|"Interaction Junkies" and other 'tight metaphors'||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|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
"Interaction Junkies" and other 'tight metaphors' Ormond Otvos, July 6 2002
- Re: "Interaction Junkies" and other 'tight metaphors' Sharon Villines, July 9 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.