Steve and others:
Your post is very interesting and deserves a thorough response.
However, I cannot do that now because I am preparing for a move while
finishing this thesis. In order to give you a worthwhile response, I
need time that I cannot spare at this moment.
I have printed your post and hope to resume my replies after the "dust
settles." I will, though, keep reading what is posted by everyone.
Take care and I hope to join you all again soon.
Jamie
Steve Marquis wrote:
>
> Hello Platt, Jamie, and Others,
>
> Thinking about communication over the weekend perhaps we got off on the
> wrong foot last week because we started with static definitions, which
> are place holders for positions, in other words dogma. So, if (just for
> the moment) we set aside our definitions of rhetoric, dialectic, and the
> proper use of language (spelling, grammar, etc), and start with Quality,
> let's see what we can construct. What follows is only one possibility,
> intended to start discussion, not to be the final word.
>
> My first assumption is that quality communication is about clarity, not
> deception. I have an image in my mind that I wish to share. I want the
> image that appears in your mind, following my communication, to match
> exactly the image I have in my mind (ideally). This image is going to
> have both classical and romantic (thinking and feeling) components.
>
> Now that the purpose has been established, we can compare various
> techniques against the standard of the purpose and see how effective
> each technique, alone and in combination, is. To check on the
> effectiveness of the communication we will need some kind of feedback to
> compare to the original, so we're already into a dialogue, not a
> monologue. Of course, this applies to all forms of communication; art,
> the written and spoken word, body language, personal appearance, etc.
> Feedback with the express purpose of finding out if the intended
> audience got the intended message, is only one of many contents of the
> context of dialogue, and may require several back and forths, a 'ringing
> out', to insure maximum effectiveness of the chosen technique. Sounds
> tedious, doesn't it?
>
> So, to start with, I propose quality communication requires honesty and
> the willingness to engage in feedback on the parts of both the initiator
> and the audience.
>
> Steve
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:09 BST