Despite my efforts to frequently communicate complex ideas in derivatives.
This is what I call the application of "life-calculus". I'm adopting a mathematical sense of derivative toward language: i.e. tweet-sized statements and one-line assertions which preserve the integrity of complex systems--i.e. the 30 second soundbite in the news which represents a complicated 5 year process of international negotiations fairly accurately. If you derive too much--as in, try to find meaning in something that's been simplified too much--we get past a strange and confusing existential threshold where we can no longer answer "why does this matter?" with satisfaction.
I currently tend to think in integrals and then need to derive essential meaning from them to comfortably communicate in concise statements among others.
I, and I suspect most people are too, am at a point where it's a matter of knowing the appropriate scale to engage another person with a concept or an idea. We're intelligent, possibly very good at knowing what to say, but give the boiled-down derivative answer and someone's liable to take it as fact and move on. Give the full story--a complete integration of information--right away and you're likely going to lose their attention and you'll probably lose your breath from trying to say it--even for those who care. Thus, I try to respond with a mid-range answer that integrates what they ask for. In many cases, it's a bit too much. But in accord with my "youth verbose" strategic resolution, I'm willing to make that my typical disposition (though not without concern) since it seems to me that many people take information consumptively and for granted. In some ways, it's an invitation to re-examine what I say. The challenge comes from doing so in a pithy and concise manner regardless of the scale...
#00:39 16 III 2013
This is what I call the application of "life-calculus". I'm adopting a mathematical sense of derivative toward language: i.e. tweet-sized statements and one-line assertions which preserve the integrity of complex systems--i.e. the 30 second soundbite in the news which represents a complicated 5 year process of international negotiations fairly accurately. If you derive too much--as in, try to find meaning in something that's been simplified too much--we get past a strange and confusing existential threshold where we can no longer answer "why does this matter?" with satisfaction.
I currently tend to think in integrals and then need to derive essential meaning from them to comfortably communicate in concise statements among others.
I, and I suspect most people are too, am at a point where it's a matter of knowing the appropriate scale to engage another person with a concept or an idea. We're intelligent, possibly very good at knowing what to say, but give the boiled-down derivative answer and someone's liable to take it as fact and move on. Give the full story--a complete integration of information--right away and you're likely going to lose their attention and you'll probably lose your breath from trying to say it--even for those who care. Thus, I try to respond with a mid-range answer that integrates what they ask for. In many cases, it's a bit too much. But in accord with my "youth verbose" strategic resolution, I'm willing to make that my typical disposition (though not without concern) since it seems to me that many people take information consumptively and for granted. In some ways, it's an invitation to re-examine what I say. The challenge comes from doing so in a pithy and concise manner regardless of the scale...
#00:39 16 III 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment