Message-ID: <1862.991209@acnet.net> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 20:41:40 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds <mailto:dmhinds@acnet.net> Subject: Re: Environment-Related Technologies - not babbling To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Kerry,I have already made my position clear in relation to this thread's topic. I have also made my position clear in relation to what I consider to be a perverse, capricious and disrespectful intent on your part to engage me in a useless, pointless and (yes) stupid discussion that I believe benefits no one.
I have also asked you to refrain from addressing yourself to me publicly on this list, since the content of your messages of of a strictly a personal nature. Perhaps you do that knowing that private mail by you to me would either go unanswered or be answered in way inappropriate to this list.
While looking for the email address of the lists administrator, I happened on the devel-l archives, where I found a *lot* of posts by you that consist almost exclusively of forwarding things from other sources, but this never the less seems to have blossomed into some evident sense of territoriality on your part and enough confidence to venture to emit what you apparently construe as opinions. Maybe what I should do is scratch you behind the ears or throw you a bone.
However, once again, I am going to engage in what I hope is not more that 15 minutes of irrelevant chit chat with you below, just to keep in shape. (I no longer expect to find anything of value in it other than untangling knots that aren't mine, that re-tangle immediately anyway - but that's not my doing).
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
Thursday, December 09, 1999, 10:27:02 AM, you wrote:
KM> Douglas,
KM> From complementarity to adversity in 2 messages -- I admire your KM> certainty!
I take'em as they come. Actually, your entrance was very diffuse at first, a bit of camouflage for what you hoped to set up.
KM> It looked for a moment that we had found agreement on the idea that KM> language is in fact a technology like any other;
Like language itself, like no other.
KM> that 'transferring' it
We don't transfer it (although we *can* transfer language skills - but that's another issue), we *employ* it to transfer other things - such as sustainable agricultural technology or a better future for all those involved.
KM> cannot be a unilateral 'laying down the law' of what is reality, KM> or practical, or 'sensible';
Which of the two of us is more unilateral do you think, and which is more contrary! Too bad I don't fit your Procrustean bed.
KM> that not only the *committment of the parties of the first and KM> second parts but the *presence of a third is involved. (Did you KM> 'say' so?
No. The issue was definitely *not* the transference of language, but rather transference of sustainable agricultural technology. I hope that helps you. Language itself is one of the mediums used to that end. If you want to quote me, do so. But your interpretations, analogies and paraphrasing have been inaccurate.
KM> No, but consider, not even how long this conversation KM> would have lasted 'backchannel,'
Not long.
KM> but whether it would have even begun if it were not for this KM> mailing list.
It wouldn't. And the list is not to blame for the fact that it did.
KM> It's popular to say that one's being here 'makes a KM> statement' -- but isnt that to say, the being of the list makes KM> one's statement possible?)
You do seem to live on this list, although frankly I hadn't noticed before.
KM> But there are claims on your attention far beyond my poor powers to KM> add or detract ;-) -- even last week's message from Turlough has KM> priority over the *present exchange in your mind. Since it's obvious that KM> we arent going to get to 'constructive' discussion on *that topic without KM> some more scaffolding, perhaps this 'side issue' of attention and KM> distraction will serve:
It's clear to me you have no issue in mind, and possibly nothing better to do.
KM> People claim to be puzzled when a ringing telephone takes priority over KM> a client sitting in front of one's desk,
It all depends on who's calling, who's visiting and what one's priorities are.
KM> but isnt it because one *already (_a priori_) knows what to expect KM> from the typical call and how to respond to it,
I get no typical calls, and any can be important, when the caller has something to say.
KM> while the 'bandwidth' of a face-to-face person is very much KM> greater --one has to be ready for anything (even getting 'turned KM> around,' tho if you can clarify what you mean in this case, it KM> would be very helpful).
I'm not sure whether you (for instance), would have more bandwidth in person than here (and why risk it)?
KM> In other words, if we imagine communicative interactions as ranging over KM> a spectrum --
Thank you, I'd rather not.
KM> from the human (not only literal hands-on but winking and KM> semaphores and go-betweens) though the various 'media' (phone KM> messages and voice/ video mail and 'chits' - memoranda) to the ultimate KM> 'Tis!-'Taint! of pure binary code, the question is -- in accord with the KM> "specific purpose" for which, as both you and I understand it, this list KM> was created -- where does "international development" fall?
Apparently nowhere, in your case - since it doesn't lend itself onomatopoetically.
KM> There are exponents for almost every view --
What of it! "Every" is equivalent to no.
<snip>
KM> Eh? Sorry, did I turn something around?
That is nothing new. You do try. Too bad your intentions suck. (And you can quote me on that one too).
KM> Let me put it straight:
Seeing is believing.
<snip>
KM> Datum: >> What are you? This is a sterile exercise... I find your tack
>> unfounded and parasitic).
Yes, I still believe that. Your only point is somehow *me*, but off base, distorted and inverted. And you haven't answered my question regarding substance abuse: *Are* you taking any therapy? Are you *sure* you don't want to take this off list or let it drop?
KM> Datum: >> I have no idea of what your reality is or if you have one. In fact,
>> I have began to doubt that, and you are confirming that doubt.
And confirming it very well.
KM> Datum: >> If you continue to harass me, I will have to refer this to the
>> list's administrator.
If anyone who's gotten this far has an address for the DEVEL_L administrator, I'd appreciate his or her's sending it.
>> If you really have any specific questions relating to concrete,
>> real life issues that you yourself are involved in and that haven't
>> already been answered, by all means let's hear them. Otherwise, I'd
>> prefer to drop it right now. I'd rather you took it off list. I see
>> nothing appropriate to DEVEL-L in your content.
Well put (if I do say so myself) and consistent with today's perspective.
KM> Datum: >> What's concrete is your cute, snide, slick remark that's meant to
>> demean yet fails to cover neither the underlying fallacy nor the
>> personal inadequacy...
I sustain that.
KM> This is only a sample,
You need more?
KM> of course, which 'proves' nothing except that language can be KM> considered in a technological light.
You have proved something other than being able to chase your own tail (and unable to catch it)?
Evidently "considering language in a technological light" is what you do to evade reality. (Yes, there is one - at least one). All that's being "proven" is that we're on almost totally different track - or at least you go to pains to make it seem that way.
KM> (Can you imagine trying to prove it without concrete, real-life, KM> experiential examples? Impossible.)
Prove what? I can solve certain resolvable problems within the area of my experience and I hope a few yet to come. However, you've postulated none nor made no meaningful point, to my mind. You just seem to want to engage me in this sterile exercise simply to keep you company, and force me to do that by addressing me publicly.
KM> Specifically, how do these points plot (on either spectrum)? Are KM> they egalitarian ('interactive,' open-channel) or are they KM> autocratic ('top-down,' closed-channel)? Do they 'send the KM> message' of "I'm listening" or of "I'm the judge"?
"You" are pretending to plot *me* on your own little inadequate graph. I'll *be* the judge all right, when I'm also the issue at hand. *You* are certainly no one to judge, and we can do a bit of judgement comparing any time at all, but once again - this would be appropriate only OFF_LIST.
Each and every criteria I have applied to this exchange has indicated a consistent pattern on each side: Except one is a distorted and mocking mirror of the other.
KM> Everyone here -- (by definition) in this list, as (more subtly) in KM> a farming village -- speaks (I should say *can speak) for his or KM> her own interests.
It would be hypocrisy, demagoguery to assume otherwise. Having an interest is legitimate, but some are more universal and generous than others. *That* is substance.
KM> In whose real life is it, then, that one *assumes power* to speak KM> for all the rest, transgressing the claim of equality?
Who is speaking for the rest? I will answer questions when I'm asked, perhaps offer opinions that I hold when I feel they may be useful (especially when they *have* been, to me); and within the scope of the powers conferred to me by those who know and trust me much more than you ever will, I will take the steps that to the best of my ability, have revealed themselves to be to best steps possible, relative to the situation and purpose at hand.
KM> Does one need to look any further than those ugly occasions when KM> some foreigner comes to town and (in the *name of progress) starts KM> 'throwing his weight around,' declaring what is right and wrong KM> (or interesting or unfounded or a favour), and that 'you' are KM> thus-and-so if you dont feel the same mandate?
Are you inferring that the above applies to my particular case?
If so, I only take on projects after I've been asked to provide needed support those who ask for it know I can give. What I've been trying to impart here, is what has to be done to get to that point, and I think it's important to know that this *can* be achieved.
But one of the things that has to be done is completely and totally dedicate yourself to the end you have chosen. Since that end *is* grounded in a physical place, and physical places do *create* time (as sure as the world turns), by the time one gets into the swing of it (if he does - which he will if he really means it and has fully assimilated the *lessons of the place and time that correspond to him*), you will have become a different person, without having lost the original.
You say you were in Nepal. Perhaps you're still there, although your email address (which proves nothing) is Canadian. Or perhaps you "went back home". I didn't, and don't plan to (my grandparents didn't either). I've only been here 25 years so far, but it's a good start.
KM> Do you know what Im talking about?
I only know what I am part of, and that you sure do like to talk a lot.
It's also obvious that you know nothing about me, my background or what I do.
KM> The common is what is open to all, what can be seen and heard by KM> all. To see is to let in with open eyes what is open to view, i.e. KM> what is lit up and revealed to all.
Nepalese wisdom? Or Opium!
KM> The dead (the completely private ones) neither see nor hear; they KM> are closed.
Closed, your aunt fanny.
KM> No light (fire) shines in them; no speech sounds in them.
Kerry, if that is true *you* sure ain't dead yet then. However, many believe that it's the un-resting dead that babble ceaselessly, saying nothing except "I wish I had made it but couldn't quite cut it - I can be awful cute about it though". even so, don't give up hope yet. I'm sure you can do better, but it *would* help if you had better intentions.
KM> And yet, even they participate in the kosmos.
Providing the flame for other's fires. Thanks Kerry.
"... the trick is actually doing it. From my experience, it takes a well defined methodology with well developed policies.
Expressed in clear [Language].
Language itself may be useless unless implemented within the framework of a totally organized project, and the [readers] may not yet support doing that.
Why sell the readers short? This list *is* dedicated to these issues, and most or many are professionally engaged in the field. what do *you* do?
What counts however, is the preparation of the people you'll be dealing with, and what they lack you'll have to give, in order to reach the goals you and they share. (I'm using a generic you here, directed to the list as a whole, if anyone has actually bothered to wade through this needlessly constructed maze. - Unless it was just an exercise - which it was - and all it was, for me).
It's in the promoter's best interest to help these people from start to finish, but that's something else they're rarely willing to do." -- D.M.H., 4/12/99
Still true and on track, 9/12/99
Douglas M. Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico