<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Steve,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Craven tho it might be, I am going to desert you on this field of battle. It is SO evident to me that any conversation, even the most banal and proforma exchange of words, is NOT a mere flapping of gums, that I am blinded its self-evidentness, incapacitated by its obviousness, left without words. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You’re on your own, buddy. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nick <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Clark University<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Smith<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:39 AM<br><b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>uǝlƃ <span style='font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif'>☣</span> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>The argument I stole from wherever wasn't that talking was a *form* of grooming, but that it *replaced* grooming. Personally, I wouldn't go that far. I'd argue that as soon as we learned to talk, talking became yet-another-sensorimotor-behavior. I.e. talking is in the same category as having sex, punching someone in the face, riding a tandem bicycle, combing lice out of your kid's hair, etc. It's all the same thing.<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Well corrected... thanks. <o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>The gripe I have with most people is they reify their "thoughts", give too much primacy to the idea of material-free interaction. Words are nothing *but* flapping gums and banged keys.<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>I will admit that having learned to type at a very early age (by oldSkool standards...14) there is something *like* a visceral satisfaction in banging the keys. When I have forced myself to write longhand (see the anecdote about a first grade teacher breaking a ruler on the knuckles) it can *also* be viscerally satisfying, especially when using a fountain pen on quality paper. And yet I find "nothing more" hyperbolic.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>So, to Marcus' point, talking and punching are equally manipulative. And to Nick's point, talking to oneself can be very satisfying, like shadow boxing. But fighting an *alive* opponent is always more interesting.<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p>Touche' ! <o:p></o:p></p><p>What about "dancing"? My limited experience with Tae Kwon Do peaked during sparring which with the *right* opponent/partner felt more like Dancing than Fighting. Similarly with fencing (foil only for me, no sabres or broadswords). Neither felt choreographed.<o:p></o:p></p><p>Some of our threads here feel more like squabbling than "dancing"... not quite a melee (usually) even though there are some real free-for-all.<o:p></o:p></p><p>I re-submit my previous question of the role/value/import of "an audience/readership" participation.<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p>SS> In contrast on this (now bent) thread, Marcel Duchamp stated (authoritatively?!):<o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333;letter-spacing:.3pt'> “All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act,” </span> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>SS> Many creatives (visual artists, writers, and more obviously performing artists) have agreed with this... the audience "participation" if not "response" is key to their "completion"... I don't know if this maps onto "closure" in CS, but maybe.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p>- Steve<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On 6/6/20 3:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Glen has suggested variously that he doesn't believe in communication, and that in humans "dialog is a form of social grooming" (I stand prepared to be corrected for mis-apprehending/stating Glen's positions).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I'm inclined to agree with him somewhat, though I DO believe some of our chatter is at least an *attempt to communicate*. So is that *all* we are doing when we blather away here? Or perhaps just Bombastic Careening (nod to Jon)? Mental Masturbation? Dominance Aggression? Random Neuromuscular Spasms?<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>