Reply to comment

Thanks all for rich conversation. I was particularly intrigued by the question of whether a conversation published on line is or is not "writing", in the sense that Derrida (and others) were critical of. And by a related follow up conversation with AD about the more of less deliberately obscure writing style of Derrida and others aimed at reinforcing the point that there is no "Truth" or final answer.

My sense is that what's critical is not whether something is "published" or not (or comprehensible or not) but whether it is offered and taken in the spirit of ongoing conversation. A posting on Serendip is not intended to be the final word, to end conversation, but rather to contribute to someone at some ime thinking something new/different, and hence continuing the conversation. And it is written as clearly as possible, since it is intended as a take off point for generation of further new ideas.

Yes, exchange on Serendip involves writing but it is writing to promote ongoing change rather than to settle anything, and so for me satisfies the desiderata of conversation. And it may in fact do so in some ways better than vocal face to face conversation since one has time/space to do some reflective thinking in the interstices of the exchange. In this sense Serendip exchange is a hyrbrid form, somewhere between published writing and informal verbal conversation.