On 24 Mar 2010, at 09:08, Joseph Truss wrote:

> I agree gentle Roger that this mode of interaction is very creative  
> and I like the added advantage of having it in written word that is  
> archived and can be revisited.  In this sense it can be more useful  
> to the community than an actual face to face dialogue even with the  
> 7% transduction limitation due to the absence of tone and tempo  
> embodied cues.  It also means one can catch up later and reintroduce  
> a thread that went by too quickly.
> Your statement that none of your insights come from meditation begs  
> explanation - do you mean that while meditating you are not  
> 'thinking' and so receive no insights, or that the process of  
> meditation as a practice does not provide you with insight? It seems  
> to me that in terms of autopoiesis, meditation is like hallucination  
> and cannot be differentiated from externally received perception or  
> information triggered by interaction with another.  I get that  
> through our interactions, we learn, but surely as we are  
> informationally closed insights ultimately come from within, or am I  
> off down another rabbit hole?

Joe, I think this is precisely the point. As in the Maturana case  
(perception versus hallucination), the external referent (or third  
paryu) is essentialy for the organism (as an observer) to discover  
whether s/he has perceived or hallucinated. THe whole point of  
'organisational closure' (for me) is not that it is 'closed off' (or  
solipsist) but that it indiciates the necessity for etending the  
mechanism of recurrent coordinations of actions outside the sensory/ 
motor loop. In other words, by including (as the obsesver) the  
external into the motor/sensory 'gap' (as Maturana once put it).

To recall the 70% example (input into the visual center from external  
rather than internal sources). The lesson is not that there are no  
external sources and that we should concentrate on internality, but  
that our understanding of those externalities take place within the  
perturbations of the internal.

Does that make sense???


> In regards to your performance comments, is the use of metaphor  
> different from the use of magic in allowing us to share  
> understanding or knowledge consciously? Do we learn from metaphor?

Joe, perhaps I meant something simpler here? I know from time and time  
again (and believe this knowledge will be shared by anyone who asks  
themselves the question), that the 'insight' and 'enthusiasm' to a  
monologue (or a performance) does not indicate transmission of  
knowledge. We 'suspend disbelief' and may go on to do great things -  
we clap, cheer, feel our pulses racing.....we come out and celebrate  
or burn manuscripts or storm churches and burn those sheltering  
within. We do all sorts of things - I am just saying that these  
consequent actions are not usually to do with a change in our  
knowledge - but rather to do with a change in our focus. That's what a  
great performance does.

Knowledge attempts to braid into this enthusiasm, something more  
reflective (as, I imagine we agree, in the example of a syntegration).

> I'm not trying to bug you but I usually find you so remarkably  
> clear… ;-)}
> I add my thanks to the ladies and gentlemen of this dialogic  
> interaction.
> Cheers,
> Joe
> Joseph Truss
> Team Syntegrity International AG/ Metaphorum / Abbey North Drummers
> From: Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 12:20:36 PM
> Subject: Meta-Level commentary - dialogue versus monologue
> Ladies and Gentlemen (except that I'm not sure how many of us males  
> are 'gentle'!).
> For myself, this forum is an experiment in dialogic interaction as  
> distinct from the dominant monologic mode. I personally know that  
> none of my insights come from meditation or monologue......they come  
> from throwing my ideas against other viewpoints - whether I agree  
> with those viewpoints or not. Meditation is something else.......
> I love witnessing performances (whether 'Avatar', 'La Traviator',  
> Maturana in full flow before an audience or whatever.....). But I  
> don't believe performances maximise learning. I believe that an  
> audience to a performance (of any sort), by definition 'suspends  
> disbelieve' (in the Samuel Coleridge meaning). And the latter is  
> magic. But it doesn't maximise understanding or  
> knowledge or conscious sharing (thus constituting a community of  
> whatever the scale).
> For myself, the sometimes frustrating ebbs and flows of these  
> interactions constitute learning. I throw out some sort of a  
> linguistic pattern, and others respond, some positive, some  
> negative.....Others throw out a linguistic pattern and I (amongst  
> others) respond sometimes positive sometimes negative.
> My instinct - it I might well be wrong - is that this mode of  
> interaction is very creative for those participating in it, whatever  
> the obvious limitations of the medium...........
> Anyway, just want to say thanks for those involved, whether actively  
> or on the sidelines,
> Roger
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For more information go to:
> For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:
> METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -
> Archive of CYBCOM eList available at -
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Instant message from any web browser! Try the new Yahoo! Canada  
> Messenger for the Web  
> BETA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
> For more information go to: www.metaphorum.orgFor the Metaphorum  
> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: 
>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - 
>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - 
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more information go to:

For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:

METAPHORUM eList Archive available at -

Archive of CYBCOM eList available at -