> need for performing organizational tasks that are difficult to achieve
> alone. Often you must integrate with the local powers that be and this
> can be complicated, due to vested interests and the degree of control
> exercised by by those who *don't* have the quality you describe, but
> rather feel their power threatened by that which they poorly
> understand.
I'm sorry - you're using some terms I dont understand: 'organization,' 'power', 'complication,' 'control.' (How do you say em in vernacular Nepali?) But, taking a hint from your saying 'difficult to achieve alone,' maybe these are aspects of (let me guess) 'working with someone who doesnt understand how to do one thing at a time,' and thus one keeps tripping over 'details' that might have been dealt with in their turn, but their turn was missed. If that's close at all, can you help me understand how (and *why!) one might get into such a situation from where we had been situated earlier, that is, in sharing both real-time experience and story-telling? You see, I'd like to be ready, if this conversation is going to suddenly become *complicated by issues of power and control and so on - then I'll be watching especially close and can maybe learn something about this puzzling transition (not to say quantum jump) from 'convergence' to 'performance.'
Otoh, if Im wide of the mark, can you please amplify the idea that something can be threatened by (even poor) understanding? Do you mean, reality can change according to how much one knows about it? (What do the scientists among us say about that?) - but wait!, *obviously 'power' is not a part of reality. Can I have another guess? Is it part of *being in a hurry*?
> KM> "Language itself may be useless unless implemented [as] a totally
> KM> organized [lifelong] project, and the local culture may not yet
> KM> support doing that. (Indeed, not every country permits
> KM> immigration.)
>
> Even so, there would be no denying it, at a gut level that had been
> well demonstrated (even if the emperors' new clothes and those in his
> court were off chasing other horizons).
I'm afraid I understand you, and I have to disagree. There seem to be remarkable numbers of people who can deny almost anything (several of them before breakfast ;-)), including the embeddedness of language in experience. I would surely like to know where *they are coming from.
> KM> It's in the [citizen's] best interest to help ...
> KM> people from start to finish, but that's something else [we're]
> KM> rarely willing to do...."
>
> Learning anything requires a beginning and an end, or the concept can
> not be assimilated.
I would modify this slightly: [What we call learning] ... because as soon as one looks at the *experience of learning, what does one see if not a lifelong bumble and tumble, trial and error process? Now, I may have jumped the gun - your categorical clause is of course true: *the concept* cannot be assimilated (because, of course, it cannot be 'identified.') But if I may hark back to the fine meal you have just dished up, are you saying I have to *identify everything before I can even begin to eat? - and that, without having been in the kitchen while you cooked, or in the garden where you grew the produce? Whew!
(Say, why dont you come over to my place? You'll never guess what all goes into my concoctions, but I guarantee, you wont be hungry!)
> KM> In this way, one may acquire a lifetime of experience, during
> KM> which one recognizes that *conveying that experience is neither an
> KM> easy or a short ... task. By that time, one starts to _understand
> KM> the way 'Westerners' go at things as if they need not trust anyone
> KM> at all, but also to wonder at their surprise that the result is
> KM> widespread _lack of trust_.
>
> We have a very discrete society that doesn't teach a whole lot about
> sharing. Also, there's very little that's left (or recognized) in terms
> of absolute (rather than relative) value.
Even more amazing, thousands of citizens go off every year to other cultures, *but dont seem to bring home anything about sharing* (maybe they've been inoculated?)
> But there's still a lot that can and should be done. I hope we're
> getting somewhere with this.
Gee, are we to Setting Goals already? I've been so enjoying the talk, I hardly noticed the ground we covered.
> What we're each saying is at least complementary.
I'm pleased to agree -- shall we go on to Correspondence? (It wont take long, I promise!)
kerry