[From Mike Acree (990331.0915 PST)]
Bill Powers (990330.0839 MST)--
I think we all, including me, fall into the "third party trap." That
is,
when we argue for a good idea or against a bad one, we argue as if we
were
addressing some Third Party who is utterly fair and logical, who will
always accept a good argument and reject a bad one. It's as though we
were
standing before some Ultimate Judge, explaining how unreasonable,
stubborn,
stupid, or unscrupulous the defendant, over there, is. And, of course,
how
utterly right we are.
This post was definitely a keeper, for me.
I would add that I think the third-party effect may be largely a class
phenomenon, which is to say a disease of the literate class. Writing
pulls strongly for addressing a generalized other, or for what Basil
Bernstein calls elaborated code. That's partly a matter of its
permanence, compared with the spoken word, and partly a matter of the
number and variety of potential readers. E-mail networks like the
CSGNet occupy an interesting position of some ambiguity: We can address
individuals, as I ostensibly am now; but, knowing that this post will be
read by many others (most of whom I've never met), I also shape my
messages in certain ways, so they become less like letters and more like
essays. Those of us accustomed to the print medium tend to carry the
same style over into conversation (and personal letters); but my
impression is that this third-party effect may be slight among people
who are either literally illiterate or who make little use of print
media. Their communications may not always be exquisitely adapted to
the particular characteristics of the individual listener, but such
communities tend to be homogeneous enough, sharing enough common
understandings, that they can get by with leaving a lot implicit.
But there is no Third Party to whom we can complain.
I'm not sure everything addressed to a Third Party is a complaint. It
is certainly possible to read B:CP as an extended complaint, but I'm not
sure that perspective would do justice to your intentions in writing it.
For that matter, the present post could be read as a complaint about
yours. But I would feel that that really missed the mark. I think my
take would be that there _is_--potentially--a Third Party, after all,
but that we have nowhere to look for it but to each other; and it is up
to each of us, if we choose, to come as close as we can to being that
kind of audience for the other. That is perhaps what we are always
implicitly asking the other to do for us whenever we speak.
I think our approach must be, "Come, let us reason together." This is
very
hard to do, but if we can't do that, our next-best bet is to maintain
silence.
I don't know whether this post qualifies as a contribution to reasoning
together, but if it doesn't I'm willing to shut up.
Mike