atw: Re: The New World Order, Christine's final word

  • From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:43:26 +1100

No one is trying to silence you Christine. You made a statement; it was
challenged. If you think the challenge missed its mark, then challenge back.

 
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W:  <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
 

  _____  

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:13 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: The New World Order, Christine's final word



Well we now have four of you men degenerating into personal attack using
ridicule and contempt against me to try to destroy my morale, my faith in my
own intelligence, my reputation with this group, and to ensure that no-one
dares to agree with me with more than two words, for fear of the same.  

Misquoting, misrepresenting and intimidation are very effective techniques
to solicit silence, but silence is not compliance.  Now you will never know
if there really is a movement happening out there, because you have made
sure no-one who is tuning in to whatever is happening, will ever dare tell
you about their perceptions in this forum. 

Do you really think I will crawl under a rock and say, stupid stupid
Christine, you are too dumb to make observations, too dumb to spot trends
and too dumb to suggest that they might warrant research?  Do you think I
should quiver in shame before my superiors and masters and beg your
forgiveness of my outrageous impertinence?  

Oh goodness gracious me (she says as she wobbles her silly dumb head from
side to side). I am silenced! 

Christine (an NF in an SJ world)

 <http://www.youtube.com/user/JezebelDecibel#p/u/11/ppeN8gmk-JU>
http://www.youtube.com/user/JezebelDecibel#p/u/11/ppeN8gmk-JU [:-(*:-|*:-)]

-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris lofting
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 9:21 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: The New World Order, take 2.5

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 

> Geoffrey Marnell

> Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 8:00 PM

> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Subject: atw: Re: The New World Order, take 2

> 

<snip>

>  

> I'm sorry Christine, but amongst the gems you do offer this 

> list, occasionally you put forward some claim or other that 

> is arrant nonsense. Your claim that everything that is to be 

> learnt can be learnt from YouTube is your most recent example 

> (and your response to Howard Silcock's neutral, uncritical 

> question is an example of you refusing to follow the very 

> ethic you want us to follow). Those who challenged you have 

> as much right to challenge your claims as the claims of 

> flat-earthers and scientologists. (You did, I notice, have 

> the grace to republish your posting with the claim that 

> caused the fuss struck out, a move that deserves respect.)

>  

Christine appears to be demonstrating 'symmetric' thinking - it lacks

precision (when compared to asymmetric thinking), has limited logic in that

it is grounded in the bi-conditional and as such instinctively converts the

conditional into the bi-conditional! It is a mindset grounded in

post-modernism and covers the development of social networks where we can

get 700 friends rather than 3! How do you service 700 friends? you don't, or

more so must live a superficial life.

Symmetric thinking is the foundation of the everyday activities of members

of the species; its logic is shared with the logic of dream states and

another category of thinking style is that of 'mythic' thinking - thinking

in images etc rather than 'directed' thinking where we think in words.

Symmetric thinking focuses on a process of gaining identity from/through the

local context rather than asserting one's own context.

In the realm of post modernism, the symmetry involved means all points of

view are, basically, the same and so 'any metaphor will do' in interpreting

reality. The problem of course is that symmetric thinking lacks direction

and is more tied to metaphor and so romanticism/surrealism -

anti-symmetry/asymmetry being more into realism and the use of metonymy (and

so possible paradox). Thus we can see the holistic/organic/parallel nature

of symmetric thinking, as compared to the mechanistic/partials/serial nature

of asymmetric thinking BUT we also note that, with symmetric thinking, the

bias to immediacy in responses covers a grounding in instincts/habits and so

in generals, as compared to the recognition of unique differences of

particulars in asymmetric thinking (and the associated delay of such).

The development of symmetry comes as a reaction to asymmetry where intense

expressions of precision etc lead to a need to conserve energy and so we see

the emergence of symmetric perspectives since symmetry is the 'best fit'

response to complexity (it also covers 'dumbing-down' of information to make

it easier to understand by the masses - personally I prefer the focus on

smartening-up than dumbing-down!)

The demands of technical writing cover the dynamics of

anti-symmetry/symmetry (part/whole dynamics covering the focus on difference

vs sameness). The asymmetric covers the emergence of mediation and so

creation of languages through use of consciousness. Since the technical

nature is associated with high precision and so anti-symmetry/asymmetry, so

documenting such for the 'masses' requires the translation into more

symmetry-focused prose, HOWEVER, getting too symmetric means that rather

than re-phrasing/simplifying we end-up dumbing-down. The issues then are in

the dumbed-down material then being taken AS IF the equivalent in precision

of the original material and being used to build models etc that are in fact

'false'; this a common behaviour in modern times.

The overall dynamics of our species covers (a) determinism in the form of

genetics with degrees of freedom available for bottom-up development and

social rules operating top-down to regulate degrees of freedom, and (b) the

refinement of determinism into the emergence of high level mediation in the

form of consciousness. As such we move from the mindless asymmetry of a

thermodynamic universe, through the symmetry of a genetically determined

species, into the mindful asymmetry of individual consciousness.

The path from symmetry to asymmetry is a path of fragmentation and the

increasingly competitive. This then leads to unique beings asserting their

own context and attracting followers to then form a social group and so a

'new' symmetry - overall we see a dynamic symmetry trying to re-configure

itself to the change and direction of an asymmetric universe. Thus the

emergence of social networks etc etc is a natural product of such activity

and the whole dynamic can span generations - the differences now compared to

the past is in the SPEED in which all of this activity can take place due to

the technology.

What is noteworthy is the speed aspect of the fragmentation process as a

whole (collective) breaks up into individuals. There is a boom/bust

socioeconomic dynamic present that allows for some to 'branch-off' the main

path and it is there we see social stratification; different people moving

at different rates to avoid boom/bust dynamics. This includes attempts to

rigidly enforce symmetry (closed systems) as it does to bring out

antisymmetry in the form of individuals moving into being politically

grounded in Anarchy (as compared to anarchy - the local context, open

system, interactions of anti-symmetry/asymmetry allow for emergence of 'new'

perspectives and so symmetry breaking as well as re-making).

The attraction of SAMENESS across symmetry includes dumbing-down of material

where the quantity of such can come across AS IF full, in-depth,

understandings are possible when in fact, they are not. Thus one must be

wary of symmetry-biased perspectives, especially from a technical writing

position.

That said, an analysis of symmetry and the creation of categories of

languages can lead us into uncovering faster methods in refining our

intuition/wisdom through the use of reason; this includes understanding the

dynamics of emotions and their assessments of situations and from that

learning to ask the 'right questions' of users in preparing technical

documentation.

Chris

http://www.emotionaliching.com


**************************************************

To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).

To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes)
go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

**************************************************

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. austechwriter
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2009