On 12/10/2008, at 12:22 AM, Clive Dilnot wrote:
> What has surprised me in the long and interminable debate about
> “information” is the lack of attention to understanding.
Clive,
>
We are on shifting sand, even with 'understanding'.
But what endures is the conversation.
I won't bore the list with a long elaboration of the arguments around
this, but for those of you looking for diversion in these depression
times:
In the preface to 'In search of semiotics' I wrote:
> [A]llow me to caution you about the nature of understanding.
> Understanding is achieved when, for a moment, there are no more
> questions to ask. Understanding is the dead spot in our struggle
> for meaning; it is the momentary pause, the stillness before
> incomprehension continues; it is the brief relief from doubt that is
> the norm. Thus understanding is a temporary state of closure. When
> we understand something we are effectively saying there is no more
> to ask, no more to question, all is revealed. But of course 'all'
> is never revealed and the sensation of certainty always passes.
I elaborated the arguments around this both in the book itself and in
some later papers. See for example:
'Communication and Certainty' at: http://communication.org.au/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=38
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|