To: Edwarda who wrote (53308 ) 8/28/1999 6:30:00 AM From: Neocon Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Actually, I was referring to a philosophical problem, along the lines of some material I sent you before, concerning communication, and Steve seemed to think that I was referring to style (as did nihil). My elephant example should have sufficed as clarification: if we are telling people things that are new to them, and not readily imaginable or extrapolated, how can we convey something meaningful? In many instances we are forced to use analogies (metaphors, similes, etc.), but they can be dreadfully misleading, and so we try to use more than one, or make stark qualifications, to make the statement more precise. If we synthesize concepts, to provide a picture of the unknown through the known, there is a danger of confusion unless we simplify the model, so that the relationships among the synthesized concepts do not become too obscure. Although, as I said later, these problems become particularly acute when speaking about philosophical or religious matters, they are not unique to that category of discourse. That is why I chose the elephant example: the main point is the situation of trying to communicate something far outside the person's experience or knowledge.....My "snort" over the brevity comment did not mean that I disagree that concision is a value, but that capturing the truth of something may easily mean giving a more expansive account. I used the St. John's example because it is so "other" than what most people think of when they think of college, and it is clear that one cannot rely on typical experience to convey much. Therefore, brevity is a value only after considering what is needed to get the job done. To advise someone not to use superfluous means does not tell them how to distinguish the superfluous from the necessary....
