| | |
|
GregOrrFirstPaper 7 - 20 Apr 2009 - Main.GregOrr
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | In Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities, a group assembled from Austrian society is given the opportunity to choose an idea to spur the world to a better future, but they cannot reach consensus because subgroup perceptions and interests are desperately incompatible. This provides foreground to a personal search for answers by the title character, Ulrich, who sees two sides in everything. Situations have contrasting components, and even individual components evoke contrasting interpretations, “Like watching someone eat silently, without sharing his appetite: You suddenly perceive only swallowing movements, which look in no way enviable.” | |
<
< | He concludes, “Meaning lies roughly halfway between reasoning and capriciousness,” with common forms of capriciousness including “how we privilege particular interpretations through cultural or personal preunderstanding” and “how we unquestionably seek the firm and solid in life as urgently as a land animal that has fallen into the water.” Ulrich further interrogates conditions of semi-certainty by seeking contrary and unaccounted for internal and external evidence in hopes of greater synthesis. Yet reasoning appears, even in its best light, to be asymptotic, and some level of capriciousness always contributes to decisions that are made (or not made) in finite time. | >
> | He concludes, “Meaning lies roughly halfway between reasoning and capriciousness,” with common forms of capriciousness including “how we privilege particular interpretations through cultural or personal preunderstanding” and “how we unquestionably seek the firm and solid in life as urgently as a land animal that has fallen into the water.” Ulrich further interrogates conditions of semi-certainty by seeking contrary and unaccounted for internal and external evidence in hopes of greater truth. Yet reasoning appears, even in its best light, to be asymptotic, and some level of capriciousness always contributes to decisions that are made (or not made) in finite time. | | | I intend to further explain the structure underlying these ideas and consider the implications. I will argue that misunderstandings are pervasive and often insidious, and people can become more ‘creative’ through openness and reflection in communication, though this leads to a problem of parsimony. | | | Reflection on the processes of constructing expressions allows more accurate and productive interpretation. What’s his situation? What are his interests? What’s his intention? What’s the tone? Is he earnest or ironic? What’s there that I haven’t incorporated? What seems to be missing? What do I know that might be relevant? What don’t I know that might be relevant? What kind of mistake might he be making? What if I’m making the mistake and not him? What might a third person have a frustrated urge to tell me about it? What might be the next step? | |
<
< | In this way, interpretations can veer from one thing to another, or from a thing to its opposite. Ideally, open and reflective communication finds its way to increasingly robust understanding. | >
> | In this way, interpretations can veer from one thing to another, or from a thing to its opposite. Ideally, open and reflective communication finds its way to increasingly robust understanding. | | | The Parsimony Problem |
|
| Revision 7 | r7 - 20 Apr 2009 - 05:08:35 - GregOrr |
| Revision 6 | r6 - 20 Apr 2009 - 03:24:27 - GregOrr |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |