I can see a whole new cascade of discussion here... let me start here,
and let you forward as appropriate. Not sure of where to start here, so
I'll just rattle off a few themes: (01)
Re: Chomsky, transformational grammars, etc. I have a fuzzy notion
(actually all of this is fuzzy) of a "maturity model" for domains of
discourse that they begin with finite state models (pigeonholing
thoughts into predefined addresses - poke the address and out comes the
thought)... then move to generative grammars (common deep structure with
arbitrary number of transformations to a "surface structure.") then
moving to self-referential evolutionary structures (crossing an "organic
threshold" of being cat-like instead of toaster-like). The parallels
Bertrand Russell's comments about sciences starting out with Aristotle,
but having to go through a revolution overthrowing him. Basically, the
Aristotelian dichotomy of something being "A" or "Not A" has to be
overcome with a "it depends"... our health care nomenclature (UMLS)
supported by the National Library of Medicine, for example, DECLARES it
is based on an Aristotelian hierarchy - it is at 1.2 million terms and
counting for ways to be sick. (02)
Part of the collaboration model: (perhaps this relates to Engelbart's
"Level C" stuff) is to transition the discipline or domain of discourse
from the finite-state model to the generative grammar model. This
shifts our thinking from the "accountability model" (as measured by the
pre-defined categorizations of the owner/creators of those who create
the ontologies) within a zero-sum environment (The GDP is the sum of all
transactions, for example) to a non-zero sum environment in which
generative interactions can increase things for all (i.e. an
"autocatalytic space.") So, "changing the story" in collaborative
discourse is critical to introduce this generative stage of the domains'
"maturity." In health care, for example, a hospital makes money from
sick patients. The more medication errors it makes, the more
re-admissions it gets, and the more it increases it revenues. If it
spends more money on a patient safety program, it decreases its
revenues. These are all "finite state" levels of thinking, leading to a
tremendous tension between its vision (supposed caring for health) and
its "bottom line" (more patient safety is a cost; more medication errors
is benefit). The result of this tragic loop is that US Hospitals are
killing 7,000 people per year with medication errors. (this is a quote
from the Wall Street Journal, Nov 18, 2003) (03)
So, structuring the collaborative environment to reward generative
behavior is of great value... another example is in knowledge management
systems - a consultant who makes his living selling his services and
knowledge is unlikely to want to share his knowledge with others for the
benefit of the organization if it means less time sold for him... (04)
Re: Shannon's theory of information... basic notion of information as
being extracted from noise is an interesting in that it assumes noise as
the background from which we gather signal. I think that we can develop
a "flip" to this model, in which "silence" is the background, and
"unknowledge" is the place from which meaning comes from. (05)
Re: self reference and recursion. We could model our thought-action
repertoire within a "linguistic shell" which shapes our thinking not
unlike our retina shapes our vision. And, in the same manner in which
the point of our optic nerves create a blind spot in our field of
vision, the point at which our "self" enters the linguistic shell
creates a linguistic blind spot, in which the paradoxes of self
reference are covered up by mental processes. (to find a linguistic
blind spot in a given language, search for the meaning of the equivalent
of "This sentence is false.") (06)
I have much more on this topic, but I don't want to overload any
particular list... happy to start a side discussion or carry over to
another list... happy to hear from any of you privately... (07)
tom (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: Aldo de Moor [mailto:AdeMoor@uvt.nl]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:08 AM
To: yak@collab.blueoxen.net
Subject: [yak@collab] Re: Types of thinking => Types of conversations
(fwd) (09)
[Here is a message from Jim Taylor to the LAP-list, which I think didn't (010)
get through to the yak-list. Tom, you may want to contact Jim to get
some
guidance on a potential paper, if you're interested] (011)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:03:38 EST
From: JTa8918673@aol.com
To: AdeMoor@uvt.nl, LAP-L@NIC.SURFNET.NL
Subject: Re: [yak@collab] Re: Types of thinking => Types of
conversations (012)
Hello all, (013)
I am fascinated by the exchange between Tom and Aldo, and particularly
by
the reference to types of grammar, finite state versus generative. My
dissertation (1978) was a reversal of the Chomsky perspective on
generative grammar, where I flipped his procedure in order to try to get
at the underlying structure of ordinary conversation. In 1981 I even
wrote
a paper proposing a generative-transformational grammar of organization,
but then I never followed up on that, because I had by then got caught
up
in the messy world of real-life implementation of the "automated
office,"
as people were calling the new ICT technology in the 80s. In the
meantime,
of course, Chomsky's view went through a major revision from reliance on
the so-called "re-write" rules (a top down perspective) to his current
"minimalist" position (or at least it was his position in 1995, the last
time I checked) which is basically bottom-up (it is described in our
2000
book, in Chapter 4). He now sees generative grammar as a recursive d
evice
that incorporates at every level a head-complement coupling. I have
interpreted this in my own language as the multiple embeddings of a
coorientational relationship, which I also perceive to be
head-complement,
so that at whatever level you look, interpersonal, interdivisional or
interorganizational, the same pattern can be found -- a kind of fractal
logic perhaps, if I have understood the concept correctly. I don't see
why
this could not be modeled to generate a picture of process, as long as
we
keep in mind that it is a model, and not the real thing. The thing about
coorientation, as opposed to the units of grammar, is that it is
inherently contingent on the outcome of the coorientational
conversation,
and thus communication is inherently "consequential" (Sigman). There is
thus inevitably going to be a process-practice tension, between global
structure and local adaptation. (014)
The finite state model proposed by Shannon in 1948 (often understood to
be
the basis of communication theory) was actually demolished by Chomsky in
the early 50s (it is analyzed also in his 1957 book). It is not widely
known, I think, that Chomsky made brilliant analyses of standard
software
languages in the same time period, preceding his writings on natural
language. (015)
Anyway, thanks for sharing your observations. It would indeed make an
interesting addition to the next LAP get-together. (016)
Jim Taylor (017)
--
This message is archived at: (018)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=Pine.LNX.4.44
.0311201905250.26060-100000@maximus.uvt.nl (019)
--
This message is archived at: (020)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=005201c3af96$4adfec10$6401a8c0@tomdesk (021)
|