Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.95.991210083536.13876A-100000@world.std.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:38:48 -0500 From: Renewable News Network <mailto:rnn@RNN.COM> Subject: Re: Environment-Related Technologies - not babbling To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
sounds like self-indulgent cabin fever and no I don't know what you're talking aboutOn Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Kerry Miller wrote:
> Douglas,
>
> >From complementarity to adversity in 2 messages -- I admire your
> certainty!
>
> It looked for a moment that we had found agreement on the idea that
> language is in fact a technology like any other; that 'transferring' it
> cannot be a unilateral 'laying down the law' of what is reality, or
> practical, or 'sensible'; that not only the *committment of the parties of
> the first and second parts but the *presence of a third is involved. (Did
> you 'say' so? No, but consider, not even how long this conversation
> would have lasted 'backchannel,' but whether it would have even begun if
> it were not for this mailing list. It's popular to say that one's being here
> 'makes a statement' -- but isnt that to say, the being of the list makes
> one's statement possible?)
>
> But there are claims on your attention far beyond my poor powers to
> add or detract ;-) -- even last week's message from Turlough has
> priority over the *present exchange in your mind. Since it's obvious that
> we arent going to get to 'constructive' discussion on *that topic without
> some more scaffolding, perhaps this 'side issue' of attention and
> distraction will serve:
>
> People claim to be puzzled when a ringing telephone takes priority over
> a client sitting in front of one's desk, but isnt it because one *already
> (_a priori_) knows what to expect from the typical call and how to
> respond to it, while the 'bandwidth' of a face-to-face person is very much
> greater --one has to be ready for anything (even getting 'turned around,'
> tho if you can clarify what you mean in this case, it would be very
> helpful).
>
> In other words, if we imagine communicative interactions as ranging over
> a spectrum -- from the human (not only literal hands-on but winking and
> semaphores and go-betweens) though the various 'media' (phone
> messages and voice/ video mail and 'chits' - memoranda) to the ultimate
> 'Tis!-'Taint! of pure binary code, the question is -- in accord with the
> "specific purpose" for which, as both you and I understand it, this list
> was created -- where does "international development" fall?
>
> There are exponents for almost every view -- from the 'inevitability'
> argument that *anything is developmental ('Build it and they shall come')
> to the 'get real' position that says, essentially, 'What works for me, is
> what works. Period.' -- but the *priorities of late have not favoured those
> who would say that it's the wrong question.
>
> Eh? Sorry, did I turn something around? Let me put it straight:
>
> Communicative interaction is one spectrum; development is another,
> and it is *at least* as useful to ask where communication fits
> developmentally as vice versa. Sadly, its usefulness comes from the
> fact that it is rarely asked -- because isnt the answer glaringly obvious?
> It's right up there at the head of the line, where it is considered part of
> 'personal development' (and personal dev is usually considered part of
> *child dev, but that's a slightly different story), and stretches a little way
> into 'cultural development.' The further one goes towards the rarified,
> streamlined specialties of 'economic development,' the more one is
> assumed to have mastered the broadband applications. Yet, when one
> 'impertinently' asks whether the 'concrete' developers *have that
> mastery, what happens?
>
> Datum:
> > What are you? This is a sterile exercise. I only am in involved in
> > integral projects (and don't even ask me to define that, because you
> > *aren't* interested. I find your tack unfounded and parasitic).
>
> 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.
>
> Datum:
> > If you continue to harass me, I will have
> > to refer this to the list's administrator. 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.
>
> 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...
>
> This is only a sample, of course, which 'proves' nothing except that
> language can be considered in a technological light. (Can you imagine
> trying to prove it without concrete, real-life, experiential examples?
> Impossible.)
>
> Specifically, how do these points plot (on either spectrum)? Are they
> egalitarian ('interactive,' open-channel) or are they autocratic ('top-down,'
> closed-channel)? Do they 'send the message' of "I'm listening" or of "I'm
> the judge"?
>
> Everyone here -- (by definition) in this list, as (more subtly) in a farming
> village -- speaks (I should say *can speak) for his or her own interests.
> In whose real life is it, then, that one *assumes power* to speak for all
> the rest, transgressing the claim of equality? Does one need to look any
> further than those ugly occasions when some foreigner comes to town
> and (in the *name of progress) starts 'throwing his weight around,'
> declaring what is right and wrong (or interesting or unfounded or a
> favour), and that 'you' are thus-and-so if you dont feel the same
> mandate?
>
> Do you know what Im talking about?
>
> Cheers,
> kerry
>
>
> The common is what is open to all, what can be seen and heard
> by all. To see is to let in with open eyes what is open to view, i.e.
> what is lit up and revealed to all. The dead (the completely private
> ones) neither see nor hear; they are closed. No light (fire) shines
> in them; no speech sounds in them. And yet, even they participate
> in the kosmos. -- Heraclitus, Fragment 26
>
> "... the trick is actually doing it. From my experience, it
> takes a well defined methodology with well developed
> policies. [Language] itself may be useless unless
> implemented within the framework of a totally organized
> project, and the [readers] may not yet support doing
> that. 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
>