FootprintsintheWind.com

In conversation, something akin to binocular vision adds depth, and variety, and possibility. Multiple people, that is multiple sensors, give us at least confirmation of what we think we are experiencing. This may be a function that our world is not single, but is in fact made in our heads or minds, and we can never be sure exactly what we see or smell.

:- Doug.

We can never know when the conversation is full, or rather optimum, for another of Gregory Bateson’s basic premises is that for organic things, there is nothing for which more is always good; rather there is an optimal quantity past which the next increment is toxic. If this applies to conversation, then there is a place in conversation when it is “over:” more would take away. So it would seem a rule of thumb (a bad thing in itself but also) might be to stop before you feel full. Like eating. It is worth trying, attending.

:- Doug.

The larger, the conversation
I cannot control
Instead, perhaps, be of service

:- Doug.

What is it that makes for life in conversation? This is perhaps my study. The hubris to avoid is to think I have at any time found the bounds, the way, or even the key. Finding that means I have not found truth, but only my own tail.

:- Doug.

It is surprising we have almost no knowledge of the system of conversation which must surely exist to lead to growth and differentiation in conversation itself. Study here. But beware of hubris.

:- Doug.