FootprintsintheWind.com

That one insight points me to what is important to me: life, humanity, beauty. Luhmann’s theory, as an article by David Seidl is explaining it, attracts me: it takes further the old theory of communication as message encoded, transmitted, decoded, and adds two steps: this message is understood by the other party (without which there would not be communication; but note that what the other party understands is likely to be at variance with what the first intended); and then the first party or a third, responds with his or their understandings. What is lacking I am seeing is a direction or purpose of the whole called conversation: why are we even talking in the first instance? It seems to me there is a purpose, maybe even in chit-chat: to show I am friendly, or to show I am worthy of your attention, or to share a laugh, smile, or tear.

:- Doug.

What is the ladder we take from communication to conversation? Here: under Luhmann’s social theory of autopoiesis, as I understand it so far, communication does not address purpose, nor direction: consequently this communication lacks life and humanity.

:- Doug.

Spatial/temporal words—in, on, under, before, then—are first stage vanishing metaphors. Words of journeys and containers—also being words, like is and are—are even more sneaky.

:- Doug.

All words, by definition, are metaphors: one thing standing for another. This tells us words cannot fully capture any concept. The more amorphous the concept, such as spiritual non ritual concepts, the less any word could capture and express all aspects.

:- Doug.

We ever have had only a vague conception of what is conversation. Nothing direct. No direct words, only comparisons. We need more comparisons.

:- Doug.