Jake wrote:
>>Tim wrote:
>>All communication is an equivocation of one form or another.
>
>This is an interesting thesis. I would be delighted for you to show us how
>this is the case. As far as your statement, "All communication is an
>equivocation of one form or another." at this moment, I simply cannot
agree.
>But at the same time I will respect a reality that I think you may be
trying
>to allude to, though I think your statement is literally wrong.
"Literally wrong, but possibly alluding to reality." Interesting. You almost make my case for me.
In order to communicate one thing you must give up another. For example: Reed seems to be more interested at times in communicating emotional states than factual points. So he gives up the rational aspects of his views and employs invocative imagery and metaphor. You, Jake, seem more interested in communicating factual points and logical relationships than the emotional associations that go with them in your mind. And so you speak in messured tones and employ reason in complicated, intricate ways. Both of you are talking--and talking well, to be sure--but you aren't communicating. You aren't hearing what the other is saying.
You'e talking in two different languages and you won't ever "get" what the other is saying until you try to speak in their language. Why do you think Reed's ears pricked up when you wrote your "script for the mirror dance"? You were talking in his language. Out of the series of grunts and babble a couple familiar words slipped through. But when he said, "Hey, what was that you said?" you replied with "Eg op oop skreiddle doop NOTHING REALLY eedle fromp ezxty boo ftphhhh."
All communication is an equivocation of one form or another. Unfortunately, not all talking is a form of communication.
-Prof. Tim