"Interaction Junkies" and other 'tight metaphors'
From: Ormond Otvos (ormondmail.com)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:14:01 -0600 (MDT)
I would expect little forward movement in a
discussion with someone who uses terms like
"interaction junkie", not because it is wrong, or
inaccurate in some cases, but because using such a
"tight metaphor" so constricts the thinking
process of the person using it, and those whom it
might apply to, or even those to whom it doesn't
apply, and who think it might be thought to apply
to by others in the discussion.

Perhaps the term might be dropped, with
appropriate nods to the concession, otherwise we
drop into Berkeley mode, and argue about the mode
of argument. (It's a relief to do this, because
then warrantable beliefs are sliced off the
universe of work that the discussees must do.)

It's a vacation from communication...and therefore
very popular. Ask the man who used the term. He
probably enjoys the uproar over terminology.

Ormond, in Berkeley

--
Rule 110 states that a cell becomes white IF its
previous color and its two neighbors are all black
or all white OR if its previous color was white
and the two neighbors are black and white
respectively otherwise the cell becomes black.  If
now BWW, what will be the next color?
>From "A New Kind Of Science" by Stephen Wolfram


_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.