[This is a replacement for message #1573 because the preceding spaces,
which were the only means of differentiating my text from the blog
owner's, were removed in the archived and sent forms of the message
(even though they were still there in the preview!). I have therefore
placed carets in front of my text to differentiate it from his. --Paul]

Note: The blog owner to which the previous message was a response
replied to that response in his blog commenting area rather than
to my response to his blog entry posted on this group (because of the
limitation there to 3000 characters per reply). Therefore, I am
posting his response here (to which I will then reply) so that a
reasonable level of discussion can ensue.

The response can also be found, together with the original blog entry
and my initial response as a link to my full response on this group, at:
http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/07/reaching-from-margin-why-kiss-princ\
\
iple.html

Note also that the blog commenting software also has no method by which
the previous commentor's remarks can be well differentiated from those
of the current commentor. In what follows my previous comments are
those which begin their first line with a number of preceding spaces.

--Paul

------------ Blog comment begins -------------
I will be responding here due to limitations in my medium for internet
access.

> If by "parsed" you mean: "broken down into simpler, more
> elementary, [...] terms", then you are incorrect. The ideas of the
> essay certainly can be so broken down [...] However, doing so has two
> major problems against it.
>
> 1) The ideas are so revolutionary and inherently interconnected that
> they cannot stand alone to individual presentation. Therefore, any
> such "child's garden of Social Meta-Needs Theory" would be so
> voluminous that no-one would be likely to read it.

I should more properly have written, "parsed down". But either way,
something that is already so refined cannot be further refined. This
was my meaning, which you seem to reaffirm here.

> This is true, but, as with mine, outreach is not generally the
> purpose of the writings of such people (at least not to the masses).

I didn't imply it was -- I tried to state the opposite, in fact.

> I find
> far, far too many writings these days to be so highly imprecise and
> misunderstandable as to be practically worthless.

It has been my experience that the same can happen with loquaciousness
as well. I have read, for example, that the average person is only
capable of holding three thoughts simultaneously. This limits
comprehension, both short-term and long-term.

> The problem is that these people have not yet found [...] any
> fully consistent set of foundations for their ideas.

Agreed.

> Opps! I was far too generous. It truncates at 3000 *characters*, which
> means that little beside "chat" can take place in any comments to a
> blog entry.

On the contrary, I look at it like debate moderation. You are forced
to keep to the essential points. It's a preference thing, I suspect.

IConrad | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 8:30 am |
------------ Blog comment ends -------------