[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01958: Re: [WDDM] Re: [epistemology] A CONVERSATION WITH GEORGES METANOMSKI (NO.1 )

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:59:16 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: [epistemology] A CONVERSATION WITH GEORGES METANOMSKI (NO.1 )

Dear Sir,

please explain to me in details what would you want me to do

thanks,

antonio






yogesh saxena ha scritto:
Dear Sir,
I invite your attention for giving an opportunity to organise a
seminar of World wide democracy net as I have attended in BONN Germany
from 23rd Feb. to 1st of March this year.
Yogesh Saxena
yogrekha(at)gmail.com

2008/10/1 <Antonio Rossin>

Georges Metanomski ha scritto:
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/28/08, <Antonio Rossin> wrote:
>
> Georges,
> You would be quite right, provided only ypur communication
> way were successful, i.e. effective.
> Would your communication way be not so effective, maybe
> some investigation could be the case - after all, this should be
> not so hard a job, to the learned scientist you are.
> Otherwise, we are doomed to fall down into Huxley's well-known
> axiom:
> "(Theory without practice is sterile)
> Practice without theory is blind".
> =============
> G:
> It's not an axiom, but an aphorism and it's dangerous
> to follow aphorisms too far. It holds for science like
> physics or for technology like car building, but not
> at all for daily practice. A bike rider recalling the
> Newton's mechanics at every movement, would find himself
> soon in a ditch; a writer recalling the grammar and the
> syntax at every word would cripple the conents and
> produce a flat school exercise.

(ant)
True,d but the reverse is equally dangerous, too. You wrote:

"I breathe without necessarily investigating biochemistry.
I think without necessarily investigating neurology.
I communicate without necessarily investigating
communication theory."

I agree that you do not need to investigate communication
theory personally, as your daily practice; but if you point out
this practice as a model to the public who looks at you like
a person who is teaching living models up to them -- namely,
a New Manner of Thinking -- what you replied above takes
the meaning of an exhortation to ignorance.

Which model would be mostly damaging to people who
live in "democracy". You know, "democracy" -- that is
nothing else but a manner of communication by which
people organize their social tissue, ultimately a products
of human communication -- is ill, to date. How do you
pretend to contribute into its care, without analyzing the
human communication which democracy is made with? and which is,
finally, the most direct output of their (odd)
manner of thinking?

Anyway, coming back to Huxley's, I agree with you:
communication cannot be theorized at every moment.
Once only is enough: but once! Othervise one can go
off the road. Now you know, to get into the middle of
the road one who has fallen out into a way-side, you
must pull that fellow by placing yourself into the other
way-side, not from just from the middle of the road.



(G.)
> The latter holds for me, when I write about my view.
> I'm not uninterested in impacting the society and in
> that quality I fought in Warsaw Ghetto, in Polish
> Resistance and in Israeli commandos. But when I
> write up my view, I endeavor to express it as sincerely
> as I can without any marketing considerations.

(ant)
Do you mean, you want to communicate your sincere
wiew to the public without considering the effectiveness
of the tool you use? I can't believe

--------------------

(G.)
> If the society choses to ignore it, it's their problem.

(ant)
Wrong. It is OUR problem, because we are all in the
same boat. Most of all, it is the very problem of our
children, because they have to follow.

-------------------------

(G.)
> I'll not try to convince them by sacrificing contents
> of my view onthe altar of communicability.

(ant)
That's off-topic. Who is he, or she, who wants to
induce you to sacrifice your contents?
Let me recall (in a previous post with same subject),
I sincerely appreciate your imputs. I do not question
your contents, and never did. I only wonder whether
the communication of your contents were effective.

As you may know, the effectiveness of communication
depends on TWO factors.
1- the value-quality of the given contents;
2- the openmindedness of the addressed containers

It is 2. factor, that should be investigated more deeply,
aiming at equipping the containers with the utmost
possible openmindedness. I recall, the "containers"
are those people who should change their old Manner
of Thinking, if humankind is to survive...

Otherwise, you keep on "communicating" your wise
and sincere contents like pouring crystal water into a
drilled pottery.

-----------------------

(G.)
> That being said, I shall always welcome friendly
> stylistic suggestions of a better writer, as long as
> they don't deform the contents.
>
> Georges.
> =============

(ant)
There is a great deal of written stuff, everywhere. The
real problem is the reader(s), not the writer. Really, how
to educate the readers to share-in and select-criticize all
what they read.


Regards,

antonio






--
Y.K.Saxema


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]