taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (05/16/87)
[this is a continuation of the previous message, but deserves a new basenote. -- Dave] Let me expound a bit on why I like to use the written form. I have found, at least in personal experience, that as long as I don't put an idea *into writing* (as opposed to *telling it orally*), it is prone to contain `fuzzy edges'. While I may have an intuitive understanding of what I want to express, I am likely to overlook side effects and contradictions simply *because* I rely on implications and context to convey the idea. The very process of bringing an idea to paper (or the screen or whatever) involves a certain *cleaning up* of the concepts involved. The *vocabulary* of the written word is smaller than that of a conversation (it doesn't include body language and similar forms of expressions), yet something expressed solely in written form is much less dependent on volatile context, which forces you to put the ideas into *explicit* form, to *pin them down*. While this may not be desirable in matters of art, I find it extremely useful when describing reality. In the process of refining a piece of writing, I am in effect trying to make sure that readers who share a certain minimal context with me will `receive' as closely as possible the ideas that I a want to `send'. I am eliminating context dependencies, mainly by inserting explanations or references where the reader will (probably) not share my context. I will try to read my draft *from the point of view of a reader* to see whether the impression of the whole is what I want it to be. (I may also give it to someone else and let him tell me what he `received'.) To be sure, this is in general more effort than it would take me to get the ideas across to any particular person in conversational dialogue. However, for a different person I would have to use a different dialogue. With a piece of writing (say, an essay), I can hope to reach, within reason, a whole group of different people and get my idea across to each of them. That same process that makes my piece readable for different people will also provide an `acid test' to the ideas contained in it. When I make an unwarranted assumption, reading it from the point of view of someone else (with different asumptions) will leave me unconvinced. If I use faulty logic, the very process of writing it down will expose it. While I eliminate unnecessary sidetracks, I am clarifying the scope of my idea, and by anticipating objections from my readers I will extend my reasoning to its natural boundaries. Well, at least that's the ideal. And one more aspect: personal, verbal conversation is by its nature ephemeral. Once it's over, your memory of it begins to degrade. If I have produced an adequate piece of writing, it will be able to convey its idea even after years, and even to me who by then has doubtlessly changed his point of view... Sure, I could watch a recording of the discussion that *produced* the idea, but (see above) this contains lots of redundancies, false tracks and plain fluff. The paper will contain the *result* of my efforts to write it, (hopefully) without too much redundancy. And finally - I LIKE to write. Of course, a lively discussion with an intelligent and interested partner is wonderful - but how often do you get it? I can write whenever I have a terminal or a piece of paper around (and that's *always* for me :-). And when I have completed an idea on paper, I can always give it to these intelligent and interested people that are supposed to be out there. -- << Perry The Cynic >> =>> perry@inteloa.intel.com <<= ...!tektronix!ogcvax!omepd!inteloa!perry (Peter Kiehtreiber) ...!verdix!omepd!inteloa!perry