Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)

On 1/26/06, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> > With of course the clause that everything can be linearized (viz. all
> > digitization) with no actual loss of data;
>
> Yes, of course, we can scan practically everything and record as a
> linear list of 0s and 1s, and then, if we know the right algorithm,
> recompose the thing again. We could even just arbitrarily (or, indeed,
> systematically) chop up the full-2d writing and arrange all the pieces
> linearly. But......
*nod* You could. You'd need some meta-syntax though to encode (and
then be able to recreate) the extra degree(s) worth of connections.
Not a significant obstacle for computers of course.

> > The general purpose of language is to communicate, period.
>
> Yes, indeed, whether it is positive, informative communication or indeed
> deliberately obscure or false in order to deceive. It is still
> communication.
Fully agreed.

> > So it is a
> > dangerous exaggeration to say that all communications / writings in
> > this language need be of the scope and detail (and form) of
> > thought-representation.
>
> Yes, I guess I meant that it should be of sufficient complexity to be
> able to do so if one wished. But I must confess some ignorance over
> things like 'thought-webs' and, indeed, of cognitive science. So I may
> well err on these matters.
*nod* It should definitely be able to - and, IMO, it should be able to
do so much better than linear forms (mainly due to the ability to
represent networks and other complex connections).

It should also be able to represent, say, the communicative intent of
this thread. No more, no less, within a reasonable amount of wiggle
room & allowance for translation.

> > Of course, that brings up the question of what you *are* trying to
> > communicate (if not the entirety of the thought, which would be rather
> > 'tall order' indeed)... and how much you leave unstated under the
> > assumption that the reader can figure out, or already has, the
> > necessary extra info.
>
> And, indeed, how much do you want to communicate. You may wish to keep
> the other person in the dark on some matters.
*chuckle* How else could we have politicians and lawyers? (If there is
any better field of applied linguistics, I don't know it...)

> > I try not to do it. It's irritating, and distracting. Makes me think
> > that someone is a bit too ego-scared, requires coddling and firmness
> > to get anywhere. A distraction.
>
> I agree entirely. At school we were taught to try to understand the
> other person's point of view, even if we found it repugnant. The idea
> was to see where the person was coming from and try to find some common
> ground and move on from there.
Impressive that they tried to teach you that. Ours pretended to teach
'critical thinking', but per usual for American schools IME it was
more like 'regurgitate these particular thoughts that we're expecting
you to'. Bullshit, really.

If anything, I think I've learned more in the way of useful
communication strategies / skills from my polyamorous friends (and
related webpages) than anyone.

> > OK, that was an overstatement on *my* part. What she said more
> > precisely was that she believed firmly that it would not be
> > *practicable*, useful by normals, or useable even by specialists
> > except with great difficulty.
>
> How can one have such a _firm_ belief? Many ideas have been deemed not
> to practical in the past and have since turned out to be very practical.
Based on "what [she] knows of cognitive psychology and research".
(Which I would agree, makes a bit silly the idea of having a large
portion of language perception be non-temporal - processing takes
time, as does eye-darting.)

I'm not sure how she would argue against the lack of prescribed
traversal pattern though; probably would claim that creating one uses
too much in the way of resources, and that *having* it be free-form
would b0rk comprehensibility. The latter is based of course on the
normal model of e.g. teaching, mentoring, telling stories, making an
argument, etc - all of which depend on building up from what you've
already said. This is a valid point of course - and one we'd need to
address (by somehow creating a different way to address these intents
/ effects, or ensuring that it still works without).

>   I have no doubt that all those visionaries down the ages that had
> ideas that humans could take to the air were told more than once that
> their ideas were impractical & they were wasting their time.
*laugh* I'm not claiming to be a visionary - like I said, maybe she's
right and this can't really be done. It's really hard to prove that's
the case though - even if I fail, that doesn't mean it can't be done,
just that the method I used didn't work for some reason.

 - Sai