Message-ID: <19991210050838.AAA23875@jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca@LOCALNAME> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:08:49 -04 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: Environment-Related Technologies - not babbling To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Douglas wrote, > 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.
I apologize for making you angry and incoherent; I feel it is important in this age of cut-and-paste to keep the author with his production, so I do it as a matter of routine. I hadnt realized that 'addressing' you would be such a sensitive issue, since all of our posts have been on a public list, where anyone is free -- more than welcome, in fact -- to join the conversation.
> 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; that 'transferring' it
> KM> cannot be a unilateral 'laying down the law' of what is reality,
> KM> or practical, or 'sensible';
>
> 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.
You may use it to *point to other things that you believe are sustainable or better, but Im sure you will acknowledge that until one succeeds in establishing that belief on the part of the 'beneficiary,' those things are hardly 'transferred.' Frankly, all I had hoped to point out by taking up your note to Turlough was that that simple statement is *recursive. It is not a solution to a problem (or even a tool to apply to a solution) until one has *addressed the transfer of belief -- and (again, I'm sorry to say) pointing to your beliefs, however strongly, does not a transfer make.
> 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.
Didnt we agree the purpose of the list is the transfer of technology? In the absence of other technologies (but the presence of a certain amount of dogmatism of one colour and another), why shouldnt we look diagnostically (at least!) at the technology of language?
As for the sustainabilty of *any other human endeavour, please excuse my skepticism. When 'sustainable conversation' is so poorly understood, after all, what are the chances of even recognizing 'sustainable agriculture'?
> 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.
Can you help debug my 'methodology'? I can improve my accuracy only when the errors are pointed out. (Isnt that called 'learning'?)
> KM> People claim to be puzzled when a ringing telephone takes priority
> over 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.
This exchange epitomizes the problem of 'foreign' technology (e.g. language): when one party doesnt use it as expected. One may *react to the disturbance of 'familiar' patterns, as if to restore them -- the patterns -- or one may *act (which in the context includes 'speak') with a view to 'assimilating' them -- that is, the disturbances. It does indeed depend on one's priorities (what doesnt?), but more so (as I tried to say earlier, ##) on the *mutual comprehension* of the here-and-now.
Specifically: I hoped to illustrate the phenomenon of attention by referring to a typical reaction to telephonic technology. The present response evinces familiarity with the *use of the phone to satisfy values which lie outside this conversation and thus terminates the conversational gene. Another response might have opened questions about the nature of learning, or other technical parallels, or user *control of future developments (will videophones be any different?), any of which would offer opportunities to learn to 'control' (or acculturate or appreciate or, at least, become familiar with) *this technology; in short, to sustain Devel-L (for instance) as a *viable part of the universe of developmental discourse, instead of a minor footnote to what is actually happening in the world.
========== ## I had written, 4/112/99:
> However, let's say for discussions sake that in this case the product
> really *is* capable of providing a real benefit for the farmers
> involved; and yet the gap, the disjunction, continues to prevent it's
> implementation.
>
> ... those holding the technology ... need to think in those terms
> themselves.
I quite agree its a matter of the terms we think in - may I suggest ... we call it _language_? Then, (to test this idea on the terms of your text as an instance),
"Let's say for [our present] sake that in this case the 'product' [of mutual comprehension] really *is* a real benefit for the farmers [_and_ the businessmen]; then, isnt it the [*con]junction, [which] continues to prevent [their realization]?"
========
I should clarify that the conjunction I had in mind was not necessarily at the hands-on end of the spectrum ;-) but somewhere in the psycho- social band. A perspective in which 'farmer' and 'businessman' see themselves *together does not in itself assure they will see themselves as *equals; on the contrary, the thought here was that *reaction (whether from fear of being 'out of place' or 'infra dig' revulsion) might lead one to see only competitive aspects of the situation (e.g. for 'command' of the language/ technology).
Cheers, kerry