Robert Bacal <rbacal@escape.ca> writes:
> I think perhaps we have a different idea of what the word dialogue means,
> and what communication means. My view is that communication involves
> developing shared meaning. If one person uses neologisms (new words or
> phrases) that have no shared meaning, the communication process then has
> to first establish the meaning of THOSE words, before shared meaning can
> be exchanged.
I do not think that we have different ideas what communication means
because your view and mine are essentially the same. Note that you now in
the second round use the phrase "developing shared meaning" whereas in the
first round you wrote " communication is used for ... exchanging meaning".
However, if the one party in the communication process uses a neologism
while the other party refuses to acknowledge it because it has a new
meaning, then the communcation will fail. (A dialogue is intended to
prevent such failures). Please note that questioning the meaning of a
neologism is not the same as denying it because of its new meaning.
I used the neologisms "emergent learning" and "digestive learning". You
did not question their meaning, but merely denied them by writing, for
example
> That's what happens when communication is used for purposes other
> than exchanging meaning...and I will leave it to the imagination
> what the many other purposes might be in creating one's own lexicon.
...snip...
> If I speak in French, you in German, and neither of us understands the
> other's language, is this your idea of dialogue?
Yes, this is a syntactical example of my idea of dialogue, provided we
desire communication. We will probably begin with establishing a sign
language to discover and learn about the grammer of each other's language.
A better example would be if you speak in French and I speak in Khoi - a
language indigenous to South Africa for which there do not exist any
French/Khoi dictionaries or common conversation lessons.
But the example above does not cover my idea of a dialogue. Let me offer
semantical examples. If both you and I speak English, but you are a
Christian and I am a Muslim, then the context of every word and phrase
become very important in establishing their meaning. The overall meaning
of the context itself is determined by our respective religeous paradigms.
I can formulate another example in terms of, say sccientific paradigms.
However, if the one party does not honour the other party's paradigm, the
communication will also fail.
Furthermore, other people also have an idea of what a dialogue is. A
remarkable example is Peter Senge.
> > Your reaction to the example shows that despite my explanation, you
> > understand very little about communication in revolutionary conditions,
> > i.e conditions far from equilbrium.
>
> That may be the case. In order for you contention to hold, you would have
> to demosntrate that such a revolutionary condition exists which is out of
> the ordinary.
I have demonstrated it, but you merely denied it. You did not even
questioned it. This is where the communication breaks.
> > I want to stress again that "meaning" is not something
> > immutable/invariable.
>
> Of course not. Neither does meaning of words get defined by a single
> person, although presumably new words must start somewhere <grin>.
Nonsense. It is usually difficult to identify in a natural language which
person gave a new meaning to a word, or even a new word with a new
meaning. But should you consult an advances dictionary, you will find
hundreds of examples.
On the other hand, it is often common knowledge in a technical language
which person created a particular term and its precise meaning.
> Here's
> an interesting thought. There is a category of mental illness which is
> characterized by the use of neologisms...essentially nonsense words strung
> together by the afflicted. This type of schizophrenia (if I am remembering
> correctly) is problematic because it causes an isolation which is
> problematic. Nobody can understand the person. That's not to say the words
> or nonsense syllables have NO meaning to the person saying them. It just
> means they have no meaning to others.
The above example strengthens my suspicion that you are against neologisms
per se. But I will let you be the judge of this suspicion.
Allow me to explain my position with regard to neologisms. I am deadly
against the fragmentation of knowledge into isolated subjects. Hence,
although some of the terms of one subject means exactly the same as the
terms of another subject, anyone using those terms of the one subject in
the presence of the other subject is suspected of creating unnecessary
neologisms, thus deepening the isolation rather than lessening it.
> If one took the time, and assuming that the afflicted could explain the
> meanings, one could theoretically develop a lexicon that would enhance
> understanding...but one would probably have to spend years with a single
> person establishing what the words and phrases meant, before even
> venturing into a conversation.
You have given an example at the negative end of the bell curve. I will
give one at its positive end.
Just as there will always be a few people acting at the positive
fringe/edge of the bell curve, there were also a few people who have done
so in the past. It is easy to make a list of such "afflicted people" by
merely studying the history of each subject. Since it would have taken
many years to understand what a particular person meant, such a person is
then ignored by the main body of the bell curve. This happens until such
time that the main body catches up with its former fringe. By that time
communication with the former fringe person is not possible any more. All
that remains to do is to study what was written by that fringe person - no
communication, no dialogue, merely a monologue.
Since it is a monologue, the main body of the bellcurve does not persist
in studying its past fringes. Since the main body also do not communicate
with its present fringe, it moves very slowly to any future fringe. By the
time it reaches that future fringe, that very fringe has already displaced
itself much further.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>