>>You are truly amazing!
>
> Thanks!
>
No, don't thank me. I meant that tou are amazing in your lack of will
to communicate and participate in dialog.
>
>> You try to deal with my comments by slandering me
>
>
> Squeeze me? I think we have a slight communication problem. I never intended t
o
> slander you, and I believe I explicitly stated that. I think it is cherishable
> and noble to heartfully defend one's goals and ideals, especially in the name
of
>
> truth and communication. I've noted that you are conservative. That is, you wi
sh
>
> to preserve a state of uniformity in which communication can take place.
> Personally I tend to lean towards the turbulent. Now, I believe that if you pu
sh
>
> the conservative approach to its extreme you get linguistic stalinism because
> language and trails of thought are closely connected. If however, you push the
> turbulent approach too far you get a state of havoc -- non-communication.
> Neither of these are good. However, as someone neatly termed it, when both
> approaches are pulling simultaniously in each their directions you get socalle
d
> "creative tension" which in my opinion is healthy turbulence. In this way you
> conserve enough of a common language to sustain communication while at the sam
e
> time manage to evolve communication. If it's slandering to point this out then
> you and I have different definitions of slandering. I was also hoping you woul
d
> catch the sense of self-irony in my last posting. 1-0 to non-communication, I'
m
> afraid.
Your arrogance is unbelievable! How do you know ANYTHING about my political
beliefs? You are so wrong that I will let you in on a few of your
blindnesses. I am a chartwer member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
I have been a very strong anti-war, anti draft activist in the 60's. I
have been always an iconoclast and led a turbulent kife. Your presumptions
and labels arise out of your refusal to accept the fact that in these
discussions I have not understood your willingness to deny history, fact,
and open two way communication. Once again, I give up. I see no
value in discussing ANYTHING with you. Babble on and create falsehood
to your hearts content!
>
>
>>>I've
>>> adopted the concept of the magic mirror and is now one of the foundation
>>> concepts of my joint theory of psychology, sociology and human evolution.
>>>
>>Yes, I use it in an undergraduate honors course on complexity. As a text
>>I use Peat and Briggs "Turbulent Mirror" which is chock full of Allice,
>>Ancient Chinese philosophy and modern complexity theory.
>
>
> In my theoretical framework the magic mirror is the interface between the mind
> and other minds (society) through which communication flows. Hence "turbulent
> mirroring" would in my model be an image of non-communication. Why do I get th
e
> nagging feeling that we are caught in an accute irony-field spanned by the
> interpenetrating embodiment of non-communication in spacetime? I bet it is
> laughing at us both.
>
There ius a difference between "theory" and poor wordsmanship. You
might benefit from investigating it, but I have my doubts! I end
my participation here.
Don Mikulecky