C-174. Conversation
Word’s work (C-171) trips us up here. (To) “converse” is the applicable (intransitive: V-1) verb form to talk about conversation(s). But the term has a different, antithetical noun (N-2) usage as the point TO an opposite condition. Were it not for this second usage, we could treat “converse” as an R-word (C-107), referring to the two noun (N-1: needed functionality; N-2: achieved functionality), two verb (V-1: exercised capability; V-2: capability exercised re object) phases of Realization (App. XX) – i.e., with respect to the challenge of Becoming (C-170) in the Expansion (C-163,169).
Best, perhaps, is to introduce conversation as communication, and as a kind of “playing catch.” Not just communication as the back and forth of messages (qua N-2). Not just communication as what each party in the “game” does, to Tell and/or Read (qua V-1,2). Not just communication as that game or any refinement of it (e.g., reading, writing, listening, speaking). Rather, to emphasize the interdependencies (<=>): Grasp<=>Involve; Read<=>Tell by which communication and conversation come about and carry on.
“Conversation” and “communication” as concepts, given their “-ion” collapsing of the Realization phases, may be taken as a starting point (but only a starting point) for our discussion of “converse” as a theoretical construct – despite its unsatisfactory solution of what is said about (WISA) what is being talked about (WITA) and what is called for (WICF) -- If only because we Grasp the fact that (having) a conversation is generally a pretty good thing to do, especially considering some alternative modes of minding and moving. It has constructive potential, as for planning, and an economy of movement (e.g., for capturing attention).
Conceptually, a conversation is a kind of a happening, an event. But why aren’t these events done better … and with better consequences? They are potentially material to much needed collective capability, to human Expansion … as via public discussion and to Community via establishment of Union (C-112).
Conversations can be made better – if we strengthen our Grasp of what we are talking about by making the transformation from concept (C-124) to theoretical construct (C-81,85,124), using the R-transform (C-111) to bring that about (C-171) ... even if we can’t comfortably establish “converse” as an R-word.
It might help here to make more of the “back and forth” aspect of conversation … in light of the strengthened string effect of interdependence (C-173: “<=>”). “Back and forth” can have a leveraging historical effect, for moving forward (e.g., snakes and sailboats) and for minding forward (e.g., [P=>S] <=> [Q=>A]).
As a capability development, however, “<=>” demands an R-sense (C-128), something more than a (body) metaphoric “bi-“ Grasp of how walking and running and how throwing and catching come about – the undoubted relevance of that leverage resemblance notwithstanding.*
*What “bi-“ contributes to an evolutionary account of bodily progression seems complemented by the “<=>” contribution to a developmental account of step progression (e.g., to Realized Union). The concept of “social” hardly suffices to Grasp make the latter contribution evident … for lack of processual specification (i.e., of the behavioral molecule).
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
Best, perhaps, is to introduce conversation as communication, and as a kind of “playing catch.” Not just communication as the back and forth of messages (qua N-2). Not just communication as what each party in the “game” does, to Tell and/or Read (qua V-1,2). Not just communication as that game or any refinement of it (e.g., reading, writing, listening, speaking). Rather, to emphasize the interdependencies (<=>): Grasp<=>Involve; Read<=>Tell by which communication and conversation come about and carry on.
“Conversation” and “communication” as concepts, given their “-ion” collapsing of the Realization phases, may be taken as a starting point (but only a starting point) for our discussion of “converse” as a theoretical construct – despite its unsatisfactory solution of what is said about (WISA) what is being talked about (WITA) and what is called for (WICF) -- If only because we Grasp the fact that (having) a conversation is generally a pretty good thing to do, especially considering some alternative modes of minding and moving. It has constructive potential, as for planning, and an economy of movement (e.g., for capturing attention).
Conceptually, a conversation is a kind of a happening, an event. But why aren’t these events done better … and with better consequences? They are potentially material to much needed collective capability, to human Expansion … as via public discussion and to Community via establishment of Union (C-112).
Conversations can be made better – if we strengthen our Grasp of what we are talking about by making the transformation from concept (C-124) to theoretical construct (C-81,85,124), using the R-transform (C-111) to bring that about (C-171) ... even if we can’t comfortably establish “converse” as an R-word.
It might help here to make more of the “back and forth” aspect of conversation … in light of the strengthened string effect of interdependence (C-173: “<=>”). “Back and forth” can have a leveraging historical effect, for moving forward (e.g., snakes and sailboats) and for minding forward (e.g., [P=>S] <=> [Q=>A]).
As a capability development, however, “<=>” demands an R-sense (C-128), something more than a (body) metaphoric “bi-“ Grasp of how walking and running and how throwing and catching come about – the undoubted relevance of that leverage resemblance notwithstanding.*
*What “bi-“ contributes to an evolutionary account of bodily progression seems complemented by the “<=>” contribution to a developmental account of step progression (e.g., to Realized Union). The concept of “social” hardly suffices to Grasp make the latter contribution evident … for lack of processual specification (i.e., of the behavioral molecule).
(c) 2016 R. F. Carter
S