Rod.
When different people talk about whole new ways of thinking, they can mean vastly different things. It may be a different way of
looking at familar things because of a new fact that came to light - or taking this further as the outcome of a good education.
It may mean self-reflection caused by putting one's thoughts in writing (recirculating and refining one's thoughts). It may mean
a hightened efficiency such as facilitated by your SDS. It may mean shifting to thinking at a higher level in a scheme like
Bloom's taxonomy of cognition as reflected in the piece I alluded to in my post of Aug. 19 which is called "Fleabyte
Fundamentals: Promoting More Meaningful Learning." I kind of see Doug's "whole new way of thinking as a combination of all of
these.
I noticed that I was pondering republishing that 1989 article in "Engelbart in Context." I was pondering that again earlier this
morning upon reading Eugene's post in the thread, "Cascading efects?" He concluded,
"For augmentation to happen, there is still a human learning cycle. Thanks to the massive amount of information currently out
there, I can certainly learn new subjects faster than previously. However, my brain is still a bottleneck. It has better and
faster access to information, but it doesn't process it any faster."
Replacing the word "bottleneck" by "central nervous system," the neural equivalent of a computer's CPU so to speak, we may not
do much about our personal clock speeds, but we can make better use of it by our choice of productivity softwares, such as
inculcated by experience, education, training, and our choice of what aspects of the mind we wish to sharpen. And by the level
of their mental sophistication by not waste time thinking neurally what can be done more efficiently by electrons. We may do
well to exploit that partnership.
Yes, I will go ahead and republish that 1989 article in EIC.
Henry
Rod Welch wrote:
> Henry,
>
> Doug calls for a "whole new way of thinking and working," as shown in the record
> on 991222....
>
> http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/99/12/22/104523.HTM#3696
>
> SDS enables a process of thinking through writing.....
>
> http://www.welchco.com/03/00050/01/09/01/02/00030.HTM#3742
>
> ....that extends the "alphabetic mind" beyond the limitations of a purely prior
> oral tradition that existed 2,000 years ago, as set out in the record on
> 991108.....
>
> http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/99/11/08/191947.HTM#L540904
>
> Earlier you commented favorably on the prospect that at last, there is progress
> on strengthening the fundamentals of knowledge work. Naturally, a "new way of
> thinking" requires moving beyond the "alphabetic mind," so this has been
> described in the record on 001219....
>
> http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/12/19/071408.HTM#L941148
>
> "Thinking about communicating," discussed in your letter on 010819, leads to
> powerful methods for advancing civilization, but these methods require people to
> use them in order to be effective. This takes leadership with a broader vision,
> discussed with Stuart Harrow at DCMA on 010730.....
>
> http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/01/07/30/054920.HTM#LBY0702
>
> ....on helping people cross the bridge to a new way of thinking and working, as
> Doug calls out.
>
> Rod
>
> Henry van Eyken wrote:
> >
> > What a fascinating discussion.
> >
> > For what they are worth, I have two, apparently contradictory, comments to
> > offer, and may add a
> > third.
> >
> > 1. Steven Pinker, linguist and psychologist, now at MIT, doesn't think much of
> > the Whorfian
> > hypothesis. Writes he in his 1994 book, "The Language Instinct," that "there
> > is no scientific
> > ebidence that languages dramatically shape their speakers' ways of thinking."
> > (p.58), which is
> > called, I gather, linguistic determinism.
> >
> > 2. There has been around for some years a small book by Prof. Walter Ong, S.J.
> > named "Orality and
> > Literacy" (Methuen). Unfortunately, I lent it to somebody and now rely on poor
> > memory. But literacy
> > causes different habits of mind than possessed by purely oral societies. One
> > may project, therefore,
> > that technology will do so again. Subtitle of the book: "Technologizing the
> > word." I have to reread
> > the book again, but I considered it important with respect to what an
> > on-the-person computer may do
> > to mode of thinking. (May be different changes in mode of thinking ought be
> > recognized.) I wrote an
> > opinion piece twelve years ago for the J.Coll.Sci.Teaching on the subject. I
> > have been pondering
> > whether to reproduce it in the new e-journal because it is very much in the
> > context of Engelbart's
> > thinking. As long as opinion and scientific rigor are clearly distinguished.
> >
> > 3. (Hesitantly) I migrated from The Netherlands to Canada and, hence, ought to
> > be an authority on
> > the subject. But I am not! There is a lot of change involved in adapting to a
> > different world while
> > also gaining, like anyone else, insights when growing older. Maybe, if there
> > really was a
> > linguistically deterministic effect, it just got drowned by overwhelming
> > experiences.
> >
> > Henry
> >
> > Jack Park wrote:
> >
> > > I should point out that there is a scripting language called Loglan,
> > > usually it looks like Loglan 82 and the like at Google.
> > > Also, there is a fork in the Loglan road called Lojban. For the time
> > > being, I'm sticking with Loglan.
> > >
> > > Jack
> > >
> > > At 04:29 PM 8/19/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >I have 2 of the Loglan books that were available. I don't know whether they
> > > >still are.
> > > >
> > > >One aspect of the language that intrigued me is that the dictionary
> > consists
> > > >of predicates, each of which takes a specified set of arguments --
> > > >essentially subroutines or method calls.
> > > >
> > > >I have thought for years that such an endeavor in English would make a
> > > >useful set of checklists for any text that had to be precise, such as
> > > >software specifications or requirements documents.
> > > >
> > > >BTW, Loglan is based on a context free grammar and it is said that a
> > > >computer programme with it is still the most 'fluent' speaker of Loglan.
> > > >
> > > >Whether Loglan istelf is worthy of adoption for precision communication, I
> > > >think that many of the ideas used in it could be very useful.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >Garold (Gary) L. Johnson
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Jack Park" <jackpark@thinkalong.com>
> > > >To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
> > > >Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 3:12 PM
> > > >Subject: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Many moons back, James Cooke Brown decided to test the central Whorfian
> > > > > thesis, namely that the structure of individual languages does in some
> > way
> > > > > shape the thought of monolingual speakers of those languages. We might
> > ask
> > > > > the same question ourselves as we ponder our OHS notions.
> > > > >
> > > > > That work began the evolution of the language Loglan
> > > > > http://www.loglan.org
> > > > >
> > > > > From the forward to the book _Loglan 1_ which is entirely online in
> > > >HTML,
> > > > >
> > > > > "At the beginning of Christmas Holidays, 1955, I sat down before a
> > bright
> > > > > fire to commence what I hoped would be a short paper on the possibility
> > of
> > > > > testing the social psychological implications of the Sapir-Whorf
> > > > > hypothesis. I meant to proceed by showing that the construction of a
> > tiny
> > > > > model language, with a grammar borrowed from the rules of modern logic,
> > > > > taught to subjects of different nationalities in a laboratory setting
> > > >under
> > > > > conditions of control, would permit a decisive test. I have been writing
> > > > > appendices for that paper ever since. I believed, once or twice, that I
> > > >had
> > > > > glimpsed the end of it; but I cannot yet be certain."
> > > > >
> > > > > I present that quote in order to respond a priori to questions about
> > > > > Esperanto and other invented languages (aren't all languages
> > > > > invented?). Esperanto, for instance, is relatively easy to learn and
> > use;
> > > > > indeed there are lots of Web sites that speak Esperanto (google got
> > > >487,000
> > > > > hits, only 3360 for loglan!) But, Loglan appears to be different; it is
> > a
> > > > > fabrication with a scientific bent, and one that might be important to
> > > > > those of us who wish to build software tools to enable enhanced human
> > > > > communication and learning.
> > > > >
> > > > > The argument can be made that English is rapidly becoming the lingua
> > > >franca
> > > > > of the Web, and so it may be. My thinking is that it may still be worth
> > > > > taking a look at fabricated, restricted languages as a means to continue
> > > > > our efforts to understand the nature of communication.
> > > > >
> > > > > I landed on Loglan not by chance, but by way of the insight of Charles
> > > > > Moore, the creator of the Forth computer programming language, a
> > language
> > > >I
> > > > > have used a lot. He pointed out an article in a back issue of
> > Scientific
> > > > > American, and that's where I started. More recently, I have observed
> > > > > discussions on the Standard Upper Ontology list about the use of
> > > >restricted
> > > > > natural languages as an interlingua, so long as those languages can be
> > > >used
> > > > > as a means of expressing KIF expressions (Knowledge Interchange Format,
> > > > > http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/kif.html). There is a discussion on
> > > > > "controlled natural language" by John Sowa at
> > > > > http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/misc/ace.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Mentioned there is ACE (Attempto Controlled English).
> > > > >
> > > > > My point? Perhaps Loglan is worth looking at. Why start with English?
> > Why
> > > > > not start over with something already much closer to KIF?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Jack
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Community email addresses:
> > > > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> > > > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> > > > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > > > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > > > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Community email addresses:
> > > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> > > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> > > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
> > > >
> > > >Shortcut URL to this page:
> > > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
> > > >
> > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > > Community email addresses:
> > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
> > >
> > > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > [Image]
> >
> >
> > Community email addresses:
> > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
> >
> > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/IHFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Oct 06 2001 - 08:22:20 PDT