Study Session 3 on "Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning
2022-03-18
This time we'll continue with B3 through B6.
Purpose (reiteration of the previous report)
Need to put into words the "mumbo-jumbo that hasn't been put into words yet."
Necessary for personal intellectual production
It's necessary to put thoughts into words in order to improve our thinking and to make it more practical.
Necessary for teamwork.
It's hard to communicate to other team members if you don't put it into words.
We were only vaguely aware of this "put your mumbo jumbo into words" thing.
Eugene T. Gendlin wrote "Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning," an in-depth look at the relationship between mumbo-jumbo and language.
By reading "Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning," we gain a vocabulary and perspective on "putting mumbo-jumbo into words" that allows us to think with greater resolution.
This should help us think about how future groupware should evolve and how methods of intellectual production should be created
Previous Review
Important words
felt sense: felt meaning, experienced meaning; a blur. Some people call it felt sense. Symbols: In this case, words. Technically, it includes things that aren't words, but we won't talk about that this time.
Chapter 3, "The Workings of Felt Meaning."
The "felt meaning" and the "symbols" work together (interact) in seven different ways.
Chapter 4: "Characteristics of Experienced Meaning as Working in the New Symbolization."
Characteristics of Experienced Meaning as Functioning in New Symbolization
Talking about what features of moyamoya affect the verbalization of moyamoya when it comes to verbalizing moyamoya.
A: Experienced Meaning Is Not Determined by Logical Relationship, But Does Not Function Arbitrarily
The "felt meaning" is what lies before logic.
It is not determined by logical relationships.
Nor does "felt meaning" work arbitrarily.
nishio.iconThis is translated as "arbitrary," but would it be clearer to translate it as "not logically fixed to one meaning, nor can it be arbitrarily defined to mean anything"?
When a "perceived meaning" is symbolized (specified, described, specified) in multiple ways, they are not necessarily equivalent.
Each symbolization creates a new "aspect" of "felt meaning".
Even if we put the fuzzy F into words, the fuzzy and the words are not equal; even if F is expressed as S1 and S2, it does not mean that S1=S2
When we "have" a "concept" it means that it is connected to a "felt meaning"
The symbol "open set" is uniquely identified by other symbols
Clearly defined "concepts"
https://gyazo.com/2046171093c0f9fca5c853b6fcc1c0e6
You can't just look at this definition and immediately use the "open set concept".
https://gyazo.com/d574d0151f30434fef4185c46586038c
Nishio's image of what is happening in this "thinking" process
https://gyazo.com/6d791b2f087b4504b783745d99ba5bb7
As the thought paths, experience processes, overlap, "dense areas" (intersection) are formed, and "Oh, this is the meaning of 'open set'" (ah, this is the meaning of 'open set'). Symbols and "felt meaning" are connected, this is called "having a concept".
It is not limited to philosophy or mathematics. For example, you can go from "I don't really understand the concept of classes even though I read a book about it" to "I can understand it after I write a few programs that use classes just by watching and learning.
Concepts are not "felt meanings" within the individual, but "symbols" outside the individual
We want this "symbol" to mean the same thing to more than one person.
Because that is useful in discussions with more than one person.
But you can't directly observe the "felt meaning" in an individual and do the "yeah, it means the same thing as mine.
Because humans cannot directly observe the "felt meaning" in the minds of others.
So I'll try my best to explain it by combining a number of symbols and trying to make it all consistent, so that it all makes sense in one way.
The things that are worked hard to create in this way are called "concepts."
We do our best, but it's another story whether the felt meaning in each individual makes sense in one way or another, and a good percentage of college freshmen get a bust on the math test every year.
Reflections on 4B
I'll look back in a different order than last time to make a connection to this story.
About aspect (4B2)
Image of Nishio
https://gyazo.com/5436b596b8d6f782f7c1dd5362568459
The gray area in this figure
Definition of "aspect of experience."
The term "aspect of experience" will be employed to name the specification of experience that results from its functioning in creative symbolization.
nishio.iconThe "specificaion" (specificaion) of a blurred "experience" that has no clear boundaries is the "aspect of experience."
"Experience" "works" in the process of creative "symbolization."
As a result of this "work," an "aspect of experience" is created.
ver.2
Blurred "experiences" with no clear boundaries "work" in the process of creative "symbolization"
As a result of this "work," "experience" is specified. That specification is the "aspect of experience."
What is the scheme?
To be faithful to the original: when you symbolize an experience, there is more than one scheme, multischemic multischematic. scheme will be called "structure" for once.
For example, experience can be described in terms of temporal structure
There was an A followed by a B."
Not just this one structure, but a number of structures can be represented.
Image of Nishio
https://gyazo.com/790949bae8daf0c83ae56ece1a3a5237
Experience" has no clear boundaries or units.
It has not been determined where to carve out "one unit of experience".
https://gyazo.com/ab2fe4c33c5019c0458050916e49dfe7
The same "myriad experiences" can be symbolized as "one experience AB" or as "two experiences A and B
https://gyazo.com/8f8e4779d6da26c676f6df50fb8a4247
So there is no essential difference between being "between" A and B and being "in" AB.
Q: If there are two similar events A and B that are separated chronologically, can't they be grouped together as one event because there are other events between A and B that are not similar?
A: It implicitly assumes a temporal scheme (focusing only on the temporal structure)
Only things that are continuous in the direction of the time axis cannot be lumped together. For example, it would be strange to say that "New Year's Day," which occurs once a year, "cannot be lumped together under the concept of 'New Year's Day' because there is a month of June between each New Year's Day.
certainly
The feeling that it is not attached or separated implicitly assumes a temporal scheme. The scheme could be any number of ways, not just that one way. The same is true of the New Year's bundle, or, for example, someone who has been to Disneyland many times can lump it all together as "the experience of going to Disneyland".
(4B3) Meanings are likenesses and vice versa
Meaning is similarity and vice versa.
nishio.iconI had an easy interpretation from the title, but after reading it, it was very different, so maybe I can forget this title once and for all!
Dig into this story on (4B1)
https://gyazo.com/8f8e4779d6da26c676f6df50fb8a4247
When we think of two things being similar, we tend to imagine "similar" as a line between two circles, but is this correct? But is this correct?
https://gyazo.com/ebef918273ef72afee57f6c16e14cea0
Of course, there is no essential difference between "between" and "in", so it is narrow-minded to imagine only two similarities "between".
There are at least two creative courses of construction that are ultimately expressed as "A and B are similar.
https://gyazo.com/a590599361b580430cae025307003e8e
Story1: Symbol A is born, Symbol B is born, and then the story is expressed as "There is a similarity L between these two.
Story2: A story in which a symbol L is created, and A and B are represented as objects related to L. As a result, we can see that A and B are similar in the sense that they are related to L. As a result, A and B are found to be similar in the sense that they are related to L.
Story 2 might be easier to understand if it were portrayed like this with extreme exaggeration
https://gyazo.com/c2ea2ceed44df5742af3e32019d25081
There's Animal L, for example, or Cat A, and then Dog B."
Cats and dogs are "similar" in the sense that they are both animals.
This is a logically tractable and understandable expression, but it's just forcing a familiar Venn diagrammatic interpretation.
'felt meaning' is 'myriad' = 'something spread out in shades of gray without clear boundaries.'
So no "inclusion relationship" is defined between the two "felt meanings".
nishio.iconThis has to do with the concept of Scrapbox links
The word "link" is what most people think of when they think of Story1: "There is page A, then there is page B, and then there can be a link L that connects them.
The Scrapbox link does not.
A and L are often used to express the following
If, after some time has passed, we say to another B, "We don't have a destination yet, but let's just express L," the system will provide information that A and B are connected via L.
(4B4) Relation or relata
nishio.icon(4B3) said, "Similarity is meaning, and meaning is similarity."
This "similarity" is one of relationship
In this section, "It's not just about similarity, it's about all relationships."
a creative process is possible in two directions
There are two directions in the creative process
https://gyazo.com/134d1606a99798d02b5ce36452ed94ef
(a)relationship is found between the given meaning and the other meanings
(b) Other meanings are found that relate to the given meaning.
As a result, given meaning becomes "relationship" after the fact.
We can dig one more step deeper into the "aspects" here.
https://gyazo.com/7f28a9923c4f1b97dc449f9b51aa1ce3
Expressed as a relationship between one meaning and another
expressed as a new aspect of a certain meaning.
Expressed as a new aspect of another meaning
(To make it easier to distinguish as a figure, it is drawn as a "gray circle with clear boundaries that do not overlap," but of course the boundaries are blurred and spread out.)
https://gyazo.com/82a77368f4bfb0988956fb1424dfa42f
I tried to draw it, but I'm not very satisfied with the result.
As a schematic, should the gradient be 2 shades?
https://gyazo.com/9fc4a4ac6d77870b8be463b22926dbf6
When "L is formed between A and B," A and B are narrowly captured.
When it is expressed that "a new aspect was created in A by B," A is taken in a broad sense and B is taken in a narrow sense.
That the "image of Nishio" I wrote about before was expressed in more detail and divided into three different ways.
https://gyazo.com/5436b596b8d6f782f7c1dd5362568459
nishio.iconSpecific examples (pretty crude, so if I can think of something better, I'll replace it)
Cats and the sun have the similarity of being warm.
Cats are warm (like the sun)
The sun is warm (like a cat)
nishio.iconSimilarity is a symmetric relationship, so should we use an asymmetric one as an example?
Hydrogen and oxygen compound
Hydrogen is oxidized.
Oxygen is reduced
nishio.iconIt's easier to express what's happening in CIRCUMLOCUTION from this perspective. https://gyazo.com/ef170d8995de18e8200e241f5af101ed
Before, I was trying to describe a "relationship" as "a line between two circles."
https://gyazo.com/80f89d8a6e3db89528ec9f663654e02d
The relationship between FG and FH is expressed as FG determine, FG
This is expressed in terms of "aspects"
https://gyazo.com/eb441842b0d9b532d4994d55ca0e6641
In this diagram, F is "what we talked about today" if we dare call it by a symbol, and it is newly created by the symbols A, B, and C uttered by the speaker.
FA(FH) specifies the aspect of F(=FG)
A relationship is found between Fa and F or
A new aspect is found in F or
New aspects can be found in Fa.
For example, taking what happened last time, the meaning that we recall from the symbol "concept" was posteriorly segmented by the subsequent conversation of questions and answers.
Segmentation: "Concepts are symbols outside the person, not 'felt meanings' inside the person."
Before this was done, the meaning that the person recalled by the symbol "concept" was expansive, not clearly separated by "inside or outside"
This is a phenomenon that the "felt meaning" Fa recalled from the "concept" symbol A has acquired a new aspect through interaction with F.
The act of trying to create a shared F by mobilizing not only linguistic symbols but also silence, austere faces, and other symbols.
Q: It is interesting to see so many expressions of "aspects being found". Is finding aspects one of the major elements of understanding?
A: I think Eugene Gendlin thinks it's an important concept because he went to the trouble of defining it and using it so many times.
Maybe it's a metaphor that the meaning is a blur and without boundaries, so we need to find a "side" to it.
PS: "aspect" is "aspect" in the original, so I'll look this up in the dictionary
Any specific feature, part, or element of something.
The way something appears when viewed from a certain direction or perspective.
The way something appears when considered from a certain point of view.
Convincing. When you look at A from a certain point of view B, you see a specific part, that is aspect.
(4B5) Multiplicity
nishio.iconIn the Japanese translation, it is translated as "diversity," but it doesn't feel right to me personally. Is it because the word "diversity" is used in a variety of ways, and I am drawn to the image of the various ways it is used? Since we are talking about the nature of "being multiple," I feel that "plurality" is more appropriate. For now, I will call it "multiplicity" without translating it here.
This section is divided into four parts, a-d.
(a) An experience is multiple
By the feature "myriad," many experiences are within a single experience.
nishio.iconAs speakers of Japanese, which does not distinguish between singular and plural, the psychological barrier to this claim is low, but for speakers of number-sensitive languages, the bias implicit in the language needs to be broken.
(b) Experiences have multiple interactive relationships
The Japanese translation says, "Experience has diverse interactional relationships." Maybe that's what they wanted to say, and that's why they translated it as "diversity."
Another way to put it is that there is more than one interaction between one experience A and another experience B.
It talks about repeating RECOGNITION and EXPLICATION to advance your thinking, more on that later.
(c) The equivalence of (a) and (b)
This uses the equivalence of "in" and "between" as explained in (4B1)
(d) The as yet unspecified is multiple
nishio.iconThe Japanese translation says "what has not yet been explained is diversity"... but it doesn't say "is multiplicity", so it's not so subtle.
He's saying that "what is not yet verbalized," "the 'thing' called 'uh, I can't quite put it into words, but that thing,'" is not a single thing, it's multiple things.
Q: You say "multiple pieces" but since they are like densities, they can't be counted in the first place.
A: That perception is more correct.
When we cut out a blur like density, we tend to think of it as "one thing".
To which I say, "That's not one, it can be more than one."
I think this is a linguistic bias. When expressed in English, it becomes "an experience" and there is a strong bias to implicitly assume that it is singular.
It is probably easier to understand non-numerical features because we are Japanese speakers who do not distinguish between single and double words, and because I have expressed and explained in "fuzzy diagrams" what is explained only in letters in the original work.
Rustic Recognition Painting
https://gyazo.com/ebef918273ef72afee57f6c16e14cea0
For people who have this way of perception, it is difficult for them to understand when I say, "What you think is that one line is a blur like density and non-numerical," so I interpret that I am first explaining that they think it is one, but it is plural.
(Since the explanation in this order is abstract, I will illustrate in my own way the specific story the author describes in (b) and (d)).
The story goes, "I tried to put something that was bothering me into words, and the words stimulated me to say more words one after another in an unexpected and unanticipated way.
https://gyazo.com/3780e7162a21c3905255616442259f10
1: A person has something blurred and poorly articulated f
2: I'll use the "easy part to say" Fx in that as word A.
3: This A evokes a larger meaning Fa than originally anticipated
4: This interaction between Fa and F gives rise to the new words B and C.
5: And B and C also evoke more Fb and Fc than expected
Detailed Explanation
4: This interaction between Fa and F creates a new
This interaction can be interpreted as either
The interaction relationship "between" F and Fa was found
Fa specifies "aspects of experience" that were "already" "in" F "in" F "in" F "in" F "in" F "in" F "in" F "in" F "in" F
Which one you interpret is just a difference of which range you consider a lump.
2: Let's use word A for the "easy part to say" in F
4: - New words "B" and "C" are created.
We're about to delve into the process of "verbalizing" and "putting into words" to observe in detail, and you can't use the same words "verbalizing" and "putting into words" in that description!
What kind of expression Eugene Gendlin is using is the repeated use of the word "select" with quotation marks
https://gyazo.com/0793f40143748ffc41b8782501ed5f03
First select a symbol
Notice that the selected symbols call for more
Select another symbol for that addition.
What is done here is
First, there is the "felt meaning."
Think of a word that could be used to describe it.
Select" the one that comes to mind that fits best.
For example, if a programmer is trying to explain the design of a program he has written, and the word "mediator pattern" fits what he wants to explain, but if he does not know or cannot think of the word, he will not use it. I wrote in (6.3.5) Build a time machine. of The Engineer's Guide to Intellectual Production that people express themselves in the words that come to mind. The client had something to express, but did not know the right word to describe it. He happened to choose "time machine," which he thought was the closest to what he knew. This "time machine" is a metaphor.
To use Nishio's familiar term, the verbalization of A prompted the verbalization of B and C because it stimulated the A part of the associative network that was pre-existing in the person, which made it easier to recall the words around the network Recap: how it ties into the title "Relationships are Plural"
This time, Nishio explained it in a two-dimensional diagram, so it was easy to recognize the "A, B, and C in F" style
Not everyone always perceives things in a two-dimensional diagram.
nishio.iconI'm more inclined to think that it's the minority that makes the perception in two-dimensional illustrations.
One-dimensional communication using voice is the main form of communication in psychotherapy.
With voice communication, it is easy to perceive that "each spoken word is a small grain, and there is a relationship *between* them".
Speech, due to the limitations of its medium, must choose which to say first when B and C are born from A at the same time
People who try to write sentences from the head are subject to the same restrictions.
Strong constraints on output unless it is one dimensional
"What does A have to do with F that you want to talk about right now....oh, is it B, or is it C?"
https://gyazo.com/3780e7162a21c3905255616442259f10
This is an illustration so I can represent the two in parallel, but when I output it in audio, I'm trying to choose one or the other.
nishio.iconIf both come out at the same time and there's a choice between the two, then obviously "both are equally important."
Crazy to pick one and throw the other away.
It is better to separate the "verbalizing" phase from the "writing into one-dimensional sentences" phase.
With audio output, this phase cannot be separated.
It creates a bias of thinking, "I have to choose one or the other, one relationship."
I'm saying that the prescription for this kind of thinking bias is that you don't have to choose one because relationships are multiple, not just one, and that what has yet to be verbalized in the first place is multiple, not just one.
https://gyazo.com/a686018d234f266045cad78cbc44ae2f
This leads to the following
(b) Experiences have multiple interactive relationships
A and F have multiple relations B and C
(d) The as yet unspecified is multiple
There are multiple F's that have not yet been verbalized.
(4B6) Any concept is one of many
Any concept is one among many."
The title alone gives it a Buddhist feel, a one for all, all for one kind of vibe, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Based on 1-5, this leads to.
a newly created aspect of experience will be only one of very many that might have been created
nishio.iconThe newly created "aspect of experience" would be just one of many "aspects of experience that could have been created"!
Especially from 1 and 5, we can say that "an experienced meaning" is always a multiplicity of "could be made/could be specified" aspects.
Q: "If the experienced meaning determines the meaning of one aspect of the newly created, then isn't there multiplicity?"
A: Since all experiences are MULTIPLE, the aspects that can be created are MULTIPLE."
If we focus on one aspect, it is quite finely specified by the "experienced meanings" involved, but there are many aspects that can be produced, so a variety of things can be created
If all the experiences involved are known, it may be said that the meanings produced are uniquely determined
nishio.iconThis is an antonym, saying that "it is not uniquely determined to be produced, since it is impossible for all involved experiences to be known."
(4B6a): A newly identified aspect A of an experience X is only one of many aspects that could be identified from X
What follows from this:.
(4B6b): any meaning A can be considered one of many aspects of some experience
nishio.iconThe reason I say this is probably because I've seen Carl Rogers get angry at the counselor apprentices who don't understand this. w https://gyazo.com/49542b95055e1fdb24448e5f311423db
I have a client who has something F that he can't verbalize well, and I'm listening to him, and when he says "A," how do you interpret that?
Alice interprets this as "F=A", which is no good.
Bob interprets "there is a big F that has not yet been verbalized, and A, which is only one aspect of it, has been verbalized", which is good (right).
Why, because after this, the client might talk about B, which seems to have nothing to do with A at all.
https://gyazo.com/fab10fb9f4d1488d528bbb8973a61710
If you think F=A, you'll think "we're talking about something that has nothing to do with F".
I'm thinking, "You're jumping the gun.
The counselor's attitude of assuming that F=A is wrong, not that the client's story is flying off the shelves.
Not so, B is also an aspect of F. We're talking about a "relevant story".
This is an important attitude in helping F to verbalize
(4B6b): Any meaning A can be considered one of many aspects of some experience
If it's "deemed," what does it mean to "deem?" Some people might think "what does it mean?
The meaning of any client statement is one of many aspects of "what the client is trying to verbalize F
By viewing it this way, counselors are better able to take in what their clients say
Eugene Gendlin wrote this book as a philosophy book, not a how-to book for psychotherapists, so it doesn't explicitly say "this will improve your psychotherapy."
F is called "several experiences" because (4B5d) The as yet unspecified is multiple
Referring to this, he quotes I. A. Richards as saying "all specified meanings are metaphorical" This is also related to [(6.3.5) Build a time machine.
The client had something he wanted to express, but did not know the right word to use to describe it. He happened to choose "time machine," which he thought came closest among the words he knew. This "time machine" is a metaphor.
The words that people twist to say "what they have not yet said well" are not used in a "dictionary sense" but are "metaphors" associated with personal meanings, and we cannot know the "felt meaning" in a person from the symbol alone, so we need to encourage symbolization of more aspects of the Therefore, it is necessary to encourage the symbolization of more aspects.
In the engineer's intellectual production story, the customer wanted an automated backup system, but did not have the vocabulary to describe it
So I used the term "time machine" to mean "to go back and retrieve a file that has been overwritten before it was overwritten.
He explained that he sees the term "time machine" not in the sense that he evokes from the term, but rather that "there is an F in the customer that has not yet been verbalized, and one aspect of that F is coming out in the term 'time machine,'" and that he will ask questions to identify that F.
impression
It was abstract when I traced the logical side of the structure, but when I thought about it in light of what happens in the concrete process of verbalization, it felt like "pattern language of verbalization"!
Maybe it's like design patterns in programming, if you learn only the pattern in isolation from the "concrete source code", it doesn't make sense.
When you set it up with specific source code, it's like, "Oh, you're talking about this common pattern.
Q&A
Q: I felt it was important to understand that the words the other person said are an aspect of the larger F. I think the argument, like the agitated one on Twitter, is intentionally trying to interpret F=Fa.
A: That's exactly what I thought, but it wasn't in the document.
Alice sees Mr. P talking about A and interprets it as F=Fa, and when Mr. P starts talking about B, she says, "Don't change the subject.
For Mr. P, I'm not deflecting "story F", Alice just thinks "story F" is "Fa" on its own.
From Mr. P's point of view, it seems to me that Alice is distracting the conversation, or rather, she seems to be obsessed with details that are not the main topic of the conversation.
https://gyazo.com/220bf4ed23ded309c600e956719b1166
Alice: "When I pointed out C's case, he started talking about B, which has nothing to do with it! He's trying to divert the conversation!"
Mr. P. "C certainly has something to do with A, but it has nothing to do with what I want to talk about right now."
Q: Mr. P's $ F_A became the symbol A, and what was recalled in Alice when she heard it was $ F_A', so to speak!
A: Yes. There is no guarantee of a match.
If it were strictly expressed, the meanings recalled by Alice and Bob by the symbol A should be written as $ F_{A,Alice}, F_{A,Bob}, respectively, but this is omitted.
Q: This discrepancy would have to be pretty severe to cause cursing.
A: Well, people who curse at each other on Twitter think that Fa is absolutely right and the other side is wrong. In such a situation, it's impossible for things to make sense.
If you want to have a productive exchange.
Basic premise: What the word "A" evokes may differ from person to person.
So, we try to grind them together, we try to get along with each other and make something in common.
This is what we need.
There needs to be a common understanding of this need.
People fighting on Twitter, not recognizing it that way.
Q: That there is no attempt to match F
A: Yeah. I don't think we can have a useful discussion without a match.
The effort to match them results in very long sentences in both mathematics and philosophy, which are not simple, and are not friendly to first-time visitors.
But if we don't do that right, we can't go deeper into the story.
Another metaphor: a tall tower built on a foundation of sand that has not been properly solidified will lean. house built on sand If you want to do it right, you need to create a common "felt meaning" at a reasonable cost.
That is the state of "concept" being "held".
I have a feeling that the cursing on Twitter is not worth the cost.
Q: I guess when you try to understand what they are saying, you get a lot of symbols and then you understand what they are trying to say
A: Yes
Q: On that basis, I wonder if text communication is difficult, what do you think? With voice, the rally happens in a short period of time and there are a lot of symbols. With text communication, it's inconvenient.
A: Personally, I see it the other way around.
Voice communication is only in memory because the symbols that appear disappear from one side to the other.
On the other hand, if it were text communication, it wouldn't go away.
I can go back and look at "what I just wrote."
As to "it's important that there be a rally in the audio and lots of symbols."
I completely agree with "it's important to have lots of symbols out there."
A problem that can be cleared up if those participating in the communication are good at text communication.
If participants are not comfortable with text input or if voice is easier for them, then voice is the way to go.
Talk about the cost of people expressing symbols.
It is better to have the symbols appear in abundance, and if the cost of revealing the symbols is raised by forcing the text output, and they don't appear, then it's a complete waste of time and money.
If the costs are equal, the text is better for not disappearing
Q: Do many people find it burdensome to text?
A: If someone has a psychological barrier to texting, there may be value in the role of listening to them and getting them to text.
Q: There may be some information that is only available in audio, like inflection or umm... annoyance.
Q: The ability to observe emotions is a great benefit of voice.
A: You are absolutely right in pointing that out, and for the sake of simplicity, I say "symbols are words, though they are actually broader than that," but in actual psychotherapy, we consider facial expressions, good stagnation, gestures, and the like to be important symbolic manifestations.
In explaining this, I'm focusing on linguistic symbols now, but there are still symbolic manifestations that can't be done with text alone.
Some people are more comfortable with this type of expression than others, each person is unique.
I think it is important to play the role of listening to and texting for those who want to express themselves in audio, rather than writing in text from the beginning.
I think it's important to make it textual, indelible, stored, and searchable if it's going to lead to long-term intellectual production on groupware, rather than just listening to it and being done with it.
How to bridge the process gap there might be important.
Text communication cannot be learned without paying the cost of learning, which is different from the convenience of being a text, but if there is no convenience, then the cost of learning is not paid?... if texting is not for communication, but for recording... ...
nishio.iconI'm troubled by the chicken-and-egg problem that if it's not useful, it won't be used, and if it's not useful, it won't be useful until the cost of learning the skills to be able to use it is paid for.
I personally think everyone should be trained to be able to bang out text communication and discussions over text.
And everyone should be able to draw on an iPad. w
And I'm thinking everyone should use the KJ method, but wow.
Well, the cost of that learning curve is so high that I'm not convinced, that's what I'm thinking on a daily basis.
Q: If everyone could communicate by text properly, it would be so difficult that there would be no conflict.
A: The fighting is... they're fighting on Twitter too, I don't know.
PS: If everyone could have a "Eugene Gendlin way of interpreting" regardless of whether it's text or audio, there would be less conflict!
Q: When converting voice to text, if we need the skill to put modality information such as emotion on the text, then good stagnant information will disappear when we are communicating on an email basis. It sounds like something needs to be done, whether the software supports the texting or creates a medium that can convey those pieces of information.
A: Actually, as the saying goes, "good stagnation makes sense."
The symbols that come out as a result of being unable to say something well are important, and the symbols that are being blabbed about are superficial and not that important.
When asked a question or something, you need to focus on the words that popped out after a while, after you've said, "Well...".
With text communication, that's not clear at all.
I wonder if there is a service that can make use of the information in the sayings.
PS: That's what I thought, and I tried to add a function to Keichobot to measure the time to answer, but it doesn't work very well. With in-person voice communication, there is an implicit constraint to focus 100% on the person in front of you, and not look at your phone, whereas with chat, you can look away.
Q: I think it's one thing to have a good stutter when verbalizing and another to have a hmmm when polishing a written text to share with others.
A: Yes
PS: Personally, I think that the languagization faltering occurs in "the process of verbalizing what has not yet been verbalized" and the polishing troubles occur in "the process of expressing what has already been verbalized in a private language in a common language that others can understand".
I think it's possible that new questions arise during the latter process that require new verbalization.
Huh?" Is the leap between these two sentences too big? I need to verbalize what fills in the gaps..."
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/「体験過程と意味の創造」勉強会3 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.