Dear Terry,
About actions towards clarity, I don't think I can help you. I remember that
Peirce refused the method of definitions. As you wrote, for him, clarity is
always in process. So, one thing to do could be to avoid definitions, but I
don't know...
But I can help you on obscurity. Here are my five recommendations on how to
make obscure ideas resulting from Peirce's list of mischief on clarity.
1. The first mischief occurs when we take obscurity itself for a
characteristic of the thought object. This makes virtually impossible to
recognize the object when presented in a clear way.
So, my first advice to who desires to make ideas obscure is to confuse the
formulation of an idea with the idea. It is very probable that a formulation
of an idea is slightly or strongly more complicated than the idea and
therefore carry some obscurity.
I suggest, also, to whom wants to make his/hers ideas obscure to refuse all
formulations that is able to fully understand because they can probably be
abusively simplistic.
2. The second mischief is determined by the inconstancy of the grammatical
interpretations that seldom conduce to the distinction of ideas that are
really the same idea.
My second advise to whom wants to make his/hers ideas obscure is, if the
first advise was followed, to promote the multiplication of ideas proposing
new formulations for those that were sufficiently clear, introducing the
mysterious character of new interpretations parallel to the first.
3. The third mischief occurs when we confuse a sensation of thinking as a
part of thought itself.
Naturally, my third advise to whom wants to make its ideas obscure is
self-contemplation instead of observation, promoting a confusion between
his/hers quality of sensibility and the sensible qualities of objects.
4. Therefore, as my almost last advice to the ones that want to make their
ideas obscure, I suggest that, once all the previous are followed, these
ideas should be presented with authority, without any hesitation about the
reality of self-contemplation.
5. Finally, as my last advice, I suggest to the candidate for obscurity to
read Peirce and Heidegger, preferably on the same day.
Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Eduardo
PS: Emma, are you trying to open the Pandora Box?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Disingenuous Building Question
> Hi David,
>
> You say,
>>'Clarity in the sense in which I use the term is what emerges from the to
> and fro of conversation...'
>
> Being a practical sort of theorist my next thoughts are: How? By what
> means?
>
>
> What you wrote defines 'clarity' as a 'thing' different from the
> 'identicality between what happens in someone's head as a result of
> discourse that uses accurate definitions of words about something in
> someone
> else's head'.
>
> You suggest 'clarity' (I'm inferring that it is a thing of some sort, i.e.
> has beingness) is a result of a process(es).
>
> What I'd like to know is the details of the process(es) from which
> 'clarity'
> emerges as they relate to that emergence and how the responsible 'acts' in
> that process result in 'clarity'? I.e. which specific acts help 'clarity'
> to
> emerge (and which not) and more importantly exactly why and how? Is that
> possible?
>
> And just in case anyone has any weird ideas - m not trying to be funny or
> difficult or anything else - I'd just like to know more about the idea.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David
> Sless
> Sent: Friday, 18 May 2007 5:24 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Disingenuous Building Question
>
> I am concerned that my use of the term clarity may be misconstrued.
> I
|