If I already knew and understood precisely whatever might remain unclear, how so and why, then believe you me that I would already have revised accordingly.




Command of the English language in our times Literacy and Dialectical exploration of motive and subversion unfolding in real world drama

A. Interactivity remains one of the most effective ways of engaging site visitors even into The Economies of Online Cooperation wherein:

...as remarkable as the products of online cooperation and collaboration have been, it may be that for the most part we have been picking the “lowest hanging fruit” – supplying interesting digital goods that can be provided by single individuals while ignoring duller, more complex, but no less useful public goods. I do not mean to slight the benefits that online interaction has brought, and further advances in hardware, software, and connectivity may reduce the cost of producing public goods still further and create new “low-hanging fruit.” Nevertheless, it is crucial to avoid an empty-headed extrapolation from current success to utopian visions of fully cooperative communities.

[Low-Hanging Fruit, noun. An actual or only misperceived excellent short-term opportunity.]

-All to often unripe and burdensome-

...and, given such blithely ersatz, mediocre and shabby satisfice, resignation to making do in unaware incompetence, worse, as we shall discover, where lurk the deadly stumbling blocks to optimal learning and growth, the snares of TOTALITARIAN INTERACTIVITY, bogus alternatives, behaviorally structured options and protocols imposed so as to seem free and at one with the user's own thought process, impoverished of real decision or responsibility, are hardly exclusive to the Internet or even automation in general, but the sheer irrelevance of age old spectacle, illusions to be consumed. The colossally Absurd Existential bait-and-switch sometimes referred to as: Totalitarian Interactivity consists of any manipulative situation of irrelevance obfuscated under an illusion of choice, in a reality of control and constraint, for an audience sucked in and lead about by the nose! For quintessential example par exultance, isolating and deceptive webforms, short and simple or long and complicated, are all too often designed to elicit any hope that any detail of free association permitted and invited via individual response, thereby by implication expresses any promise of flexibility in tailored response and thereby actually makes any difference. But in truth, the bureaucratic or automated response scarcely varies and after all the wind up, one size fits all. In essence, the mark has been conned into pouring their heart out to a bot!

“Why not go out on a limb? Isn’t that where the fruit is?” — Frank Scully, Variety, Frank's Scrapbook, September 1950

And precisely such is one of the major problems even in sustaining serious conversation online at all! The helplessness beyond what has been so rightly decried as the behaviorally structured bogus alternatives of TOTALITARIAN INTERACTIVITY masquerading as the dubious free choice of one's own already presumably somewhat uncritical thinking, and the demand only for the lowest hanging fruit of online interaction instead of any savvy quality human remote collaboration.

Q. What is real time text communication?

A. Real time text communication as long popularized by chat or instant messaging that so reduced the intellectual level of hte internet, is real time conversation by electronic exchange of text, either one to one or in group conversations or online chat rooms. Real time text communication can be something of a vexation, offers the worst of all worlds, with neither the spontaneity of real time video or voice communications, nor the time and tranquility for composition as afford by asynchronous text communication such as email or message posting boards. Real time text communication may bring something of a vexation, forcing either compromise in content of communication or else delay in response. But the stress may abate with practice. And real time text communication may be crucial for those who can read a language, and useful in multitasking under a heavy work load. Instant messaging, real time text chat is often an integral component of many other Online interactions, particularly computer mediated RPG of one sort or another, and other thereby even further impoverished online rôle-play.

Q. What is the crucial importance of posting conventions?

A. Quality interactivity online generally still depends upon asynchronous text communication, private or public response to previous private or public messages by others, often excerpted or quoted for context.

The revolutionary quick turn around of electronic asynchronous text communication makes unprecedented actual conversation in typed correspondence possible!

But for any in depth exchange or Dialectic, a very important aspect of quoting never to be underestimated, is how the quotes should indicate what sections or points of a message that any given remark replies to. Often there may be certain response to some sections or points of a message, and distinct other responses to about other sections or points even of the same message. And it will be crucial to see, readily, which response pertains to which point, in order to make much sense of any of it.

And the best way to convey all contextual connections clearly and distinctly, is to quote a little bit, interject some comments, quote some more, and then interject some comments specifically to that as well, and so on. Each answer in turn, follows the same method, and an entire written conversation unfolds, point by point, iteration by iteration.

Quotes should be indicated, automatically, by your email software or service, by a character at the beginning of each line, usually a '>' (greater than) sign or chevron, the right angle bracket or right brocket, in bare plain text, or by a blue bar in html that supports colors, sizes and fonts, etc.. or on some forums, by a range of different indications such indentation of the text. Thus, with each iteration, another such indicator is added at the beginning of the line, so that chronological order as well as intended sequitur will always be clearly indicated as the conversation proceeds.

These principles of the quoting conventions handed down from Usenet, even back from the days of Arpanet, are still applicable in any mode of asynchronous text communication, electronic forums, message posting boards, list servers, egroups, and email, etc. and allow the end user to meaningfully participate in the structuring of interaction, rather than finding oneself thereby manipulated, enslaved or hamstrung.

Writing Conversation: Analysis of email Speech Events

The advantages of Usenet’s quoting conventions correctly and with proper attribution or:

What do you mean "my reply is upside-down" ? Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet

PS. Also please always be sure to include citation of the full URL web address, a clickable hyperlink to any discrete materials or resources on the Web as ever comes to be referenced in discussion.

As so famously Marshall McLuhan would have it: “The medium is the message.” Indeed, the massage in the mass age! For pervading characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. Indeed as Marshal McLuhan further expounds, artifacts of media, not to be overlooked, do indeed effect and affect any society and shape perception by their unique characteristics. As any society's values, norms and methods inevitably become changed by technology, social implications of new media emerge. Indeed such as asynchronous text communication. What then reveals itself as the inherent message at the very essence of asynchronous text communication? And likewise hypertext? Not to digress. And all to what impact upon Dialectical collaboration, so fundamental to Eudemonia?

For characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. Indeed as Marshal McLuhan further expounds, artifacts of media, not to be overlooked, do indeed effect and affect any society and shape perception by their unique characteristics. As any society's values, norms and methods inevitably become changed by technology, social implications of new media emerge.

Fully leveraging the power of the written word, asynchronous text communication is communication by text, typed language, with any delay between response, which is to say: not in immediate real time. Messages are first composed, and only then made available to be read at any later time even soon afterwards, for response in kind likewise. Asynchronous text communication such as in email and electronic message posting forums and groups, with such quick turnaround, has brought the unprecedented advent of correspondence as a continual and convenient vehicle of actual dialogue, remotely, even internationally. Correspondence via asynchronous text communication affords timely and substantive conversation, but with the intervening leisure to best compose ones thoughts. Thus congenial and productive alternation between the outreach and extroversion of Dialectical collaboration and the introversion and retreat of solitary reflection. Hitherto, before the advent of the computer revolution, with traditional postal delivery, or: “snail mail,” correspondence as a vehicle of actual dialogue back and forth, was impractical and counterintuitive because of the far longer turn around. At the same time, asynchronous text communication maintains a record and generates work product.

And all therefore, into all scintillating Dialectic together of ongoing collaborative brainstorming and creative solution finding online, FoolQuest.com implements asynchronous text communication for precision and convenience of input from participants at will. With historically unprecedented quick turn around of correspondence, ease of full engagement and real end user efficiency. And with each of us on our own schedule, free from inefficiency, obstruction, inconvenience and constraints howsoever of sessions in real time.

hype and hyperreal:

What is a Virtual Community and Why Would You Ever Need One??

Will The Internet Change Humanity?

Tips for Fostering Interactivity and Engaging Citizens

The Economies of Online Cooperation

Fundamentals of Interactivity

On TOTALITARIAN INTERACTIVITY

The myth of interactivity on the Internet

Taking Online Interactivity Offline

Interactivity Defined

Of course, even given nigh instant turn around of electronic communication such as via the Internet, asynchronous text communication remains notoriously lacking in all manner of subtle cues so characteristic of real time voice communications, let alone live onsite encounters. Moreover, ordinary conversation unselfconsciously features a certain self correction process back and forth, only natural and so well accustomed to dialogue. Whereas culturally, capable asynchronous text communication often requires a deliberate and even meticulously attentive interjection of response, point by point, line by line. Moreover, no matter how frequently replies in turn are posted, asynchronous text communication cannot rely upon short term memory for context. And that is another reason why conversational adequacy in asynchronous text communication makes demands that might not arise in real time communication. Every reply must address not only others in the short term, but ones own forgetful future self, consulting the conversational history wherein all previous messages in the thread are preserved and presented in sequence underneath the current message text.

For all such remain among the characteristics of the distinctive and unprecedented medium of asynchronous text communication, especially at the highest levels of intelligent exchange. Without such specialized literacy, conversation via asynchronous text communication, may become significantly impaired and dumbed down. Indeed precisely such impairment has been most notoriously normalized within online communities reliant upon certain very limited and limiting technologies and formats of asynchronous text communication. After all, one of the standing issues in asynchronous text communication such as in email, remains the necessity of communication not only in the short term with anyone else, but in the longer term, of leaving what amount to effective memos for one’s own future self. Different cultures foster greater or lesser aptitude and literacy in this very regard. Indeed likewise different technologies, more robust or deliberately less so, also encourage or discourage any and all such greater depth of communication. Indeed, the medium quickly becomes a message and expectation regarding culture of communication.
And specifically here on FoolQuest.com, for asynchronous text communication online at its most sublime, there remain two particular creative endeavors most strikingly amenable to Dialectic analytic yet strategic and to brainstorming towards creative solution finding in collaboration among equals. And these remain Entrepreneurship and creative writing: new venture creation (various business startup) undertaken concurrently with serious collaborative fiction writing. If only because both business or project planning and story telling are each deliberative and verbal. It should be easy to imagine even worthy alternatives to Entrepreneurship and creative writing, nevertheless that are neither verbal nor exactly deliberative. Music, for example, affords an avenue for creative collaboration and improvisation, ever growing online, requiring however, a different literacy and a different keyboard. Few options however, will ever be so spontaneous or routine as never to require both initiative and prior deliberation both practical and imaginative. Only the entire gamut of mind numbing failed conventionality in such dire need of subversion! And hence the probortunity at hand. And more anon.

The Complete Guide to Asynchronous Communication

The true essence of Language: For Eudemonia remains ever a function of human interaction, in a word: communication. And the level of communication often accrues, in any measure, from the degree of attention invested. Because language is more than cipher. Language via whatever vehicle, remains the medium of thought and expression. Indeed, as Martin Heidegger propounds, language speaks the man: Because even human character, personality, is constructed from language. And moreover to reiterate, as Marshall McLuhan would have it: “The medium is the message” For characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. What then reveals itself as the inherent message at the very essence of language, indeed even of the English language in particular? And of what Relevance upon Dialectical collaboration, so fundamental to Eudemonia?

Indeed love of language, advanced linguistic facility, complex and variable semiotics, scope and precision in command of English, ever remains crucially important to robust communication in the wordy, nerdy and heady process of all creativity and discovery. Indeed by very nature, creativity by far exceeds any merely solitary individual trait or characteristic. First of all, there is no investigation so concrete as to become penetrable without abstraction and creativity. All science begins with hypothesis, sheer conjecture, only then subject to critical preference, even before Empirical reality testing. But more to the point, creativity, playful, pleasurably engaged and meaningful creativity, involved Eudemonia epitomized in collaborative brainstorming and solution finding, ever persists as uniquely gregarious and intelligent human motivating social and intellectual stimulus struggle as consistent with the grand afterthought of Cultural Anthropology. Indeed, all product of evolutionary neurology and hideous inbred mutation of engorged human cerebrality under 'The Survival of the Sickest.'

And it's complicated: Language remains an active memplex expressing itself through a suitable living host: Indeed as Heidegger contends, people speaking or writing from the memory of language forever echoing in our minds. Active Reading and Listening frequently and subversively exceeds ever popular but somewhat misguidedly halfhearted cretin philistine maxims and expectations of simple writing style. Of course the most obvious danger remains that of oversimplification. And oversimplification is such that merely for simplicity's sake then results in distortion. But even so said, in and of itself, indeed treads perilously close to oversimplification. Because, as it turns out, even oversimplification can become such a complicated matter. Indeed, true elegance and simplicity must be earned via rounds of subtractive and an ever more tightly integrative process of editing. Because, much like photography, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, and never a waste of time.

Indeed, reading comprehension replete with diligent miscommunication competent conversational adequacy in ongoing collaborative miscommunication repair, ever turns upon active cognition and comprehension, actually reading with purpose: Conscious effort to hear, observe or read, then analyze, assign meaning to and react, even just individually and subjectively, to content of communication. For just as the mind functions as more than merely a passive receptacle of knowledge, likewise there is more to be gotten out of reading than most simply rendition of whatever text.

Indeed, Effective Active Reading and Listening strategy, or in a single word: literacy, particularly of Literature as distinguished, narrowly defined and signified by the much vaunted capital 'L', frequently demands that much more than simply decoding of the very words and then parsing of whatever phraseology and even composition, page by page, line by line, word by word. But to always get it right the first time, say very little, and never anything new.Indeed, motivation whatsoever, the passion persuasive at all of taking a focused interest, remains indispensable. Because, much like photography, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, and never a waste of time. And while, of course, difficulty does not automatically confer greatness, nevertheless often worthwhile content and fuller experience thereof, may indeed entail any greater effort and focus also on the part of the reader, and not only from authors ever striving to find, involve and engage their audiences rhetorically and dramatically. Effective Active Reading and Listening may even be thought of as most richly engaged and creative partnership on the part of message recipient, with message sender. interpretation in reading or listening at a higher level, the happier and more capable for it. There can be nothing halfhearted or inattentive in exalted and all consuming Eudemonia, so fully engaged.

Indeed reciprocally, beyond merely any one way communication, Eudemonia turns first of all, and indispensably, upon Socratic Dialectic, the practice of controversy being the welcome and invited exchange of criticism, thereby ongoing error detection and course correction, and in deliberation analytic yet strategic, creativity bridging abstract principle (generally why) and concrete application (specifically how). Indeed, no one even much bothers to ask how or even what, until first understanding, even philosophically, to ponder precisely why.

Indeed of course the only true and best reason why, gentle reader, all that matters most in the human condition, remains not only in psychology, but Axiology: real life drama, exploration of whatever individual driving motives entirely of one's own uniquely. Indeed, personal interests and priorities interactively to navigate personal path through the present copiously dense hypertext, nonlinear thought given sprawling form. And thence into deep discussion. And perhaps at long last, even as often frustrating, proverbially like unto herding cats(!) to any meeting of minds on common ground in common cause of true unmet friends. Gentle reader, is FoolQuest.com right for you?


Indeed, actually friendly and interested readers, so far and few between, might not even notice such trivialities as my admittedly atrocious webdesign. Indeed, they may actually even appreciate my evocative prose. And once they delve into the text, even however densely written, they don't complain about making the effort, but actually appreciate the engrossing rhizomatic richness of information and resources.

Yes, deliberatly, the wordy, nerdy density of the prose and even the writing style, my authorial voice. -Not arbitrary stylistic difficulty, but readably intelligent treatment of complicated ideas and substantive subject matter for an interested and cooperative reader. One for whom the content significantly raises signal from out of the noise. Indeed, rather than only drowning a fading signal amid all the more noise. Alas however, for people who just aren't interested, its all noise regardless.

Never become so baffled merely in being prevailed upon in trying anything differently than howsoever as accustomed. Not if there's a reason for it, while to some so painfully obvious, yet to others quite unheard of. Indeed, inescapable pertinence that bears mention, to indispensable knowledge work skill sets in the modern world, becoming second nature with only a little practice. So let's try something new! FoolQuest.com is not a short attention casual read. And not everything is or should be.
Au contraire, and take it or leave it, FoolQuest.com is literate complicated comprehensive, deferred gratification, knowledge work product, extensive and densely written and branching hypertext charting an ocean of thought interactive for any cognitive deep dive, protracted complex abstraction, detailed research, planning and feasibility study, analytic and yet strategic, in the scope of a complicated and often confusing real world. All whereof the entire present exposition but feeble scratches the surface. Not a bug or a red flag, but a feature! Let us then together strive for lucid excellence in hypertext, but never at cross-purpose in weird Luddite opposition to hypertext in very principle. Alas that any embrace of complexity, will come as anathema to whatever phobic rejection all thereof.

Preliminary to any further exposition, brief discourse upon hypertext therefore ensues, copiously detailed and branching hypertext being, after all, in thought and expression, the medium of present voluminous message content, and purposefully so; indeed actually by resolute authorial intent and fully conscious aforethought, and not by any conceivable vaguery of unwitting error or incidental mishap merely in need of righteous correction. Indeed herein, copiously dense hypertext, nonlinear thought given sprawling form. Not a bug or a red flag, but a feature! Any relevant criticism then must pertain in context to said intention and purpose indeed as characterized in distinct motivation and reasoning as pursuant in any lucid assay.
• HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE HYPERTEXT

FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions, meaning questions and answers that continually reoccur. An effective FAQ is an organized collection of valuable information that must be frequently updated to broadly reflect whatever needs addressed. RTFW: Read the Fucking website! Don't repeat FAQ. That's just inefficient and inconsiderate! So goes a prevailing wisdom and Internet tradition. But there emerges an even somewhat snarky contrarian view, in condemnation of FAQ to begin with: “FAQ pages are where good content goes to die.” In other words: Don't publish FAQ. FAQ are bad! Because FAQ interrupt conversion. Not just sales however, but any conversion or recruitment, public information, propaganda, consciousness raising or any other conceivable outreach. Actually, FoolQuest.com, the present hypertext, serves, among other functions, indeed as more than simply FAQ, and not merely towards conversion, but interactive self-selection. Is then FoolQuest.com right for you? And most sincerely, thank you gentle reader. Because we abide in an ever more tightly strained attention economy. All the more then, in the immortal words of Simone Weil: “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”

Nevertheless and notwithstanding, does anyone at all, and short attention be dammed, actually never read any complicated material whatsoever, even no matter howsoever entirely warranted? And never attempt anything difficult or convoluted? No, not at all. For oh yes, all too often, they do precisely so. And even swear by it. Indeed, just the opposite of swearing off complexity and convolution, the most depraved complexity junkies online, become absorbed and devote themselves in the most esoteric and obscure deep dives and puzzles of every imaginable type or kind, just for the challenge, even with so very little at stake. At least those pleasurably entertained, hence paradoxically more serious yet taking themselves less seriously, may therefore find whatever topics more engaging here on FoolQuest.com

And there will be no information overload, for those who devour content and knowledge resource because they find themselves intensely interested, motivated and engrossed in whatever they perceive as being most meaningful to urgent personal concern and crisis with which we all perpetually find ourselves so ceaselessly embroiled, and grapple ever tenaciously every day. Nor will information overload overcome those who can swim the cyber sea without worrying about dinking every drop, indeed those who can decide, pick and chose, whatever content or information that they seek, howsoever or not any of that may coincide with authorial intent and purpose in any meeting of minds actually towards sought for collaboration.

Even in more advanced and efficient reference from traditional linear text, instead of simply reading every word in sequence, it may often be recommended instead to scan the text, and continually zero in on whatever seems most pertinent to whatever unfolding purpose at hand and deciding which details to follow up more closely. Hypertext is merely a more sophisticated navigation tool to precisely such techniques of more capable reading and communication.

Hypertext must be composed, published and linked together in a non-sequential web of associations allowing users to navigate through related topics, from one entry to another via hyperlinks imbedded into the text that the user can simply click on to access related content as associated with whichever hyperlink. Indeed, the World Wide Web is a global hypertext network of information residing on servers linked across the public Internet.

Moreover, once again as Marshall McLuhan would have it: “The medium is the message.” Indeed, the massage in the mass age! For pervading characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. Indeed as Marshal McLuhan further expounds, artifacts of media, not to be overlooked, do indeed effect and affect any society and shape perception by their unique characteristics. As any society's values, norms and methods inevitably become changed by technology, social implications of new media emerge. Indeed such as asynchronous text communication.

What then reveals itself as the inherent message at the very essence, for example, of asynchronous text communication? And indeed to the matter at hand, likewise hypertext? And all to what impact upon Dialectical collaboration, so fundamental to Eudemonia?

For characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. Indeed as Marshal McLuhan further expounds, artifacts of media, not to be overlooked, do indeed effect and affect any society and shape perception by their unique characteristics. As any society's values, norms and methods inevitably become changed by technology, social implications of new media emerge.

To wit: Hypertext resists the single linear narrative.

All traditional text, whether in printed form or in computer files, is sequential, meaning that there is a single linear sequence defining the order in which the text is to be read. (...) Hypertext is nonsequential; there is no single order that determines the sequence in which the text is to be read.³⁶

— 'Hypertext Theory' by Thorsten Schreiber

Why use hypertext? "Because in general, humans learn better associatively [...] hypertext operates very similar to the way our brains do--in a series of networks, or associations--as opposed to a linear path.”

— Hypertext and writing: An overview of the hypertext medium by Kimberly Amaral

Site visitors to FoolQuest.com may tend to follow not authorial intent, but whatever ones own individual characteristic motivation. FoolQuest.com pursues matters of greatest importance to the author. But the reader follows their own priorities of information resource, relatable concerns and consensual Existential Validation. And all of that inevitably entails making decisions. And making decisions and setting priorities, often arouses ambivalence, even crimestop and irritation.

Hyperlinkage often serves in similar function to footnoting and attribution. But there can also be much more to it: Unidirectional linear text may be likened unto any plodding lecture, whereas by contrast, sophisticated hypertext prompts and anticipates different possible avenues of question and exploration in virtual conversations, interaction with the reader, to ignite and to supplement human discussion and interaction in turn. Linear connection then gives way instead to variable configuration, shedding new light. Generally friendly Netizens researching whatever their own concerns, entertainment, edification and even howsoever pandering propaganda validation, diligently follow the proverbial bread crumbs accordingly. Alas likewise also the most weirdly fanatical hostile reactionary internet trolls and flamers, unerringly tracking down whatever taboo content, opinion or expression howsoever deemed indeed most objectionable in their excruciating fragile sensibilities. By contrast, the desperately sought for star first follower, blazing the trail, shall herald the true meeting of minds and collaboration among equals in creative solution finding and Eudemonia here on FoolQuest.com For the star first follower shall be the true leader, showing others how to relate. Know thyself! It's all a matter of individual cost-benefit evaluation and expected effort. Gentle reader, if there is a better option, then take it. And if you have a better idea, then kindly do come forth and share. But come what may, one way or another, expect hard work, futility, or both.

Linearity of text constrains human intellect, but far less so than Totalitarian Interactivity forever leading the complacent safely about by the nose. By contrast, in their true capacity, Word Processing and hypertext have expanded human consciousness. In content and design, hypertext is a uniquely powerful and even democratizing information management technology of effective group support, collaboration and endeavor. A hypertext becomes similar to a dynamic linked list in coding for computer programming. Because, likewise, and in different ways, hypertext may group and connect myriad elements along myriad vectors of Gestalt reality through clustered mind mapping constellations, indeed even to be likened unto any central train depot or rail yard, diverging to points close by or far and wide with "t he devil is in the details." Indeed, as only befitting to the complicated real world as it truly is, and research to reflect reality, a detailed hypertext is both map and territory, recursively. But a detailed hypertext can not be likened unto a tour, because a tour must remain linear with all stops scheduled in sequence. Dramatic plot ever remains linear, but reality unfolds in dharma, in the confluence of situation and circumstance, favorable or unfavorable. Indeed the mythic Hero's Journey of discovery, even in real life, doing anything really cool together, no less than in compelling drama, may begin with some sort of a map. But a map will be of little use sans wherewithal for deciding where to go next. Whereas, in any linear text, content is set in sequence, in browsing hypertext, the site visitor, Effective Active Reading strategies according to individual focus, follows variable sequence to suit their own sensemaking on the fly. Therefore, gentle reader, navigate this very hypertext for yourself, find your own way, and chart your own path to intellectual adventure! Just try not to chip a nail clicking the links!

Amazing how those most virulently complaining of disorientation in navigation of FoolQuest.com, and for all evident and derisive short attention span, nevertheless unerringly home right in on whatever very specific content and minutiae so evocative to whatever their excruciatingly delicate sensibilities of picayune and scandalized prudery! Not to digress.

An exposition wherein salient core values are brought to bear into communications struggle here on FoolQuest.com

In all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility, of explicitly seeking and specifying most cogently and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback, as they themselves perceive the need, and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with. And never at cross-purpose thereto.
Because: Writing is like photography: Easy to do, but difficult to do well. Indeed, writing is rewriting, patient, hard work and never a waste of time.

And so, with most profuse apology, please believe me: If the author, yours truly, already knew and understood precisely whatever herein might remain unclear, how so and why, then sparing no effort, I would already have revised accordingly.

And all therefore, and to wit, with all due gratitude, my standing request, together with anyone so very kind, of even going line by line, and word by word, through whatever text in question. Thus to ferret out whatever particular ambiguities or specific communications errors in detail, and then together to correct them. Just spell out for me whatever remains unclear. Question whatever is not understood. And please, be specific. After all, and all too often, precisely such persistence at all in attention to detail, will be necessary, for the revision and clarification of prose. Is that not obvious?

And not at all merely to split hairs, please, in terms of message content, and not merely pedantry only in terms of message form. Not merely malformation of syntax, but explicit query or indication actually regarding particular ambiguity or unclarity as to whatever intended meaning.

In the interim, any elusive understanding that as yet fails to be imparted straightforwardly by unilateral expression as by any finished text or lecture, may, at least initially, instead require some or other at all sustained and focused human interaction of communication or: discussion.
Always question whatever is not understood! Far from giving offence, such questioning actually demonstrates laudable interest and attention. In capable application of Socratic Dialectic to copy/language editing together in close writing collaboration, spell out and/or question for me whatever is not understood in substance and subject matter, and not just whatever kind of syntaxic or grammatical rules or standardized stylistic conventions howsoever actually or allegedly broken or violated.
It can be so frustrating! Useful and pertinent suggestions that will not be entirely irrelevant or even actually purpose defeating, may first require the achievement of Intersubjectivity, and particularly the accomplishment of any accurate communication and comprehension of another's intentions and objectives to begin with. Not arbitrary obedience to made up rules! And therefore, whatever conceivable reply will never be quite so utterly stymied as any possible response to whatever entirely off target feedback; specifically miscommunication with and thence off target feedback as from any reader who simply fails to comprehend, and therefore so blithely and entirely misconstrues, intended meaning, intention or message content of whatever text to begin with. And its not about imposing whatever misinformed and misguided rules or assigning blame to either party, but the very real need of entirely congenial equal and shared responsibility in a process of Socratic Dialectical close collaboration in ongoing miscommunication detection and repair.

For low and behold: The current mainstay of science, engineering and philosophy was once the cutting edge even as of new and confusing conceptualization. The well familiar great concise ideas upon which we all rely, are often, historically, the product of brilliant minds in lifetimes of boiling it all down, volume by volume, page by page, line by line and even word by word.
Indeed: The world is murky. Reality is complicated. Nothing is easy. And alas, especially with complicated new ideas, how miscommunication and reciprocal incomprehension remain entirely normal, prevalent and endemic, within the human condition, whether one ever becomes aware of this or not. And thus at last attaining Socratic Wisdom. After all, because of psychological asymmetry, message content typically all seems so entirely lucid to whomever the message sender utterly failing to perceive or experience any communications failure, error or ambiguity. And all because unlike any message recipient, any message sender already knows and understands self intended message content. Or at least so believes.

And all so to reiterate, with most profuse apology, please believe me: If the author, yours truly, already understood precisely whatever herein might remain unclear, how so and why, then sparing no effort, I would already have revised accordingly.



But honestly, I do not know. No, not at all. And that is why I sincerely need and explicitly request, and not to impose, but only if anyone might ever be indeed so very kind, nothing more or less than, specific indication of or question as to whatever particular ambiguities or specific communications errors in detail. Just spell out for me whatever remains unclear. Question whatever is not understood. And please, be specific.



Truly, I so truly despise playing guessing games, because when I try to guess, my objectives are different, I don't make the same common assumptions, and so, I only guess wrong. Convolution therein thereby only exacerbating confusion all the more!
And all therefore, with all due gratitude, together with anyone so truly gracious, even going line by line, and word by word, through whatever text in question, or even any so problematic sample line or two. Thus extracted from any so overwhelming chore, a rudimentary and minimal first step or test attempt even merely for the sake of experiment and demonstration. What can it hurt?

Within Phenomenological inner life, linguistic metacognition remains introspective analysis of any inner cognitive process not only of listening or reading comprehension, but also of failure, indeed of listening or reading incomprehension, all alike.

Thence, in practical application sharing and bringing linguistic metacognition to bear, Socratic Dialectical close collaborative detection and correction of whatever particular ambiguities or specific communications errors meticulously and methodically brought to light, emerges as feasible, capable and reliable given the effort and interest, in effective and lucid revision of text or linguistic expression, for ever sharpened and greater clarity.

Ungoverned emotion bereft of insight

However, because of even the most petty secretive ulterior agenda, the above process meets with such reticence, resistance, evasion and non cooperation, in short: adamant refusal to engage, even after adequate demonstration of effectiveness of such copy/language editing process as herein extolled.
Alas how so many people become suspicious perhaps even more so than because of expression of disagreement, than by whatever they do not understand, indeed as especially by communications failure. A fear perhaps of whatever conceivable unknown duplicitously malign sentiment and thence whatever actingout in ulterior sinister intent.
An entirely groundless suspicion, even hypothetically, all herein. Because most emphatically, in defiance of any such experience and expectations, indeed with all due gratitude, the present request for assistance herein detailed, categorically will never insinuate or bear any hint or subtext whatsoever, of any conceivable putdown. No, not at all. Not even in the most harsh of criticism, inherently friendly, valuable, an expression of abiding respect.
And never, perish forbid! invalidation, neither of said reader(s) personally, nor whatever entirely very real, ingenuous and entirely sincere difficulties as ever experienced in parsing any part of the present hypertext. Rather, the present request predicates always crucial recognition and validation indeed of all too crucial Miscommunication Competence with intense abiding interest and concern, at last to render lucid text for any reader so confused by whatever existing prose.

Moreover, in all fair play, any sort of rules or guidelines in writing ultimately must be entirely and supportively subordinate to aforesaid authorial intent, if not merely to external coercion and even somewhat arbitrary conformity. Because in case of the latter, what then would even be the point?

In principle, nothing can ever become too preliminary. But as a matter of practicality, surely there must be limits! Fair enough, though however bothersome, in case at hand: Before actually getting to the point, it might indeed become necessary to frame the question: How best to proceed in case of reader incomprehension of texts? Controversy on this point rages from time immemorial, and no less heated in our times and across the Net. Case in point, the readers' encounter with this very website, FoolQuest.com



But in discussion online, at least there might be one idea at all, that seems to have come across clearly. Something so controversial, but actually so blatantly obvious. Because, for whatever conceivable reason, my standing request as preceding, my Epistemological and Methodological procedural considered recommendations towards mitigation of miscommunication, of communication failure, at first simply ignored, in the end have met with such resounding scorn! Such searing rejection and disapproval. Such outrage, outrage, outrage! Such obsession and obstruction. Indeed so lambasted as though nigh sacrilegious and taboo! Much as so many other ideas here on this website. As promised, something to offend everyone! But not to digress even further.

Beware invited inference

Except perhaps to caution how that which might generally be designated as: invited inference, often ensues from context, pattern recognition or world knowledge, rather than strict implication, logically. Invited inference remains entirely distinct from logical inference. All therefore, beware ever taking the bait. Beware how invited inference, so unreliable, need not follow logically and implicitly. And therefore can be either incidentally true, or just untrue, even in all good intention.



Complaining of incomprehension even quite politely, let alone howsoever strident and demandingly, falls entirely short of any intention or agenda as actually engaging and genuinely and attentively requesting whatever salient explanation. And let alone then even seeking whatever incisive and specific particular clarification in any detail orientation. And then actually paying interested regard to whatever response.



Alas how by contrast, there remains that old obnoxious provocation, of first posing question rhetorically, and then visibly and demonstratively tuning out or loosing interest in whatever answer forthcoming. Any headgame of even deliberately maneuvering the mark into any position of seeking to convince anyone else, and then turning the proverbial deaf ear, is sometimes designated as: the stone deaf power play. Or else by playing stupid, as might come naturally to some, perhaps might be coined as: the stone stupid power play! And all the more blatant and demonstrative, will be such flagrant acrimony and hostility as of actually derisive incomprehension. But not to presume any all such ill intent just by default.

Beware all then of any snare of perhaps instinctual or just wishful and optimistic but actually somewhat illogical invited inference of any interest or desire at all for howsoever explanatory assistance in comprehension or understanding of anything at first blush not entirely obvious or clear, from simply the expression or indication of personal incomprehension at the moment. Even invited inference as perhaps from any prior experience or observation of ones own, as to the manner in which any eustress of incomprehension might be usefully gratified by whatever ensuing cogent explanation even as technically just volunteered unasked, if not then actually rebuffed: The invited inference from merely claiming not to comprehend, of implicit interest in requested clarification. Again, as reasonable seeming or just polite, nevertheless, never necessarily so. And alas, all to often not.



Perhaps worst of all, for so many alas, incomprehension even remains a great treasure to be preserved at all cost. So famously to quote from George Orwell's ‘1984’: “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” Especially if doubt and openness as ever heralded by any sanguine acknowledgement of incomprehension, will only be regarded with simmering suspicion and seen as dangerous weakness and heterodoxy into any danger of whatever conceivable unknown sinister intent or scheming.

Beware then, and all notwithstanding even simply whatever so innocent and blithely wishful thinking in desire to communicate, then let alone such as nigh directly previous specific invited inferences. All as perhaps taken from anyone merely and perhaps somewhat nebulously and unspecifically complaining of incomprehension even quite politely, let alone howsoever strident and demandingly, or worse. For such declaration remains entirely distinct and not even remotely the same intention or agenda as actually engaging and genuinely and attentively requesting whatever salient explanation. And let alone then even seeking whatever incisive and specific particular clarification in any detail orientation. And then actually paying interested regard to whatever response.



Truly then all the more, in the immortal words of Simone Weil: “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.” Moreover, in corollary from common aphorism: “Effort is the best indicator of interest.” And only precisely such genuine, sustained and salient engagement, even at all actually demonstrates effort and persistence, incrementally to gain and improve comprehension. And thereby to inform ongoing revision, changes and clarifications to text ever as flaws revealed and need arising. It might be gratifying and convenient then, if only need of all such effort could be accepted as valid and entirely obvious. And then taken as given and routine, for anything interesting. Alas, not.

Wake up, Sheeple! We can blame extrinsic punishment and reward systems in most every walk of life, but most particularly such as of formal education in preparation for corporate employment, all wherein failure to regurgitate the expected correct response, routinely comes under disapproval and humiliation. Too bad then how so many people experiencing only traumatized and even Behaviorally Conditioned dystress, all rather than intrinsic eustress and fun, whenever they fail to understand anything, might then only become irritated and insecure, rather than naturally curious and interested. Indeed, instead of just taking things in whatever spirit as intended, prejudice to the effect that criticism automatically equals insult, is designated as: Anti-Critical Bias. Even as in context at hand, by innocently pointing out and exposing perfectly honest ignorance. Happenstance that ought to be both productive and innocuous.

For copy/language editing together, in close writing collaboration in Socratic Dialectic of Miscommunication Competent miscommunication detection and repair, bridging abstract principle into concrete implementation, endures as no more than but another application of Sir Karl Popper's faliblism. Indeed, rather than trying to avoid, penalize or hide mistakes, instead, making progress every day via ongoing error detection and course correction. - Socratic enlightenment from refutation, beginning from unfounded conjecture, and then continually learning from mistakes. Because ‘Mistakes are the Essence.’ And all thereby combating the alienated and boredom prone loneliness of intelligent people.

For yet another unthinkable taboo truth forever endures, in very antithesis to everything that we have all been taught, all replete with craven sycophantic socialization that none dare call: indoctrination or even brainwash; and all about facile and social success by fitting in via bland agreeability and ever more vapid small talk.

Indeed such as for that matter, whatever banal chitchat as howsoever threatening no challenge at all, to ever more short attention and witless oversimplification. But not to digress directly ahead of ourselves.

And all because real agency, more authentic, less arbitrary and higher, more lofty threshold of connection and belonging, relationship and particularly the forging of attachments of true friendship possible only under autonomy, indeed even Eros which is transport in liberating union with alien difference, all arise only for those nerdy unpopular serious people. And without apology, entirely as forbidden byproduct of most frowned upon and reviled seriousness. Indeed all entirely as forbidden byproduct, and without apology, of truly purposeful interaction and/or substantive communication.

And believe it or not, never otherwise.



All thus and all as to become well evident, there can hardly be any question of the effort and difficulty in all probortunity at hand here on FoolQuest.com Indeed as shall be seen, given the scope of ambition herein, this should come as vanishingly little surprise. And yet, all consummately worthwhile when only given any chance at all. Or so one might only dare hope.

But for every abundant richness, quality, complexity, depth and meaning that help to involve and engage an audience, indeed even in that heritage of civilization, no less than such cherished values of Literature as distinguished and most narrowly defined and signified by the much vaunted capital "L", and moreover at all as of of reading and writing at any higher level, and of most effective Active Reading and listening strategy, after all, an art... -All might clearly be expected to feature among very least of unavoidably difficult and ambitious strivings entailed herein on FoolQuest.com Indeed in every unabashed and earnest joy of cogitation, not listless compliance. And at the very least, all as well applicable to copy/language editing together. And all in close detailed conversation into whatever mode or application of narrative, writing collaboration and Socratic Dialectic of Miscommunication Competent miscommunication detection and repair. Indeed in meticulous critique of one another's prose. All such as directly preceding, might clearly be expected to feature among very least of unavoidably difficult and ambitious strivings entailed herein on FoolQuest.com
Then low and behold: The current mainstay of science, engineering and philosophy was once the cutting edge. The well familiar great concise ideas upon which we all rely, are often, historically, the product of brilliant minds in lifetimes of boiling it all down, volume by volume, page by page, line by line and even word by word.

Many people stand traumatized, mute and paralyzed whenever they do not understand anything. Never just freeze and dummy up whenever you do not understand anything! But always speak up, question, and even explain your questions! And this remains essential. No one always immediately grasps everything new. New ideas are often confusing. And to always get it right the first time, say very little and dare nothing new. Because only shopworn and well familiar old ideas are certain always to come across effortlessly.

All therefore, in complete exasperation, I implore, I beg of you all: Speak no more to me of simple writing style!

First of all, as any serious fledgling writer ever unsuspectingly accepting an invitation to a committee ambush can attest: There are no end of cliquish and uncooperative and conniving serial bullies ever eager howsoever to inveigle unwary creatives taking the bait, into as much unilateral effort and futility as possible, only then to become increasingly hostile instead of at last engaging as howsoever agreed or implied.

It stands to reason then, that such duplicitous and hostile cliquish serial bullies projecting and normalizing their own vastly pointless dishonesty and malice, then might well anticipate and expect much the same from anyone else asking them howsoever also to trouble themselves as well in any kind of joint project proposed. And worse, that such caution and cynicism comes to prevail. And acceding to whatever demands unilaterally, might not raise interest that was never there to begin with. How others behave from the beginning, just might best indicate what to expect in future. But not perhaps unduly and unjustly only to expect only the most illl intention. Because there remain other and less obviously malignant pitfalls.

To wit: Alas that whatever to anyone at all, howsoever seemingly functions well enough, may actually only function at a very low level. That of unaware incompetence.



How seemingly innocent and innocuous the extol of clear and simple writing style, for any conceivable message content, only seemingly otherwise unrestrained. But indeed only seemingly. And yet so consistently toping various wise, capable and well informed lists online of all too common bad writing advice. But how so?



In answer, so famously to quote Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message.” Indeed, the massage in the mass age! For lo and behold, pervading characteristics of whatever medium including therein evolving style of presentation, constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. Ramifications never simple, but all too often ever more convoluted.



And yes, all as aforesaid above does apply distinctly to rampant short attention and oversimplification in writing style, linear, straightforward and superficial, empty and all hollowed out. Mediocrity. Systems of normalized unthinking unaware incompetence bereft of all Socratic Wisdom. The banality of evil. Simple worldview and simple answers, all so confidently and comfortingly dead wrong. And all entirely devoid of creativity, recontextualization, connection, variation, elaboration, expansion, insight, fearless exploration, improvement and modification. Every spur, aspect and value of creative solution finding and brainstorming in facilitation of fully engaged collaboration among equals.



All thus and more, indeed as Marshal McLuhan further expounds, precisely any such artifacts of media, not to be overlooked, do indeed effect and affect any society and shape perception by their unique characteristics. As any society's values, norms and methods inevitably become changed over time, then no less inevitably, social implications eventually emerge. And to reiterate, yes, all of this does apply distinctly not only to (anti)social media, but to rampant short attention and oversimplification not only in writing style, but in all that passes in effectively secret policing thought itself: Peer pressure and self censorship. Oh, double plus good!



And so, with continued emphasis upon case in point: specifically that very fulsome apogee of pointless and trivial agenda hijack at hand, the exhortation and demand and to the exclusion of all else, of simple writing style. Indeed, behold that most unduly venerated among the entire figurative vast herd of proverbial sacred cows, remaining so monumentally irrelevant. Only a broadest cretin implication that complexity must be the cause of communication failure. So just eliminate complexity! And then all will be well. What harm? Plenty! To begin with, beware typical short attention oversimplification in such short shrift to inherent and irreducible complexity intrinsic to whatever message or subject matter.

   •
And here's a shocker: Cosmic context, master plan, the verity of my heart of hearts, and whole story in the wisdom of the

ages, might elude, and never well reduce to, insipid bullet points!

Indeed, exhortation to simple minded writing style, exists in order to side step any more complicated and laborious striving for truth,* struggle entailing any disputation of often convoluted differing perception, and therein also any integral and necessary sense of fair play.



*Knowledge meaning awareness of truth, and truth being correspondence to reality in assertions, and assertions grammatically constituting declarative statements such as employing any conjugation of the verb: to be.

And all thus effectively obfuscating what covertly advances an ideological glorification of what amounts to willful semiliteracy. Indeed as much reminiscent of newspeak in George Orwell's ‘1984’ paring down not only range of expression, but increasingly even actually hollowing out and stupefying every depth of thought itself. And all just to make what then passes for brainwork, seem so much easier. Fie! In all togetherness of degradation and oppression, Oceania endures, a dull, bleak and lonely place.

Do these people not hear what they themselves are saying??!

Such angry and even so explicitly Orwellian norms pandering to anti-intellectual pressure (and shockingly! even unironically and in the following words:) to dumb everything down (even according to some, explicitly to the level of a small child!), first of all, completely fail to address any particulars at all, in specifics in intelligent and intelligible detail, whatever it might be exactly, that will not be understood, point by point, how so and why. Alas, instead ever heedless fanaticism in the extol of simple minded writing style as an ideal and priority unto itself, may therefore even go so far as to blithely trivialize any importance of authorial intent to begin with. Thus careening into cross-purpose.

And all because ignorance and incomprehension are seen not as gateways in the advance of learning, fair play, adventure of discovery, knowledge and understanding, but merely a nuisance so quickly and cavalierly to be figuratively swept metaphorically under the proverbial rug, purged out of mind and out of sight. Indeed, perhaps most reactionary of all, remains any mischief of seeking to avoid or just burry completely, every mistake, instead of ongoing free and falliblistic error detection and course correction. Ignorance and incomprehension most definitely included.

And all as above therein, only indeed an agenda hijack: diversionary bait, adamant obstruction, a false and idolatrous proverbial tar-baby, an irritating headgame, a devious power play, an exhortation to waste time and effort. Effectively an invitation figuratively to beat ones metaphorical head against that proverbial wall. All in enactment of rightthink and crimestop, invalidation and adamant refusal to engage.

Whereas, in very antithesis, full engagement reciprocally, ever remains key in any resolution of communications failure. And therefore pivotal in close collaboration in any more lucid revision of whatever texts or verbal expression. And all therefore, then let alone then anything much else. All whereof, short attention oversimplification ever remains antithetical. Just because of such obdurate unaware incompetence, it does not actually follow that substance, much less nuance, will never be lost in the course of such unduly venerated nigh semiliterate oversimplification and short attention. In a word: irrelevancy, denoting: throughout any ongoing deterioration and de-evolution in the death throws of complex systems, greater ease and efficiency within whatever process quite arbitrarily, but alas however, even nevertheless typically so detrimental to any useful and desired external results or service to end users.

Alas, and all too often, once again someone or other regurgitates whatever cretin utter cliché of unquestioned common wisdom, with no clue whatsoever that anyone else might not only have heard it all before, many times and at any length. And even all so, yet arriving at considered decision against choosing whatever such unduly hallowed malagenda as, case in point, of short attention oversimplification. And worse, in the advance of any better informed alternative, for all too many people, so set in their ways and inept, and for whom dissidence or disagreement remains actually unimaginable, the most confusing thing that anyone can say to them remains: Let us together strive for greater happiness even just experimentally, by doing things at all differenly and perhaps just at all howsoever more capably. Whether in the advance of any bold new innovation, or by return to whatever time honored competencies and disciplines.

Alas, to reiterate, that whatever to anyone at all, howsoever seemingly functions well enough, may actually only function at a very low level. That of unaware incompetence. And there will always be people who extol whatever lowest common denominator, only because they want to keep us all down. Many of whom, for whatever reasons, so desperately yearn forever to be kept down themselves, crushed and comfortably numb! Especially in whatever stupefying desperate hopes that any such conditionality might tender as any adequate cost for unshakable togetherness, indeed even thereby only of at all fitting in socially. Subtext of conditionality, signifying conditional love or acceptance as entirely predicated upon acquiescence in every thought and deed. And otherwise withheld.

Alas, what can there be more lonely, unhelpful and frustrating, than the entirely off target responses and reactions of anyone who entirely fails to grasp whatever it might be that one so struggles to communicate? That is why first of all needs must a striving towards the achievement of Intersubjectivity, being the closer correspondence of message as received and understood, to message content as actually intended by the sender. Only after that, can response become even coherent to subject matter. Obviously, there can be no other functional and practical considerations, until first the the achievement of Intersubjectivity. Not correctness of style, not vagaries of emotional response, not even whatever as deemed flaws or causes of communications failure. Regardless indeed the latter whereof, the remedy remains the same.

And all therefore, in any all too common event of reciprocal incomprehension and communications failure, all so very prevalent in the human condition, therefore without acrimony, ongoing Socratic Dialectic of Miscommunication Competent miscommunication detection and repair ever as necessary, so obviously remains crucial and the least of worthwhile effort and difficulty at hand herein. Indeed, even together combing whatever text line by line and word by word, will often become crucial in order to ferret out whatever every discrete communications errors or ambiguities. To some degree, functional people do as much without a second thought! Because ‘Mistakes are the Essence.’

Indeed Socratic Dialectic together framing questions as arising, not merely any pedantry of message form, but explicitly of message content and intended meaning. And not to impose, this would be my standing request of anyone so very kind. Because there can be no effective or feasible substitute or work around. Nor need thereof.

For such as above initial necessary endeavor of Socratic Dialectic, may even readily emerge as wherein most heady connection and psychological visibility arising amid fully engaged collaboration among equals, actually germinates and thrives. Lo and behold then, the regular and ongoing experience of Socratic Dialectic as ever remaining most ancient and fundamental of tools in the cutting edge lofty objective of design thinking into the social engineering of most optimal reciprocally engaged social and intellectual stimulus struggle, here on FoolQuest.com After all, psychological asymmetry simply means that we are not so odd, but only strangers. The target mindset of FoolQuest.com, passionately intelligent, boredom prone and lonely. But more, anon.

In all as above, among other things, remains all how FoolQuest.com stands out as so unusual and different. And yes, gentle readers; you are all requested and invited !

However, anyone, indeed often and many, only so wrathfully dismissing the preceding entirely out of hand, will only experience angry disappointment here on FoolQuest.com Indeed, no matter how fundamental whatever necessary initial copy/language editing together.



There can be no question however, of the effort and difficulty in all probortunity at hand here on FoolQuest.com And as shall be seen, given the scope of ambition herein, this should come as vanishingly little surprise. And yet, as also shall be seen, all consummately worthwhile when only given any chance at all. Or so one might only dare hope.



For more. at length and in greater detail and ramifications, upon the fundamentals of Dialectical fully engaged collaboration among equals in overcoming communications failure, read on...

Post to the for others to weigh in, orif it's private.

And all serious replies shall be answered promptly.



the many evils of short attention simple writing style

Beyond the bounds of consensus driven echo chambers, controversy ever rages across the Internet. And to quote Mark Twain: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” Indeed as so well applicable to those miserable maxims of short attention maxims of simple writing style. All such as remaining so ever flawed precept as to be found featuring most prominently on cautionary lists in explicit criticism of stock bad writing advice. Lists compiled by capable writers who know and care about their craft.

Indeed so fully in accord with such prevailing and standard general (and often so very bad) stock writing advice and rightthink of impoverished hack writing, and just to make matters worse, Orwellian and superficial short attention simple writing style remains so very so Anti-intellectual: hostile and mistrustful towards intellect, intellectuals, intellectualism, and deprecating of culture at all.

And when it comes to difficult and complicated questions and subject matter, Orwellian and superficial short attention simple writing style explains or clarifies nothing! Orwellian and superficial short attention simple writing style may strive backhandedly to prevent, but does not actually address or contend with, all too common needless and interminable bypassing. Indeed, eviscerating and masticating every depth of nuance. And all doing so precious little justice dumbing down anything truly imaginative, insightful or thought provoking; certainly any subversively disruptive true innovation. Dumbing things down subtracts the living essence.

And there endures, alas, in this sick, sad world, a certain and all too common embarrassment and squeamishness, if not disapproval and even hostility outright, towards the writers' passionate and unapologetic wordsmithing love of heightened language. An unfortunate Anti-Intellectual knee-jerk antipathy that shall never be pandered or catered to at all, herein. And for anyone thereby driven off, then good riddance!

Orwellian and superficial short attention simple writing style, replete with readily digestible content, entirely abbreviation into brief, bland, easy and convenient callow snippets of informatainment, eschews entirely engagement and striving in hypothetico-deductive statement or clear argumentative points and agendas. And all such evasion and indirection, remains ever tantamount only to Inductivism. As typical amid the de-evolution and death throws of complex systems, Orwellian and superficial short attention simple writing style ever remains so vastly irrelevant, featuring ease and efficiency of its own internal processes, but without regard for detriment to external real world results for end users. And in the case of chronic short attention and routine oversimplification, such detriment so often tends to include howsoever unaware pandemic alienation resulting in perpetual boredom and loneliness.

And yet, well may one ask: But doesn't simple writing style result more easily in clear and reliable communication? Answer: Not if thereby communication becomes so vastly restricted and impoverished. And a steady diet of such pabulum of bullshit simple answers to complex problems, will leave participants in unduly confident, blithely unaware and unsuspected isolation from reality.

And all therefore, responsibly and Dialectically, and better by far, whenever you do not know or understand anything at all, simply admit it openly and without qualm, and then seek assistance by just asking questions. Never just freeze and dummy up whenever you do not understand anything! But always speak up, question, and even explain your questions!

And so, to reiterate, in all good faith striving then, for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility, of explicitly seeking and specifying most cogently and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback, as they themselves perceive the need, and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with. And any sort of rules or guidelines in writing ultimately must be entirely and supportively subordinate to aforesaid authorial intent, if not merely to external coercion and even somewhat arbitrary conformity to whatever stylistic rightthink. And then, what would even be the point?

decay of discourse

The present exposition therefore serves first of all, in emphatic denunciation and exposure to criticality, the many evils of all Orwellian exhortation only toward the most cretin short attention simple writing style, and even specifically at the often as so vastly underestimated level of a small child. And all entirety to the exclusion of all else and under any context or circumstance. Ill fitting expectations so artlessly transposed from one very narrow and particular genre of popular "low brow" nonfiction, upon every other conceivable style or content whatsoever. Indeed, even openly enthusiastic exhortation actually to dumb things down, and thereby better to appeal to limited comprehension. Indeed, all as coming replete only with ever so very brief, bland, standardized, easy and convenient short attention readily digestible and callow snippets of information. Anti-intellectual veritable egregore thus eviscerating and masticating every depth of nuance, and undermining the very yearning for deeper understanding and connection. Leaving thus the masses so bored and complaining of loneliness, and with no pointed idea why. Indeed, the more alienated, the more lost and the more desperately heteronymous.



Notoriously, newspeak, in trenchant parody of Ivor Richards and Charles Kay Ogden's Basic English, is the deliberately ever more impoverished fictional conlang in ‘1984’ by George Orwell, perhaps among the best known champions for the honesty of simple and direct writing since Socrates himself. For Orwell, despite all recommendation indeed of simple language, nevertheless sounded unflagging alarm against ongoing decay of language.

Alas how even more so in our information age, the ever popular fanatical extol of ever more short attention oversimplification indeed continues all the more. And typical short attention oversimplification constitutes such a colossal copout: craven and cowardly avoidance or evasion of responsibility, commitment, or challenge by making excuses, backing out, or seeking whatever easy way out. Under precisely such short attention oversimplification, much as with newspeak, actual intended message content will largely become so entirely lost in translation. Indeed, all doing so precious little justice dumbing down anything truly imaginative, insightful or thought provoking; certainly any sophisticated creative writing or subversively disruptive true innovation. And stupefying also, so many of those nitwits who so fervently embrace all such systematicly short attention oversimplification as so relentlessly pandered to by such cynical hack writers and fanatical literary ideologues. A malignant belief system. A willful giant step backward in cognition. Thinking making so, an idea that kills ideas. Imaginary imagination forever quelled.

All by contrast, the great boon and blessing of Socratic Wisdom in self-reflection, so crucial towards Miscommunication Competence, only means at all merely admitting and just being more aware when one does not know or understand. Thus opening the way for the grand and venerable critical exploration and Socratic enlightenment by refutation, unfolding in the Western scientific rational tradition of systematic doubt. But more to the immediate point, the Socratic Wisdom of Miscommunication Competence may serve to forestall bypassing. Bypassing as denoting the all too common situation or circumstances even of blithely unaware and even reciprocal gainsaying. Gainsaying as denoting the behavior of just ignoring whatever counterargument, and instead endlessly repeating oneself, instead of actually mounting any further rebuttal. And thus of completely talking entirely past one another. Indeed, entirely failing to engage with one another or address one another's actual points. Indeed, so often focusing instead upon entirely separate agendas and even completely misunderstanding whatever core issues. For such remains communication failure wherein perspectives so completely fail to align, leading thereby to unresolved, circular argument rather than any true dialogue. Indeed, all in such blithe and chronically unaware communications failure and reciprocal incomprehension. And so, responsibly and Dialectically, better by far, whenever you do not know or understand anything, simply admit it without qualm, and then seek assistance by just asking questions. To wit:

Gentle reader, honestly and with most profuse apology, please believe the immediately present discourse is not of my own chosen core agenda, but only the endlessly frustrating and repetitious conversation so constantly thrust upon me instead. and acknowledge: If I already knew and understood precisely whatever herein might remain unclear, how so and why, then sparing no effort, I would already have revised accordingly. But I do not know. Not at all. And that is why I sincerely need and explicitly request, and not to impose, but only if anyone might ever be indeed so very kind, nothing more or less than, in terms of message content, specific indication of whatever particular ambiguities or specific communications errors. Indeed, even going line by line, and word by word, over any so incomprehensible text, even whatever sample line or two of whatever prose.

Thus by helping and abetting better reader comprehension, to assist in rewriting and improvement. Because writing is like photography: Easy to do, but difficult to do well. Indeed, writing is rewriting, patient, hard work and never a waste of time.

Alas, for so many, and quite mysteriously, such very request has so often been received either with mute cold shoulder or else, at last, such flagrant and dire umbrage. But Epistemologically, what feasible alternatives can there ever be? Because all ubiquitously interminable clichéd exhortation exclusively to the most moronically short attention simple writing style, does nothing whatsoever to address the following very real and enduring obstacle:



Only so angrily demanding summarization into the most short attention simple writing style, those who only complain so adamantly, of finding FoolQuest.com so incomprehensible, then so virulently take such exception to my own observation of how they themselves entirely omit any further explanation at all, precisely what they do not understand, how so and why. I'm not a mind reader. And figuratively beating my metaphorical head against that proverbial wall, just trying to guess exactly whatever might be unclear and how so, inevitably I'll only guess wrong, futility thereby only exacerbating confusion and vexation. And so, to be explicit, I refuse. As is my good right!

contending with disapproval and pressure

Some individuals or even conformist and co-validating peer groups, one way or another make demands upon nonconforming individuals with new ideas, and the former, in their colossally unsympathetic short attention, simply turn a deaf ear to whatever difficulties entailed for anyone else. Particularly as in whatever their often frustratingly over simplistic expectations or demands as regarding, in their view, sanctioned expression and writing style. Indeed, actually often unsuitable to whatever intended unconventional message content. And all without lifting a finger to help. Even refusing requested explanation, that might require thought and effort on their part. Proverbially, they demand figuratively to cut the proverbial foot to fit the metaphorical shoe. And that will never do! Because. as the saying goes: It's a give and take world. Or so one might only dare hope!

Because, and to reiterate, in all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility, of explicitly seeking and specifying most cogently and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback, as they themselves perceive the need, and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with. And any sort of rules or guidelines in writing ultimately must be entirely and supportively subordinate to aforesaid authorial intent, if not merely to external coercion and even somewhat arbitrary conformity. And then, what would even be the point?

All therefore, and further to reiterate, honestly and with most profuse apology, please believe me and acknowledge: If I already knew and understood precisely whatever herein might remain unclear, how so and why, then sparing no effort, I would already have revised accordingly. But I do not know. No, not at all. And that is why I sincerely need and explicitly request, and not to impose, but only if anyone might ever be indeed so very kind, nothing more or less than, in terms of message content, specific indication of whatever particular ambiguities or specific communications errors. Indeed, even going line by line, and word by word, whatever text in question, even any so problematic sample line or two of whatever prose.

hijacked agenda then fully addressed

So I am not actually the one here burying the lede! And it's all not my fault! I only strive therefore to preempt such repetitious and though so unaccountable, nevertheless predictable reaction as garnered thus far at all. And so, rather than continually repeating myself online anew, instead, find the above text, placed so pertinently among the first entries of content in view browsing this very website, FoolQuest.com

And then presently, to set forth in detail, protocol responsibly to address all as evinced incomprehension, for anyone interested or concerned, to the very best of my human limited ability. Although first, apparently, said protocol requires adequate justification. And all for anyone who even cares, thus at all deserving care in return.

Unless, indeed again, all present exposition may even dawn as entirely obvious and therefore superfluous, and so much the better, then the happy option remains, of returning to primary topic. And further to reiterate, nothing would please me more!

All questions regress infinitely, and therefore, in very principle, no subject matter can ever be omitted as howsoever excessively preliminary. But that would be unwieldy and impractical. Although alas sometimes inescapable. Case in point: Not only remediation of reader incomprehension, but then disputation upon best procedures to that end, inquiry itself in turn so bogged down in such intractable communications struggle and failure.

Alas all therefore, the immediately present discourse is not of my own chosen core agenda at all, but instead only upon the endlessly frustrating and obsessively repetitious and therefore entirely predictable conversation so constantly thrust upon me instead. For indeed alas how, like unto some demented understudy for Briar Rabbit's indefatigable and intractable tar-baby, a deeper trap the more one flails, the same tiresome deadlock of contention never ends. Indeed, even textbook stone-deaf powerplay, if not actually just stone-stupid. Thus has my intended agenda been effectively been hijacked and deadlocked! Indeed, pressing this very rescue effort, so too speak.

Alas, my standing request for specific manner of feedback meets with the most virulent hostility and even somewhat comically arrogant demands for compliance and conformity with all of that ever sanctified short attention over simplistic writing style. Alas, the unexplained brazen hostility and suspicion so distinctly elicited online, by my direct and forthright request regarding more useful critique instead.

Ironically as by happenstance, my standing request indeed for such particular specific manner of feedback, perhaps actually constitutes my own most concise and simplest writing to date! And indeed coming across so clearly, judging by the outrage, outrage, outrage! thereby elicited. Ironically indeed, given all thence ensuing exhortation and angry insistence upon over simplistic writing style. And even specifically at the often as so vastly underestimated level of a small child, indeed all entirety to the exclusion of all else and under any context or circumstance. Ill fitting expectations so artlessly transposed from one very narrow and particular genre of popular "low brow" nonfiction, upon every other conceivable style or content whatsoever.

And yet, perhaps what that benighted audience so craves and expects, is not merely simplicity, but pandering bland empty agreement and affirmation, forever and ever, amen! In any case, the ever more callow and wretched mediocrity of ever popular and Orwellian short attention simple writing style will never actually stand as the only way and the light, just so many have come seemingly so rigidly and uncritically to believe.

Instead, better by far, let the Socratic Wisdom of Miscommunication Competence serve in ongoing Socratic Dialectical method of miscommunication detection and repair. Back and forth, as many time as necessary, and thereby, to forestall needless and interminable bypassing. Bypassing as denoting the all too common situation or circumstances even of blithely unaware and even reciprocal gainsaying. Gainsaying as denoting the behavior of just ignoring whatever counterargument, and instead endlessly repeating oneself, rather than actually mounting any further rebuttal. And thus of completely talking entirely past one another. Indeed, entirely failing to engage with one another or address one another's actual points. Indeed, so often focusing instead upon entirely separate agendas and even completely misunderstanding whatever core issues.

For such remains communication failure wherein perspectives so completely fail to align, leading thereby to unresolved, circular argument, and not any true dialogue. Indeed, all in such blithe and chronically unaware communications failure and reciprocal incomprehension.

shared responsibility

Gentle reader, oh woe my my unremitting vexation! Honestly and with most profuse apology, please believe me and acknowledge: If I already knew and understood precisely whatever herein might remain unclear, how so and why, then sparing no effort, I would already have revised accordingly. But I do not know. Not at all. And that is why I sincerely need and explicitly request, and not to impose, but only if anyone might ever be indeed so very kind, nothing more or less than, in terms of message content, specific indication of whatever particular ambiguities or specific communications errors. Indeed, even going line by line, and word by word, whatever text in question, even any so problematic sample line or two.

Thus by helping and abetting better personal comprehension for any individual reader, in turn thereby so vitally assisting in rewriting, clarification and improvement of prose, hence forth for all future audience. Because writing is like photography: Easy to do, but difficult to do well. Indeed, writing is rewriting, patient, hard work and never a waste of time. Because, all to often, precisely that sort of diligence together will be necessary for any further progress. And this is no reason to get so angry! Indeed, does it all not remain entirely and so painfully obvious?

Pertinent feedback, in the first place, must be predicated upon lucid transmission and comprehension of whatever subject matter of said feedback. Otherwise, if one simply does not even know what one is talking about, said feedback, only reflecting complete distortion, cannot possibly be at all pertinent to whatever actual subject matter. Indeed, precious little will ever meaningfully proceed without first any lucid achievement of Intersubjectivity and the resolution of communications failure. Intersubjectivity defined as ever closer correspondence of message content as received and understood by whatever message recipient(s), to message content as actually intended by whomever the message sender(s).

And there can be no shortcuts or workarounds. No shifting of blame and burden. Because, in reality, actual collaboration even most generally and indeed tautologically, let alone specifically as in ongoing Socratic Dialectical method of Miscommunication Competent miscommunication detection and repair, back and forth, obviously requires any embrace whatsoever, any at all honest good faith modicum, of willingly shared responsibility, merely for maintenance of ongoing determined effort together. And let us settle for nothing less.

And in any case, if even so little as indeed indicating, pointing out and explaining or specifically systematically questioning whatever discrete communications errors and ambiguities in text, shall already alone been deemed excessive adversity, hardship and imposition, thereby bringing about indeed precisely such deadlock, then beware: Far greater complexity and effort by far, ensues, anon! Because if anything, only even more meticulous deliberation together, remains ever fundamental in the very nature of such effortful collaborative endeavor as extolled here on FoolQuest.com But only for anyone at all serious and whole hearted. And of all others, one must wash ones hands. For such must find their own way, and welcome to it!

limitations and imperatives

No one can not be responsible for anyone else's headgames of entirely untrustworthy and impatient refusal to engage, let alone to pander to whatever insane demands in hopes of better attitudes from them later on. Engagement cannot arise in any invalidating conditionality as any dubious end result or unlikely reward for whatever arduous compliance entirely unaided. Rather, engagement remains the barest beginning. And believe it or not, never otherwise.



The probortunity at hand then here on FoolQuest.com remains difficult and complicated, even confusing. Perhaps to no surprise then, how unsurmounted difficulty has been so angrily denounced, in attempted reading and comprehension of this very website. And so, what, if anything, must be done, and by whom? Considering that both reading and writing are both entirely voluntary, then precisely what, if anything, is owed, by whom, to whom, and how so?

To wit: What little minimum must be duly expected of any capably literate reader? What effort, focus and background knowledge, acuity, or whatever else? And all thereof, might any reading challenge ever at all vary in any attempt of at all more substantive communication, or with difficulty of message content and subject matter in whatever context? And what about the complexity and difficulty of whatever aspirations and ambitions addressed, especially all as herein on FoolQuest.com? All, no lie, as remaining uncertain and considerable. And anyone who expects otherwise, has lost the thread.

However, and especially In whatever sought for minimization of any whatever all such the latter due effort merely at all even in reading, and so, thence conversely, what manner of debt then if anything, can be pressed upon any author instead? And let alone somehow ever actually ever extracted, for the sake of whomever prospective audience? Indeed, what responsibility is this author in particular, yours truly, even at all willing to shoulder for whatever prospective audience? Under what circumstances as herein particularly, defines first of all possibility, and only then any manner of obligation?

Emphatically, at least if at all it can be helped, no writer or speaker must ever impose responsibility for their own expressive shortcomings, onto whatever audience so troubled and put upon. Yes, all too true: Every effort on the part of the author to write more clearly, spares successive readers the imposition of needles aggravation. Such trouble spared even perhaps by any somewhat inconsiderate or confused writer, even from antiquity, accrues multiplied struggle and needless irritation plaguing any such future readers, even across the ages, unto the present day and into the future. It's never easy.

Indeed, even actually just maybe any literal matter of life and death! For prime example, how the great warrior sage Carl von Clausewitz lay sick and dying as he penned his celebrated great work, cut short of the needed time to edit and revise his tortured prose into anything more polished. And no end of mischief and confusion in history ensuing, blood and mayhem attending thereupon, resultant only from his flawed composition as so entirely falling short in due service to his somber Literary intent.
Because writing is like photography: Easy to do, but difficult to do well. Indeed, writing is rewriting, patient, hard work and never a waste of time.
Then low and behold: The current mainstay of science, engineering and philosophy was once the cutting edge. The well familiar great concise ideas upon which we all rely, are often, historically, the product of brilliant minds in lifetimes of boiling it all down, volume by volume, page by page, line by line and even word by word. And no one always immediately grasps everything new. New ideas are often confusing. And to always get it right the first time, say very little and dare nothing new. Because only shopworn and well familiar old ideas are certain always to come across effortlessly.

Therefore, to reiterate, never just freeze and dummy up whenever you do not understand anything! But always speak up, question, and even explain your questions! And this remains essential.

request for comment

Angry expectations and demands all notwithstanding, the plain truth remains that I just can't do this alone. I earnestly require the gracious and capable assistance as already specified, of anyone experiencing any whatever such difficulty, as reported, in reading and comprehension of this very website, FoolQuest.com And precisely that feedback, and no substitute, remains my price.

Gentle reader, honestly and with most profuse apology, please believe me and acknowledge: If I already knew and understood precisely whatever herein might remain unclear, how so and why, then sparing no effort, I would already have revised accordingly.

All therefore, in all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility, of explicitly seeking and specifying most cogently and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback, as they themselves perceive the need, and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with. And any sort of rules or guidelines in writing must be entirely and supportively subordinate to aforesaid authorial intent, or else merely to external coercion and conformity to whatever stylistic righttthink. And then, what would be the point?

In any case, if even so little as indeed pointing out and explaining or specifically systematically questioning whatever discrete communications errors and ambiguities in text, shall already alone been deemed excessive adversity, hardship and imposition, thereby bringing about indeed precisely such deadlock, then beware: Far greater complexity and effort ensues! Because if anything, only even more meticulous deliberation together, remains ever fundamental in the very nature of such effortful collaborative endeavor as extolled here on FoolQuest.com But only for anyone at all serious and whole hearted. Everyone else must find their own way, and welcome to it!

Furthermore, and much as ideological rightthink may actually struggle to deny it, salient critique bears in mind authorial intent. And bearing in mind authorial intent, may first require gleaning comprehension at all. Knee-jerk regurgitation of ideology making no serviceable substitute whatsoever, for attentive and well thought out critique.

Indeed, by helping and abetting better reader comprehension, to assist in rewriting and improvement. Because writing is like photography: Easy to do, but difficult to do well. Indeed, writing is rewriting, patient, hard work and never a waste of time.

And all of that is why I sincerely need and explicitly request, and not to impose, but only if anyone might ever be indeed so very kind, nothing more or less than specific indication of whatever particular ambiguities or specific communications errors. And even as beginning from any line or two of chosen sample text. Indeed, together even going line by line and word by word. Indeed, delving into actual message content, subject matter or meaning. Even putting aside only message form alone: whatever pedantry of entirely formal errors of howsoever uniform or else incorrect style, presentation or standard general (and often so very bad) stock writing advice and rightthink.

Derisive incomprehension may often only deflect from crimestop in defense of rightthink and balking at what therefore becomes so inconceivable. The present section then is provided first of all, and take it or leave it, for the ready elucidating benefit of anyone who, instead of even conceivably ever even contemplating any other conceivable measures together, than simple answers to complex conundrums, ever remains so enamored only with that one inflexible doctrine: That of perpetually inflicting only the most uniformly dumbed down simple writing style upon all humanity forever and ever. In utmost desperation to preempt instead, all such intractable digression, find herein no less stubborn and unflagging opposition all thereto. And all in undying hope ever at all just to get on with the present proposal! And more, anon. God willing! Anyone willing!

And all therefore, if certain points are repeatedly restated or rephrased, that will be in urgency one way or another, merely of finding any turn of phrase for getting the most important and central points across. And should any at all among such attempts succeed, then three cheers, hooray and huzzah! Mission accomplished! And authorial responsibilities thus well and truly discharged! And then after that, let the reader have whatever their own feelings. For at the very least, they just possibly may have evolved into at all better informed individual positions.

But to reiterate: Just in case all such exposition as directly preceding and ensuing, may be deemed entirely obvious and superfluous, and so much the better, then the happy option remains, of just scrolling down or skipping ahead by clicking here.

The Socratic Dialectical method of Miscommunication Competent miscommunication detection and repair, back and forth, proceeds in all diligence together to ferret out and correct in turn, each discrete communications error or ambiguity in actual message content and not just message form. Because ‘Mistakes are the Essence.’ With reading and writing at any higher level. Indeed, effective Active Reading and listening strategy, after all, an art. And all striving towards any lucid achievement of Intersubjectivity, Intersubjectivity defined as ever closer correspondence of message content as received and understood, to message content as actually intended by the sender.

Therefore, the present section consists in lengthy and detailed exposition upon all ramifications of The Way of the Sympathetic Copy/Language Editor or beta reader. And in extol of the FoolQuest.com protocol of close collaboration in Socratic Dialectic as herein expounded, actually not so unheard of and minimal adversity together of excruciatingly detailed miscommunication detection and repair. Indeed, actually together even going line by line and word by word. Indeed even as beginning from any line ort two of chosen sample text. And precisely such diligence and cooperation remaining my standing request, as to be so greatly appreciated, but never to impose, and only of anyone being indeed so very kind.

Because barring any such change deliberately and in all due consideration of course, streamlining and simplification must never be allowed routinely to take priority over accuracy and detail of expression, in preservation of actual intended message content. Nor for that matter, should richness and artistry of unique authorial voice, tone, and style ever be so blithely standardized so completely into oblivion.

Indeed, far from the inanity of whatever witless exhortation to over simplistic writing style: Writing is like photography: Easy to do, but difficult to do well. Indeed, writing is rewriting, patient, hard work and never a waste of time. An ongoing application of Socratic Dialectical method. Capable participatory Socratic Dialectic. Socratic Dialectical method and enlightenment by refutation, ever remaining the sharp edge of any keen mind. And all as remaining ever pivotal and indispensable in every bold, challenging and ambitious endeavor as herein extolled. Various endeavor otherwise all entirely eviscerated and pointless.

And yet again to reiterate: Just in case all such exposition as directly preceding and ensuing, may be deemed entirely obvious and superfluous, and so much the better, then the happy option remains, of just clicking here to get back on topic.

Further to reiterate, probortunity at hand, indeed of such ever so dire fixation, a specific opportunity in addressing a specific problem, emerges from difficulty, as reported, in reading and comprehension of this very website, FoolQuest.com And such burning issue and contention as in focus directly, concerns contingency to the FoolQuest.com protocol of close collaboration in Socratic Dialectic as herein expounded, actually not so unheard of endeavor together of excruciatingly detailed miscommunication detection and repair. Indeed, actually together even going line by line and word by word. Even as beginning from any line ort two of chosen sample text. All indeed, quite obviously, as very well one might, the least of adversity in any case of all precisely such textual difficulties. And precisely such diligence and cooperation remaining my standing request, but never to impose, and as to be so greatly appreciated, only of anyone being indeed so very kind.

And all as remaining entirely indispensable to various detail oriented collaboration, concerted effort otherwise rendered entirely eviscerated and pointless. Indeed, even as invited herein on FoolQuest.com, effort and manageable adversity, as a positive experience and value, doing what one loves. Some people just expect everything to be effortless. And then they feel left out of everything challenging and exciting. But FoolQuest.com will never become yet another short attention website of mere casual interest and distraction, of which there remain such diminishing little shortage.

Controversy, argument or debate, remains the discourse remaining possible in case of disagreement. Controversy, the Socratic Dialectical welcome and appreciated free exchange of genuine criticism, remains nothing to fear, nothing threatening or hostile. Because criticism remains inherently friendly, valuable, an expression of abiding respect. And that is how even people who disagree even however strongly, heatedly and vociferously, and yet entirely without acrimony, are often the best at cooperation even quite without needless and slavish ongoing heteronomy to social cognition and hierarchical dominance so oppressively quelling all dissent, honesty and creativity. And this applies, not only, for examples, in such clearly and fundamentally disputatious fields as science or law, but actually in most every walk of life and creativity of human endeavor. And especially Entrepreneurship and creative writing. And more anon.

But even broadest principle, what manner of discussion whatsoever, remains at all possible and productive, in case even of utter communications failure, indeed even reciprocal incomprehension entirely? Indeed, when even agreement or disagreement thereby becomes impossible. The answer remains, before anything much else: Close collaboration in Socratic Dialectical endeavor of detailed miscommunication detection and repair. Or else, only Wittgensteinean paralysis. And again much like unto the venerable practice of controversy, close collaboration in Socratic Dialectical endeavor of ongoing and detailed miscommunication detection and repair, may be not only indispensably fundamental, but among the very least among difficulties and adversities entailed into participation as extolled here on FoolQuest.com And all in striving towards any lucid achievement of Intersubjectivity, Intersubjectivity defined as the closer correspondence of message as received and understood, to content as actually intended by the sender. Because ongoing communications struggle remains no anomaly at all, but entirely endemic to the human condition.

enmity

Alas then, and unaccountably, a certain antipathy and even hostility outright, may be discovered prevailing especially online, toward actually explaining in any detail, specific communications errors and ambiguities. Perhaps the taboo is somehow related to Anti-Critical Bias, and/or motivated by undue shame at ignorance exposed. Or perhaps their remain those who simply mistrust any solicitation of any extra effort at all, as potential setup for hostile committee ambush after first being gulled into having ones time deliberately wasted. Because precisely that headgame is what they themselves strive to inflict upon others! For so malignant remain The Teachings of the Anti-Socratic.

Because what is not understood, remains unknown. And even more perhaps the more so than mere differing opinion, the unknown heralds danger. And the greater the danger, the greater all seething of enmity. Thus friendship, aid and comfort, are naturally withheld, and ever censorship and self censorship so clearly justified. What a shitty attitude! But there it is.

Alas indeed, how in formal education, students are so frequently punished, humiliated and made to feel stupid, just for failing to regurgitate whatever standardized correct answer. It's for your own good, dear! And what a racket! Hence the broadest appeal for good little worker drones, instilled with tragically mangled values of whatever vastly Orwellian anti-intellectual simpleminded writing style that even seemingly promises to forestall all such Behavioral aversive reinforcement and ongoing life long continual retraumatization.

In any case, if even so little as indeed pointing out and explaining or specifically systematically questioning whatever discrete communications errors and ambiguities in text, shall already alone been deemed excessive adversity, hardship and imposition, thereby bringing about indeed precisely such deadlock, then beware: Far greater complexity and effort ensues! Because if anything, only even only the more meticulous deliberation together, remains ever fundamental in the very nature of such effortful collaborative endeavor as extolled here on FoolQuest.com But only for anyone at all serious and whole hearted. Everyone else must find their own way, and welcome to it!

And what can there be more flagrantly obnoxious, than anyone baiting response with whatever question, remark or comment, (actually no more than rhetorical questions and sullen protest) and then stridently tuning out to whatever naturally ensuing reply! By contrast, genuine interest must be treasured. Because nowadays more that ever, in the immortal words of Simone Weil: “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.” And yet, in any frustrated attempt at communication, quite naturally, one might only dare hope that anyone so emphatic in evincing incomprehension, thence fully intends overture sincerely reaching out, in complete attentive desire, for at all better explanation. And then fully engaged salient conversation all thereupon unfolding. So one might naively expect. Alas however, not necessarily so. Neither by any stretch of good logic, nor in any frank and painful Empirical observation and assay of heteronomy.

Often, especially in subtext, instead others, especially online, remain quite uninterested, even becoming derisive, flaming and bullying. Because especially online, quiet and passive lack of interest coming to pass unheralded and forgotten, will simply never do. Oh, no! Disinterest must be stridently demonstrated and blatantly demonstrarted right there on center stage, so roundly and distinctly inflicted. And invalidation thereby veritably broadcast, ever made known to all and sundry. For such, to reiterate, forever remain The Teachings of the Anti-Socratic.

By contrast, the great blessing of Socratic Wisdom, so crucial towards Miscommunication Competence, only means at all just being aware when one does not know. And the dire alternative, as we have seen, remains the most blithe and cocksure unaware incompetence. The skills of Miscommunication Competence, of even being aware and capable in whatever event of miscommunication as arising, remain crucial to all ambition and detail oriented endeavor and collaboration therein, as herein extolled on FoolQuest.com And then of Socratic Dialectic systematically questioning anything that is not understood, in order together to correct whatever errors or ambiguities emerging to scrutiny. Indeed, for anyone actually interested, even going line by line and word by word. Indeed even as beginning from any line ort two of chosen sample text.

Realistically, a fair and obvious necessity in all striving not even for agreement at all, but merely towards achievement of Intersubjectivity (defined as ever closer correspondence of message content as received and understood, to message content as actually intended by the sender), and the least arduous reciprocal and shared responsibility conceivable and prerequisite of autonomy in any serious collaborative endeavor. So foundational and nothing at all so dire or extreme. Because otherwise, actual close collaboration becomes quite impossible. Exchange at all, of the written or spoken word, remains ever predicated upon any spirit of cooperation, even ion the face of inevitable disagreement and vociferously friendly controversy. No accommodation or short cuts, can ever mitigate suspicion and non cooperation on either side.

Alas however, and as shall be seen, that many highly popular anti-intellectual mass movements, so hostile to all such intellectual rigor, instead cope by doing just the opposite: By oversimplification and dumbing everything down. And then demanding likewise of others, and otherwise taking such great umbrage. In mandate of universal agreement, as though it all went undisputed and without saying. But it does not. Reducing everything challenging, instead into to precisely such blistering hackwork, cannot be the only acceptable or conceivable means of rendering content more widely accessible, let alone enshrined into consensus. Because that option remains entirely purpose defeating in all such collaborative endeavor as extolled here on FoolQuest.com Because barring such change deliberately, of course, streamlining and simplification must never be allowed routinely to take priority over accuracy of expression and preservation, of actual intended message content. Nor for that matter, should richness and artistry of unique authorial voice, tone, and style ever be standardized into oblivion.

All the more reason why, to reiterate, for what now I sincerely need and directly request for myself: something actually not unlike that which I myself have so often undertaken, if dare may I say so myself, in highly valued service for others. Why then all such fuss? It's not so difficult! Indeed, what now I sincerely need and explicitly request for myself, and never to impose, but only if anyone might ever be so very kind, remains nothing more or less than specific indication of whatever particular ambiguities or specific communications errors. Indeed, together even going line by line and word by word, even as beginning from any line or two of chosen sample text, into actual message content, subject matter or meaning, even putting aside only message form alone: whatever formal errors of howsoever uniform and correct or else incorrect style, presentation, rightthink, or standard general (and often so very bad) stock writing advice and rightthink.

Much as ideological rightthink may actually deny it, salient critique bears in mind authorial intent. And bearing in mind authorial intent, may first require gleaning comprehension at all. Knee-jerk regurgitation of ideology making no substitute whatsoever, for attentive and well thought out critique. And Grammarly robotic standardized writing style, more harm than good, all notwithstanding. To Hell then with simple writing, all replete with the anti-intellectual ideological glorification of short attention and declining literacy. All pandered to with content entirely abbreviation into brief, bland, easy and convenient snippets of informatainment, as all doing such short shrift to every meaningful depth, truth, and nuance of inextricable complexity with the devil in the details. And often, that peculiar reverse snobbery and contempt for expertise, as sometimes designated: The Cult of the Amateur.

As the saying goes: “Effort is the best indicator of interest.” Be interesting and stay interested! But notwithstanding ever more widespread anti-intellectual presumptions, anything interesting and ambitious, might not always be simple minded or easy. But instead just perhaps and nonetheless, satisfyingly complex, even quite fun together. There will be no solution from dumbing everything down! How Orwellian! How futile, isolating, lonely and debilitating for intelligent people. Therefore instead, as between serious writers and thinkers, please freely and systematically question whatever is not understood.

And anyone can do it. But if none of this appeals, then FoolQuest.com might not be right for you. And given ambivalence unresolved, every choice will be wrong. Oxymoronic fantasy solutions notwithstanding. One way or another, any life less ordinary, might become at all more demanding. Even if first of all, only as expounded all above. Quite likely so much more than that, as well. And in all fair warning, what else would one expect?

Believe me that if I already knew and understood whatever specific ambiguities or communications errors remain, I would already have revised accordingly. It's never obvious. Indeed, if I try to guess whatever it is that might be so obtuse, I'll only guess wrong and thereby exacerbate whatever confusion. And so, whatever is not understood, just ask. And please, be as specific as possible.

After all, communications failure and reciprocal incomprehension, are no crisis or anomaly, no intractable impasse whatsoever, but probortunity at hand, entirely normal, integral and endemic to the human condition itself, wherein Mistakes are the Essence. And after all, psychological asymmetry only means that we are not so odd, but only strangers. And so we wallow each in our own pervasive and inexhaustible reservoirs of secret anxiety and vulnerability, never suspecting much the same of others beneath ever crumbling facade of exterior presentation.

Therefore find advanced here on FoolQuest.com, integral to all present endeavor as herein proposed, nothing less than Miscommunication Competent Dialectic of miscommunication repair, via open and ongoing detection and correction of communications error and ambiguity. A bold new systematic protocol in mitigation of ongoing communications failure.



But instead, for many nowadays, alas, the only acceptable mitigation for all error, ambiguity or communications failure remains an ideologically anti-intellectual Methodology prone to simple minded oversimplification without due Epistemological deliberation. All predicated upon simple writing style actually to the exclusion and flagrant denial even of the most manifestly irreducible complexity. An agenda of the elimination of communications struggle even as entirely normal and constant in the human condition. And not by more capable communication, but by such blithely anti-intellectual and Orwellian preventive restriction upon all effort in thinking to begin with. And thereby in the prevention of all communications difficulty by the message sender alone, rather than with any assistance of salient feedback from the message recipient. Thus in very principle rejection of falibistic ongoing error detection and course correction together.

Alas gentle reader, should indeed you number among those terrified unfortunates who only dummy up and becomes silent, whenever they do not understand anything, or who all whelm up with such mounting insecure suspicion in expectation of only the very worst, consistently lashing out in such panic and confusion, all then alas, FoolQuest.com might not be for you.

Because much that is real, practical, necessary and one way or another valuable and worthy of appreciation, often remains intricate, and even at all somewhat difficult, even at all somewhat baffling. Especially in context of ambitious endeavor and inquiry as herein extolled as at all worthwhile. Because: Writing is like photography: Easy to do but difficult to do well. Writing is rewriting, patient hard work and never a waste of time. All integral to all complicated and ambitious endeavor as herein extolled. Serious choices and decisions that no sane person would ever expect to be simple or easy.

But how can anything as yet not understood, at least not fully, ever even at all be discussed?

Bypassing denotes the situation or circumstances of talking past one another in blithe and chronically unaware communications failure and reciprocal incomprehension. And bypassing ever remains all too easy. Indeed, all too many people so often have whatsoever no idea what they are talking about, let alone whatever anyone else struggles to express! And they do not even perceive the trap that they have fallen into. They cannot even disagree coherently!

The need then remains manifest and urgent, for any protocol in mitigation of communications failure. Any effective and powerful process for raising signal out from noise.

And so, the question, howsoever all thereby better reframed, then emerges: How best to approach the unknown, indeed more specifically: meaning of message content as yet unapprehended, all with greater awareness and lucidity and more productively?

Such ever remains the crucial challenge of excellence in Miscommunication Competence all wherein Mistakes are the Essence, and wherein: Writing is like photography: Easy to do but difficult to do well. Writing is rewriting, patient hard work and never a waste of time. All integral to endeavor herein extolled.

In the words of Peter Singer: “I suspect that whatever cannot be said clearly is probably not being thought clearly either.” But clear thinking, let alone clear expression, often results only first from any process of improvement upon unclear thoughts as expressed. And all as ever so graciously abetted by ongoing salient feedback.

All therefore, in all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility, of explicitly seeking and specifying most cogently and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback, as they themselves perceive the need, and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with.

Believe me then, that if I already knew and understood whatever specific ambiguities or communications errors remain, I would already have revised accordingly. It's never obvious. Indeed, if I try to guess whatever it is that might be so obtuse, I'll only guess wrong and thereby exacerbate whatever confusion. And pressure does not help.

And so, what I sincerely need and request, but only if anyone might ever be so kind, is specific indication of whatever particular ambiguities or specific communications errors, line by line, in actual message content, subject matter or meaning, even beyond whatever formal errors of howsoever correct or incorrect style, presentation, rightthink, or standard general (and often so very bad) stock writing advice.

Hostility all thus becomes entirely uncalled for. Please therefore remain civil. Even should our agendas entirely differ. And quite without undue imposition, in order to actively and directly help correct and improve howsoever flawed or unclear writing, kindly and only if ever so inclined, it may first remain necessary closely and rigorously to collaborate with yours truly, the writer, into the venerable philosophical habits of clear thinking and serious writing so integral to divergent yet convergent modes or applications of narrative here on FoolQuest.com

To read, examine and struggle together in order to fathom whatever intended meaning, with whatever howsoever such flawed or unclear text, even going line by line, meticulously. To frame specific questions about whatever remains unclear in message content and subject matter of any discrete linguistic expression. And not anything else.

Is all this not then all straightforward and obvious? And yes incidentally, I practice as I preach. I do as much for others. And so, why then all the fuss?

First of all, freely indicate or question specifically whatever in the message content, subject matter or meaning, that remains howsoever unclear... — Indeed, whatever within any particular and specific line of text, remains actually not understood. Thereby to inform ongoing revision, changes and clarifications to text, correcting whatever flaws or ambiguities thus ferreted out and revealed, ever as need arising. For Mistakes are the Essence.

Alas then, that let alone soft-flame and actually what is called: derisive incomprehension, merely complaining of incomprehension, even however strident and demanding, is no substitute and not even remotely the same thing as actually engaging and genuinely and attentively requesting specific particular clarification. Indeed actually paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only precisely such genuine, sustained and salient engagement, even at all actually demonstrates effort and persistence, incrementally to gain and improve comprehension. And thereby to inform ongoing revision, changes and clarifications to text ever as flaws revealed and need arising.

To quote Ernest Hemingway: “Never confuse movement with action.” Indeed, as Thomas Carlyle put it: “Nothing is more terrible than activity without insight.”



Short attention be damned! Many writers seem to believe that every reader remains obliged to make every unbounded striving, and many readers clearly believe that it remains incumbent upon the writer immediately to spare the reader every effort at all. They are both flagrantly pigheaded and antisocial. Because communications depends upon reciprocal good faith effort and abiding friendly interest. In the words of Janine Garner: “Failing to engage is engaging with failure.” And dedication to the detail oriented careful knowledge work of ongoing miscommunication/ambiguity detection and repair, aligns integrally with faliblist close collaboration into Socratic Dialectical engagement with anything at all as yet poorly understood. For to reiterate: Mistakes are the Essence.

And so, indeed further to reiterate, what I need, if anyone might be so kind, is specific indication of whatever particular ambiguities in message content, even beyond whatever formal errors or general (and often so very bad) stock writing advice, stylistic rightthink indeed even as regarding my admittedly atrocious webdesign.

And sad to say, as regarding anyone not only balking at such above entirely cogent request, but even taking virulent umbrage and actually lashing out, as alas all to many nowadays actually will: How serious a prospective writing collaborator as invited herein? Indeed, even merely for entirely harmless creative writing (fiction) in all the cultural richness and complexity of pure creativity for its own joy. And much less also for responsible entrepreneurial business or project planning and feasibility study with anything consequential actually at stake. It's not for everyone. And it's a matter of self-selection.

Now at long last, it may become plain, how Orwellian, toxic, ideologically anti-intellectual, not to mention bankrupt in more ways than one, the seemingly reasonable and innocent admonition only to simple minded simple writing style, actually can become! Beware then, oversimplification dumbing down every intelligent thought, let alone whatever inherently irreducible complexity of the universe, situation and the human condition. Everything that informs the Socratic examined life worth the living for any human being. Eudemonia, let alone arête, even eventual results and hoped for success together.





Post to the for others to weigh in, orif it's private.

And all serious replies shall be answered promptly.

communications struggle

With most profuse and contrite apologies, and no grounds whatsoever, for all consuming and entirely undue mistrust:

In case of whatever difficulties as arising, in reading and understanding text, in navigating hypertext,

or simply in order to advise or critique prose and composition,

then please first duly consider the following:

Because there can be an effective and powerful process for raising signal out from noise.

In the words of Peter Singer: “I suspect that whatever cannot be said clearly is probably not being thought clearly either.” But clear thinking, let alone clear expression, often results only first from any process of improvement upon unclear thoughts as expressed. And all as so graciously abetted by salient feedback.

Alas then, that merely complaining of incomprehension, even politely let alone however strident and demanding, is not even remotely the same thing as actually engaging and genuinely and attentively requesting specific particular clarification. Indeed actually paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only precisely such genuine, sustained and salient engagement, even at all actually demonstrates effort and persistence, incrementally to gain and improve comprehension. And thereby to inform ongoing revision, changes and clarifications to text ever as flaws revealed and need arising.

Believe me that if I already knew and understood whatever specific ambiguities or communications errors remain herein, I would already have revised accordingly. What I need, If anyone might be so kind, is specific indication of whatever particular ambiguities in message content, subject matter or meaning, even beyond whatever formal errors of howsoever correct or incorrect presentation, rightthink, or standard general (and often so very bad) stock writing advice.

To quote Ernest Hemingway: “Never confuse movement with action.” Indeed, as Thomas Carlyle put it: “Nothing is more terrible than activity without insight.”

But how then can anything not understood, at least not fully, ever even at all be discussed? Actually, its easy. Indeed, people so often have whatsoever no idea what they are talking about! The question at all better reframed, remains: How to approach the unknown with greater lucidity and more productively?



Short attention be damned! In the words of Janine Garner: “Failing to engage is engaging with failure.” And dedication to the detail oriented careful work of ongoing miscommunication/ambiguity detection and repair, aligns integrally with faliblist close collaboration into Socratic Dialectical engagement with anything at all as yet poorly understood. For Mistakes are the Essence.

Therefore, pardon me for respecting your intelligence...

In personal response to any serious writing, let the reader experience whatever their own emotions, and own them. But never to put the cart before the horse: Particularly as at all bearing in mind authorial intent to begin with, relevant criticism, even however frank, first requires comprehension, and therefore the mitigation of incomprehension. Anything less remains irritatingly obtuse and irrelevant.

Please instead, gentle reader, clearly, the lucid, risk free, friendly and optimally reciprocally fully engaged effort and course of action for us to undertake together...

In order to actively and directly help correct and improve howsoever flawed or unclear writing, kindly if ever so inclined, it may first remain necessary closely to collaborate with the writer. To read, examine and struggle together in order to fathom the meaning, with whatever howsoever such flawed or unclear text, even going line by line, meticulously. And thereby to inform ongoing revision, changes and clarifications to text ever as flaws revealed and need arising. Is this not straightforward and obvious?

And sad to say, as regarding anyone not only balking at such entirely cogent request, but even taking virulent umbrage as some actually will: How serious a prospective writing collaborator as invited herein? Indeed, even merely for entirely harmless creative writing (fiction) in all the cultural richness and complexity of pure creativity for its own joy. And much less also for responsible entrepreneurial business or project planning and feasibility study with anything consequential actually at stake.

Now at long last, it may become plain, how Orwellian, toxic, ideologically anti-intellectual, not to mention bankrupt in more ways than one, the seemingly reasonable and innocent admonition only to simple minded simple writing style, dumbing every intelligent thought down, actually can be!

After all: Writing is like photography: Easy to do but difficult to do well. Writing is rewriting, patient hard work and never a waste of time.

And so, believe me that if I already knew and understood whatever specific ambiguities or communications errors remain, I would already have revised accordingly.

Hostility all thus becomes entirely uncalled for. Please therefore remain civil. Even should our agendas differ.

Alas that merely complaining of incomprehension, even quite politely let alone however strident and demanding, is not even remotely the same thing as actually engaging and genuinely and attentively requesting specific particular clarification. Indeed actually paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only precisely such genuine, sustained and salient engagement, even at all actually demonstrates effort and persistence, incrementally to gain and improve comprehension. And thereby to inform ongoing revision, changes and clarifications to text ever as flaws revealed and need arising.

And all thence, in all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility, of explicitly seeking and specifying most cogently and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback as they themselves perceive the need, and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with.

Indeed, intelligible and actionable requests for clarification themselves need to be specific of particular words and phrases. And they need to question or indicate specific ambiguities in message content, and not just form.

And ongoing Dialectical collaborative miscommunication detection and repair remains a crucial aspect of optimal reciprocal engagement, a core value and objective of this very website, FoolQuest.com

Gentle reader, anything that can be done to help anyone else to read whatever prose, then helps in continual rewriting and improvement. After all, much like photography, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, and never a waste of time.

But what if, for whatever conceivable reasons, anyone simply does not want to read and even just refuses to? Answer: No one actually needs any help in not reading. And reciprocally, not reading remains so vastly unhelpful. And yet, obdurate and even actively hostile and self righteously uncooperative and even outright abusive non readers, so often feel entitled somehow, to something more. The more they withhold, the more they expect in return.

What then if anything, does the author truly owe to whatever prospective audience? Emphatically, no writer or speaker must ever impose responsibility for their own expressive shortcomings, onto whatever audience so troubled and put upon. Yes, all too true: Every effort on the part of the author to write more clearly, spares successive readers the imposition of needles aggravation. Such trouble spared even perhaps by any somewhat inconsiderate or confused writer, even from antiquity, accrues multiplied struggle and needless irritation plaguing any such future readers, even across the ages, unto the present day and into the future. It's never easy.

Indeed, even actually just maybe any literal matter of life and death! For prime example, how the great warrior sage Carl von Clausewitz lay sick and dying as he penned his celebrated great work, cut short of the needed time to edit and revise his tortured prose into anything more polished. And no end of mischief and confusion in history ensuing, blood and mayhem attending thereupon, resultant only from his flawed composition as so entirely falling short in due service to his sober Literary intent.



Explicitly, this is to apologize most profusely and contritely for any and all difficulty in browsing FoolQuest.com Believe me, I am no deliberate obscurantist or bullshitter! Because, honestly, if only I already knew whatever remains unclear in message content herein, how so and why, without reservation, I would already have revised accordingly. Otherwise, I'm bound to guess wrong, bringing about only further confusion and impatience.

So please, lets just go over it all, carefully, line by line, as ever necessary. Do kindly explain in careful detail, whatever it is that is not understood, how so and why, in message content and in such terms. And meanwhile withhold all pedantic and formal non sequitur and disengaged generality. I do as much for others. So, why all the fuss?

Alas then that there remain those may even openly and explicitly regard whatever they do not understand, as possible threat, best to be suppressed for the sake of public safety from even possible charlatans and in order to maintain superficial harmony. All thereby to bring down others instead of enlightening themselves.

Dagnabit! I'm just sick to death of being drawn in to making effort to explain myself to impatient and uninterested people who simply are not interested enough in the first place, to help and explain whatever difficulty as arising with whatever text. Don't be like that! Instead, always be specific to whatever prose at hand, and whatever problems thereof. Don't just robotically regurgitate and spout whatever kind of rules.

And don't expect whatever understanding to just dawn upon others via ongoing natural behavioral conditioning into peer conformity out from multiple experiences. Don't play such annoying guessing games. Don't self-righteously pressure and bully by persistently dropping sly hints and making implicit demands, instead of actually just explaining. Never be such an Inductivist utter tool.

In exasperation, my emphatic request: Anyone, gentle reader, per chance message recipient, please just take the trouble and actually point out to me whatever specifically remains howsoever unclear to them, point by point, in any of my text, and then explain to me: specifically how and why the former remains howsoever ambiguous and unclear.

Thus allowing the message sender, even hypothetically, yours truly, to attempt whatever revision and clarification of message content, for all for the sake of partnership in communications struggle, then to return to whatever thus rewritten text, and discover how successfully revision and clarification of message content has been achieved. And to repeat iterative process as many times as necessary, successively to render whatever was unclear, at last fully lucid. And that is how its done!

Because there truly is no good substitute for all such exacting and meticulous effort. Especially not for me. Alas then that not everyone seems willing and able.

The crucial distinction between message form and message content



According to Chatgpt:

"Message content" refers to the actual information or idea being conveyed within a message, while "message form" refers to the way that information is structured, presented, or formatted, including elements like language, syntax, tone, and style - essentially, "what is said" versus "how it is said."

Key points to remember:

• Content is the meaning: The core idea, facts, and details within a message.
• Form is the structure: The way the message is organized, including word choice, sentence structure, and presentation format.

Absolutely, critique even nitpicking writing style and authorial voice, or even hypertext webdesign, is all fine and good, even tremendously valuable, but only first afforded lucid context via the achievement of Intersubjectivity to overcome even reciprocal incomprehension. Criticism/critique of whatever stylistic choice or aspect of message form, will ever be so vastly improved first by the gleaning of its intent. Then useful response, even however harsh as might be, then may follow.

But otherwise only ensues the irritation of boundlessly ignorant and confident advice with no connection, neither to reality nor to authorial intent. This is not care and interest, but blithe and undue antipathy as so very characteristic of the typical Anti-Socratic. This is not helping, but domination by inattention and Ulterior Transactions or: headgames of sly and toxic invalidation. Whereas, in order actually to cooperate, there can be no substitution, first of all, for the even philosophical striving at lucid question or indication of whatever discrete ambiguity in specific message content as well distinct from message form.

Alas then, that there can be no end of possible non sequitur, sophistry, conflation and digression. Indeed, to begin with, it may even still be claimed that message form and substance of message content, remain inextricable.

Notwithstanding and nevertheless, Socrates in delving into nature of things, didactically, frequently questioned the meaning of utterances, of linguistic expressions, as arising at all attempting any answer to such open ended conundrums whereof his sharp intellect was always so fond. And thus by process of elimination, arriving at enlightenment by refutation which remains still to this day, the core value of modern Scientific Rationalism and Scientific Method.

And all the while, Socrates seldom trifles with such formalities as grammar. At least never in such terms.

Whereas prominent linguist and malignant political obfuscator Noam Chomsky famously examined the formal grammar even of explicitly crafted sample gramaticsally correct (syntactically well-formed) yet semantically nonsensical sentences or: word salad. Such as: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”

Clearly then, with all due respect to Marshal McLuhan (who so famously declared that “The medium is the message”), the distinction ever at hand, between message form and message content, so obviously and generally obtains. And in the immortal exasperation of Joe Bob Briggs: “I'm surprised I have to explain these things!”

Nevertheless indeed there may also be framed questions and points that can be formal and substantive all at once, because, after all, barring word salad, form only exists in the first place, to convey content. Even if we all strive to parse and decode message content, and Chomsky severs the link between message form and message content entirely.

And yet, specific points and questions as to message content remain helpful, even if said question at the same time, remain howsoever formal or even grammatical. In case of communications failure, it will be only any non sequitur response that quite simply do not address meaning and message content, and at all distinctly in such terms, therefore remaining such frustratingly obtuse pedantry.

Instead, a formal point, such as of grammar, must not only explicitly correlate to words in sequence within linguistic expression, but whatever consequent communications failure and ambiguity in message content. Indeed from whatsoever any defect in form, indeed such as grammar, that must be indicated particularly and explicitly. Because much formal error, bad grammar etc., such as that does not actually obscure message content, while generally all fine and good to point out, even however incidentally, simply does not contribute to Socratic Dialectic of ongoing collaboration in miscommunication detection and repair.

Socratic Wisdom when one does not know, consists merely in awareness thereof. Socratic Wisdom accrues only in gauging any scope and measure of one's own ignorance. Indeed, frequently including the realization of how one may barely even suspect what and how much one simply does not know or understand. But Socratic Dialectical method and the effort at questioning at least begins to shed any light thereupon. And all such good faith effort at clear thinking especially bears upon ferreting out and zeroing into the detection of specific and particular communications failure and discrete points of linguistic or other ambiguity. Although the results of even minimal effort and focus defy prediction and guarantee. And the undue shame driven rejection and determination to escape such necessity, remains anti-intellectual and irresponsible.

It remains generally possible to question message content. Hence, only formulate any question whatsoever, regarding meaning of message content of any discrete written or spoken linguistic expression. Then strive to answer whatever your own question. If you fail, and the answer then remains unknown, then congratulations! Mission accomplished. You have detected and provided exposition upon one or another specific discrete communication failure, perhaps of linguistic or other ambiguity.

Subject matter understood to exceed message content at hand, remains entirely another matter. But questions indeed of intended scope of message content of linguistic expressions, ever should such remain howsoever unclear, can be both pertinent and important. Moreover, omission to be detected, are often at the root of ambiguity. No further to digress, however.

Alas then, ever to reiterate, that merely complaining of incomprehension, is not even remotely the same thing as actually engaging and genuinely requesting specific particular clarification and then even paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only the latter even actually expresses any open interest. While the former likely remains merely entrapment into the closed stone-deaf powerplay toxic Ulterior Transactions or: headgames of sly invalidation. Indeed, even tactics of soft-flame and derisive incomprehension.

Disengaged and disconnected pedantic abstraction remains unclear and unhelpful. Denying distinction between map and territory, does seem somewhat obtuse. But then, any linguistic expression to begin with, is already referential like a map. However, the matter at hand is no mere philosophical abstract question of whether distinction as herein under consideration truly exists, as a matter of convoluted technicality and deepest sense, but a practical matter of utility in desired and required lucid and useful quality feedback. Hence, if indeed the distinction is truly indistinct and unknown, then for purpose at hand, adequate distinction must be discovered. Therefore, that very question had better be found interesting instead of just boring and crimestopped.

All nevertheless: Emphatically, no writer or speaker must ever impose responsibility for their own expressive shortcomings, onto whatever audience so troubled and put upon. Yes, all too true: Every effort on the part of the author to write more clearly, spares successive readers needles aggravation. Such trouble spared even perhaps by any somewhat inconsiderate or confused writer, even from antiquity, accrues multiplied struggle and needless irritation plaguing any such future readers, even across the ages, unto the present day and into the future. It's never easy.



Indeed, even actually just maybe any literal matter of life and death! For prime example, how the great warrior sage Carl von Clausewitz lay sick and dying as he penned his celebrated great work, cut short of the needed time to edit and revise his tortured prose into anything more polished. And no end of mischief and confusion in history ensuing, blood and mayhem attending thereupon, resultant only from his flawed composition as remaining so entirely falling short in service to his sober Literary intent.

Alas, ever to reiterate, that merely complaining of incomprehension, is not even remotely the same thing as actually explaining whatever difficulty and engaging and genuinely requesting specific particular clarification and then even paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only such the latter effort even actually at all embarks upon Socratic Dialectical collaboration in miscommunication detection and repair. Whereas merely complaining of incomprehension without attending to ensuing attempted clarification, likely remains merely another tar baby entrapment into the closed stone-deaf powerplay toxic Ulterior Transactions or: headgames of sly invalidation.

Indeed, all as directly preceding only remains precisely why, in all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author or speaker, retains every right and bears full responsibility, of explicitly seeking and specifying most reasonably and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback, as they themselves perceive the need, and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with.

Pertinent critique may therefore first require adequate comprehension and Intersubjectivity, the condition wherein comprehension of message content and subject matter on the part of the message recipient, draws ever closer in correspondence to whatever the intended meaning of message content and subject matter on the part of the message sender.

And only the most shopworn and well familiar old ideas are certain always to come across effortlessly and consistently. Therefore, to always get it right the first time, say very little and dare nothing new. After all, the clear and concise mainstay of science and philosophy whereupon we all rely, was once the cutting edge of challenging thought. The well familiar clear and concise great ideas whereupon we all rely, are often, historically, the product of brilliant minds in lifetimes of boiling it all down, volume by volume, page by page, line by line, word by word again and again.

Because, like photography, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, patient hard work and never a waste of time. And hence the all-important ongoing cycle of revision and review, again and again, inherent to the excellent conversationally adequate ongoing Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair. Indeed of perpetual communications struggle as wherein, Mistakes are the Essence. And all hence all as follows:

Dynamic Discord comes as the somewhat obscure esoteric appellation bestowed unto the precept of disorder and disharmony, in human affairs as in nature, not as principally destructive and therefore to be shunned and reviled, but just the opposite, to be embraced and dully appreciated as so lively, inspirational, vastly creative and greatly productive.

Alas that many so thin skinned who so all too often take such dreadful umbrage and insult at criticism even in very principle, not surprisingly, may tend also at the same time, in epitome of self-fulfilling prophesy, to equate argument or debate with quarrel and strife. And alas that the graceful and nigh dharmic epitome of tact grows ever more precious and scarce, while the blight of angry hypocrisy remains all too natural, common and vulgar to fill the vacuum. And therefore, all too often and with rare exception, those, so consumed with Anti-Critical Bias, who in such totality reject everything argumentative, far from thereby becoming so genial, mild and peaceable, more often instead, whether deviously or blatantly, blithely or calculatingly, indeed resort only to the most determined and relentless coercion and manipulation.

And thus the the unfettered desperation to impose order by any means necessary, shall be what only escalates every chaos and strife. Or else, at best, without recourse to debating reasoned arguments, discourse in case of disagreement, may be reduced to a deadlock of endless gainsaying entirely without any attempt at rational support. Even to bypassing, which is entirely unaware failure of Intersubjectivity, entirely talking past one another. All hence so clearly, the beneficial effect upon discourse of argument/debate, remains undeniably crucial and profound.

Moreover, much as indeed argument (Socratic Dialectic, the art of controversy and the invited and appreciated exchange of criticism also including Literary critique, all) remain so indispensable to (the paradoxically disciplined though even somewhat chaotic discourse possible, indeed vital) and integrally feasible even in case of the most extreme and heated disagreement...

similarly:

Excellent conversationally adequacy in ongoing communications struggle, pivots upon ongoing Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair wherein Mistakes are the Essence. And precisely such excellent conversationally adequacy remains the paradoxically disciplined discourse possible, vital and integral, to communications struggle. Indeed, all feasible even throughout circumstances actually of the very most baffling reciprocal incomprehension. And all remaining indispensable ever to the achievement of Intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity being such conditions wherein comprehension of message content by the message recipient, comes ever closer into correspondence with the intended message content of the message sender. Otherwise, communications struggle only bogs down into sheer Zen futility of utter Wittgensteinean paralysis.

Therefore, clearly, the beneficial effect upon discourse, of communications struggle (wherein Mistakes are the Essence, indeed of excellent conversationally adequate ongoing Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair) remains no less profoundly crucial than argument/debate, Socratic Dialectic, the art of controversy and the invited and appreciated exchange of criticism also including Literary critique.

Them “Big words” are only “big” because other's curiosity, intellect, or hunger for knowledge is small.

      — Quant

The legitimacy of well balanced long sentences

For one specific problem, given that all subordinate clauses remain both integral and salient, not every long sentence can or should be shortened. Not if thereby merely oversimplified and distorted via whatever injuriously blithe truncation of pertinent and integral salient subordinate clauses. For only simple run on sentences, like unto garden worms, may even thrive and survive being chopped up alive, into the shorter sentences that they really were all along. Whereas, many perfectly fine long sentences remain nevertheless, consummately balanced, and therefore actually unbalanced and injured by subsequent careless semiliterate truncation. And thus thereby not clarified at all, but actually just the opposite.

Indeed, key to better comprehension may be found most generally in Effective Active Reading and listening strategy, after all, an art. And more specifically, in more effective and fully literate reading strategy than just even howsoever somewhat robotic and linear parsing. To wit, in first taking an overview and breakdown of sentence structure. Indeed in musical cadence, via interpretation which means choosing points of emphasis in prose much as out from musical notation of any musical score. Otherwise, any rote robotic performance, only grates upon the ear. But not to digress.

Case in point:

In all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility, of explicitly seeking and specifying most reasonably and precisely, whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback, as they themselves perceive the need, and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with.

And note how throughout the following, form and structure are expounded, only via coherent citation of specific message content:

For reasons, someone takes action regarding something then further qualified.

Why: reasons = Indeed in all good faith striving for clear expression and sensemaking,

Who: someone = any serious author

How: method of action = retains every right and bears full responsibility, of explicitly seeking and specifying most cogently and precisely,

What: something = whatever manner and kind of coherent feedback,

(Where and when remain unmentioned, unspecified and thus meta-contextual, as generally applicable most anywhere and at any time...)

And as specifically: additional further qualifications = as they themselves perceive the need, and as most helpful and relevant to authorial intent to begin with.

Be all such as may:

Precisely as Socrates so famously declares: “An unexamined life is not worth the living for a human being.” Indeed, as Aristotle maintains: “All things in life are philosophical.” Especially including communications struggle. And this should be taken as only normal within the human condition. Wherein, to quote William James: “Philosophy is the unusually stubborn attempt to think clearly.” Not just individually within solitary inner life, but actually even in dialogue together.

Alas then how all too often instead, bypassing ensues. For bypassing denotes the all too prevailing situation or circumstances of talking past one another in such blithe and chronically unaware reciprocal communications failure and incomprehension, wherein, not even lucid disagreement can be possible. But not even reciprocal incomprehension and confusion outright, need constitute any barrier, roadblock or menace of perfidious unknown intention. Indeed, only a barest beginning from Socratic Wisdom and the ongoing Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair. Even reciprocal incomprehension and confusion outright, need not disengage discourse. Indeed, the ongoing Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair by willing participants, by that token, becomes a shared responsibility. And there remains no sin in just trying to clarify or to understand. Indeed, both are required. All responsible parties must therefore continue to show interest.

Because, for fully engaged ongoing Dialectical collaborative miscommunication detection and repair, indeed nothing less than open engagement with expression not as yet fully understood by the message recipient, and/or fully clarified by the message sender, has been discovered to remain ever crucial and key to conversationally adequacy. Indeed, because Mistakes are the Essence, at all and toward the achievement of Intersubjectivity wherein the comprehension of message content by the recipient, comes ever closer into correspondence with the intended message content of the sender.

And all via savvy Socratic Dialectical process of interrogation delving into whatever ambiguities actually in message content, rather than unhelpful and mechanical pedantry harping upon formal points and errors such as those of grammar or even whatever standardized writing style guidelines or even howsoever correct webdesign.

And yes, the above still all applies even should to begin with, formal points and errors such as those of grammar etc., or even deviation from whatever standardized writing style, be perceived as causal of subsequent communications failure and resultant incomprehension. Indeed, aforesaid communications failure in turn regarded as merely the symptom of whatever formal points or errors. Even in such case, the primary objective of fully engaged ongoing Dialectical collaborative miscommunication detection and repair, in accord with solution finding as distinct from problem solving, remains actually, if such may be, yes: Actually treatment of aforesaid "mere" symptom, regardless of any whatever formal causes. - formal causes quite simply let all thereby to take care of themselves.

It all comes down to the distinction between Rules Based problem solving and Case Based solution finding: Because, when grammatical or whatever other formal errors are detected, then the problem to solve, becomes how to correct whatever such formal errors, and even to stamp out all variation from whatever howsoever approved and standardized writing style.

Indeed, meaning and authorial intent all be damned as impertinent to pristine, simple and correct writing. That is, according to all such simplistic and uncomplicated utilitarian anti-intellectual blithe and ever unquestioned ideological conviction.

And alas all therefore, no other feedback or deeper engagement shall be forthcoming in case of communications failure, until whatever such righteous and needed correction, first. Only afterwards, indeed if ever, might ensue any consideration of meaning and authorial intent.

But any such unimaginatively conventional strategy remains only one possible means to a greater end of raising signal out from noise, of getting across an idea that isn't quite coming through. And all manner of change and improvement opens up, from any broader objective of clarification, once ambiguity of message content will be detected and brought to light. And typically, all with an additional happy side effect of correct grammar and scintillating writing style.

For solution finding exceeds mere problem solving. And all manner of change and improvement open up, from any broader objective of clarification, once ambiguity of message content will be brought to light. And typically, all with an additional happy side effect of more correct writing.

And whereas any even somewhat pedantic and mechanical Rules Based Reasoning as of mere problem solving as of grammatical or otherwise formal correction along with standardization of writing style, ever remains more simple, cretin efficient and predictable, also easier to modify ever as needed: Nevertheless, in the alternative, Case Based Reasoning has much else to recommend. For Case Based Reasoning, both in general and particularly such as extolled herein throughout to the matter at hand, remains ever more knowledgeable and adaptable to complex and ambiguous data under ever evolving new circumstances. Indeed, therefore with greater relevance achievable via tailored and personalized solution finding, and thus greater end user satisfaction.

Unlike fully engaged Socratic Dialectic, such as that of collaborative miscommunication repair, nothing new will be learned in hidebound and dull-witted pedantry to formal correction. Alas, normatively closed minded irrelevance remaining endemic in the death throws ending the lifecycle of complex social systems, any embrace of internally efficiency even arbitrarily as via whatever implementation of Rules Based Reasoning, comes in rejection of Case Based Reasoning with relevance and utility for end users in the outside real world beyond the collective introversion of merely sustaining best efficiency of whatever bureaucratically minded routine, all regardless.

Alas all too often only ensues, either obscurantism, meaning deliberate unclarity and refusal to explain, on the part of the message sender, and/or, on the part of any message recipient (primary or incidental viewer, hearer, or reader) the deviously unreceptive and uncooperative bad faith of mean spirited and contemptuous enmity and mockery that has been named: derisive incomprehension.

Alas that merely complaining of incomprehension, even howsoever entrenched so persistently and incessantly, is never even remotely the same thing as actually engaging and genuinely requesting specific particular clarification and then even paying interested attention to whatever response. Because only the latter even actually expresses any open interest. While the former likely remains merely entrapment into the tar baby of closed stone-deaf powerplay toxic Ulterior Transactions or: headgames of sly invalidation.

Indeed, contrary to the malignant lessons of the Anti-Socratic, appreciated and invited criticism and controversy, taken in spirit as intended, remain nothing threatening or unpleasant, but the most vociferous great fun for all involved. Indeed, inherently friendly, valuable, an expression of abiding respect. But neurotic and toxic antidemocratic cultural norms all notwithstanding, Anti-Critically Biased indignation, whenever problems are raised, will surely sabotage even the most modest endeavor, let alone most challenging and loftiest of cherished burning ambition.

Therefore, please, in case of perfectly honest incomprehension, if anything truly remains unclear: Rather than vaguely denouncing whatever perceived shortcomings or harping upon formal errors, grammatical, or of whatever expected and demanded conformity to stylistic conventions and simplistic declining literacy... — Or howsoever otherwise, indeed even debilitating soft-flame tactics of generally attacking writing style or even webdesign to the exclusion and evasion of substance... — Or even complaining about anything so subjective and indirect as whatever ones own emotional reaction, even however picayune and trivial...

Instead first of all, freely indicate or question specifically whatever in the message content, subject matter or meaning, that remains howsoever unclear... — Indeed, whatever in particular remains actually not understood. There will be no offence therein. Quite the contrary.

Therefore, never let doubt silence and paralyze, much less provoke undue hostility. And don't just spout ever the same inane and clichéd bad writing advice, but fully engage. Yes, even without agreement first, unguardedly to engage with the new and as yet unknown. What a concept: The Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair.

Because: Honestly, I am no deliberate obscurantist or bullshitter! Because, if only I already knew whatever remains unclear in message content herein, how so and why, I would already have revised accordingly. Otherwise, I'm bound to guess wrong, bringing about only further confusion.

And so please, lets just go over it all, carefully, line by line, as ever necessary. And explain whatever it is that is not understood, in message content and subject matter, and in such terms, how so and why. And all the while, withholding all obtuse pedantic non sequitur as instead only treating message form. I do as much for others. So, why all the fuss?

Sorry to become so brusque, gentle reader, but the point seemingly escapes and somehow repeatedly and persistently fails to come across!

Can you believe and relate?

Disclaimer: ‘Mistakes are the Essence’
The Way of the Sympathetic Copy/Language Editor or beta reader

‘Conversational Adequacy: Mistakes are the Essence’ wherein excellence in Miscommunication Competence remains crucial.

And so, with due gratitude for the able assistance of Dr. Chen Yehezkely: To wit then, outlined as following, find a Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication detection and repair in successive rounds of writing revision:

1.     Upon the event of incomprehension, ambiguity, communications error or failure, and then detection thereof, the message recipient alerts the message sender.

2.    The message sender acknowledges. And should the message sender fail to perceive or to fully comprehend any specifics or nature as to the above, then the message sender follows with further inquiry thereupon.

3.     Further fully engaged response then on the part of the message recipient may consist in explanatory exposition upon whatever ambiguity and/or questions in regard to whatever unclear message content, meaning or subject matter. Indeed, conceptually, whatever is not understood in message content and meaning.

And as remaining entirely distinct from points of grammar or other formal error without explicit bearing upon specific ambiguity or authorial intent. And also not merely dubious and blithely disengaged citation in conformity to whatever prevalent standardized rightthink of standard general (and often so very bad) writing advice, conventions of style or unthinking rules. Indeed, typically so dogmatic and therefore intelligently debated by serious writers across the Internet. But not to digress.

4.     The message sender may then request further clarifications and pose any follow up questions, regarding whatever reply as attempted by the message recipient.

5.   Given any degree of successful explanation or question elucidating and revealing whatever initial incomprehension, ambiguity, communications error or failure, the message sender undertakes to correct and revise the message accordingly.

6.   In case any degree of incomprehension, ambiguity, communications error or failure persists, or further questions arise, then the message recipient once again alerts the message sender. And once again, should the message sender nevertheless yet fail in any degree to perceive or to fully comprehend any specifics or nature of incomprehension, ambiguity, communications error or failure, then the message sender follows with further inquiry all thereupon.

7.   And the Dialectical cyclical process repeats until the dawning attainment of better Intersubjectivity with the message at last rendered crystal clear.

The above so flagrantly contradicts any prevailing practice predicated upon the somewhat deceptive pedantry from Epistemological and Methodological sheer commonsense to the effect that ambiguities and communications errors and failures may indeed ensue from grammatical and other formal errors or even from violations of whatever favored uniform writing style guidelines or unquestioned rules. All as may be pointed out by the message recipient, particularly given that such factors remain pertinent to understanding the nature of said ambiguities. Therefore, miscommunication repair and disambiguation thus is often thought to be accomplished by the message sender correcting whatever such formal cause of ambiguities and communications errors and failures as might be pointed out by the message recipient.

And alas therefore, no other feedback or deeper engagement shall be forthcoming in case of communications failure, until whatever such needed correction, first. Only afterwards. indeed if ever, might ensue any consideration of meaning and authorial intent.

But even such frustratingly limited engagement may be deemed more helpful than merely regurgitating silly rules and exhortation to simple writing style like some kind of monomaniacal evangelist. Not to get ahead of ourselves, however.

It all comes down to the distinction between Rules Based problems solving and Case Based solution finding: Because, when grammatical or whatever other formal errors are detected, then the problem to solve, becomes how to correct whatever such such formal errors. But such remains only one possible means to a greater end, of raising signal out from noise, of getting across an idea that isn't quite coming through. And all manner of change and improvement open up, from any broader objective of clarification, once ambiguity of message content will be detected and brought to light. And typically, all with an additional happy side effect of correct grammar or whatever. For solution finding exceeds mere problem solving. And all manner of change and improvement open up, from any broader objective of clarification, once ambiguity of message content will be brought to light. And typically, all with an additional happy side effect of correct grammar.

And whereas any even somewhat pedantic and mechanical Rules Based Reasoning as of mere problem solving as of grammatical correction, ever remains more simple and predictable, also easier to modify ever as needed, in the alternative, Case Based Reasoning, both in general and particularly such as extolled herein throughout to the matter at hand, remains ever more knowledgeable and adaptable to complex and ambiguous data under ever evolving new circumstances, with greater relevance achievable via tailored and personalized solutions, and thus greater end user satisfaction.

Unlike fully engaged Socratic Dialectic, such as that of collaborative miscommunication repair, nothing new will be learned in hidebound and dull-witted pedantry to formal correction. Alas, normatively closed minded irrelevance remaining endemic in the death throws ending the lifecycle of complex social systems, any embrace of internally efficiency even arbitrarily as via whatever implementation of Rules Based Reasoning, comes in rejection of Case Based Reasoning with relevance and utility for end users in the outside real world beyond whatever bureaucratically minded routine.

Any precept of, as the only way, be all and end all, all such seemingly innocent and innocuous tar babies of fashionable anti-intellectual hack bad writing advice, remains toxic to arête, thought, and Literary richness. Cretin folly all in all, obdurate and tastelessly ill considered oversimplification, entirely sans any truly literate appreciation of meaningful depth and complexity, and entirely bereft of empathy or regard whatsoever, for authorial intent and at cross-purpose thereto.

Emphatically, critique even nitpicking writing style and authorial voice, or even hypertext webdesign, is all fine and good, even tremendously valuable. But writing, not unlike friendship, often entails ongoing struggle for expression, difficult and complicated beyond any toxic maxims of oversimplification or pedantic obsession with arbitrary rules of form. Whether for stories or business/project plans as herein on FoolQuest.com, or anything else under the sun, writing is rewriting, patient hard work, and never a waste of time.

But in searing ideological contempt, superficially to lambaste writing style, authorial voice, or webdesign, whilst calculatingly refusing to acknowledge or engage with actual message content; well that remains toxic. A malignant Anti-Socratic tactic of soft-flame. Never take the bait.

Indeed, what strange, passive hostile, short attention backhanded invalidation ever can there be, more manipulative and conflicting than whatever craven proffer howsoever ostensibly of such well meaning help and advice, but only while keeping distance? Indeed, without engaging or becoming involved? Indeed, without respect or regard toward substance and authorial intent in the first place? Of what relevance? None.

By contrast however, and to reiterate, towards any good faith philosophical investigation and discovery of elusive truth into the generation of lucid and compelling prose, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility of explicitly seeking and specifying precisely whatever manner and kind of feedback as they themselves perceive the need and as most helpful and relevant. And under the human condition, communications struggle replete with all manner of genuine communications errors and failures, remains nigh inevitable. Indeed the necessity and blessing all therefore, of communications struggle: Not a bug, but a feature!

Only shopworn and well familiar old ideas are certain always to come across effortlessly. The clear and concise mainstay of science and philosophy whereupon we all rely, was once the cutting edge of challenging thought. The well familiar clear and concise great ideas whereupon we all rely, are often, historically, the product of brilliant minds in lifetimes of boiling it all down, volume by volume, page by page, line by line, word by word again and again. Indeed, like photography, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, patient hard work and never a waste of time. And to always get it right the first time, say very little and dare nothing new.

What then best may be done, indeed ever incase as so nigh inevitable, of communications failure and reciprocal incomprehension? That is the question! And the best answer remains nothing more or less than full collaboration together in ever ongoing detection of communications errors and ambiguities, all towards ever ensuing Socratic Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication repair, all as remaining so indispensable to excellence in Miscommunication Competence so crucial towards Conversational Adequacy. Can we be serious? As the saying goes, no question is too foolish to ask, and no answer too wise to be given. Therefore question freely in case of incomprehension. There is no shame in it, but actually quite the opposite: Dialectical sharp attention and respect.

Well may one ask: What then can possibly be so wrong merely with anything seemingly so innocuous as advocating simple writing style? Plenty. Is then simple writing style merely a means to an end after all, or actually an end in and of itself, a proverbial sacred cow beyond all admissible reproach or substitution? Because if simple writing style remains only a perfectly sensible means to improve writing clarity, then just perhaps, simple writing style is only one possible strategy among any number of entirely viable strategies and alternative for quality and clarity in writing. Of which, barring sheer dogmatism, the various merits each whereof, might be compared under varying circumstances, in order best to choose among them, as ever suitable, case by case.

Indeed, just to the contrary, what about actually enriching the exploration and emphasis of prose, even with the most needles ornament and stylistic flourish, as have the educated citizens and Literary masters in days of yore? Indeed, merely consider the previous sentence: It runs a little long, yet remaining well balanced. In the English language, we never use five words when eight will do!

     •   On the Art of Writing: What Did Thomas Jefferson Really Say?

After all, again to reiterate, writing is like photography: Easy to do but difficult to do well. Indeed, in whatever context or application, writing is rewriting, hard work and never a waste of time. But to always get it right the first time, say very little and dare nothing new. And therefore ever the same interminably ubiquitous stock bad writing advice, and especially the unending witless anti-intellectual semiliterate exhortation only to simple mindedly simple writing style, excluding any complexity of thought, all that be roundly damned! We have all heard that stubborn mantra before. And we'll hear it ever again and again, as long as there are such blithely unaware dogmatists to repeat it.

Indeed, to quote George Orwell: “A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing.” Nevertheless, and howsoever inconceivably to the mindset of all such blithe rightthink such as to propel exhortation only to simple mindedly simple writing style (indeed as many may be heard to insist, even at the level of a small child or a moron!!), some knowledgeable and dedicated writers yet actually disagree strongly, with precisely all such hoary blockheaded common (non)sense. Therefore, circumstance merit at long last, at least some wider awareness and acknowledgement of controversy at hand. And thereby just perhaps at long last, interesting true rebuttal beyond endless gainsaying. Indeed, any abetment in all such lazy and dogmatic regurgitation and failure of imagination, as though no one could even possibly ever disagree. Indeed, in actuality, a cursory web search will discover simple writing style featuring prominently, on several lists conveniently provided online, of stock bad writing advice. And wonder of wonders, there do remain notable contrary views, instead in defense of the richness and complexity of writing and indeed of clearest thought itself.

     •   L E S S   I S   B E S T , M R .  N A B O K O V

      •   Why Grammarly Is Killing My Writing Style

      •   Why grammarly does more harm than good,

                           barring sufficient expertise beforehand, for distinguishing bad advice from good...

      •   Small sentences are boring to read .

      •   Beware, oversimplification.

    •   The Alt-Right Playbook: You Can't Get Snakes from Chicken Eggs

Onward and upward then, toward the attainment of psychological visibility to penetrate psychological asymmetry via fully engaged immersion together into Socratic interrogation, error detection and ongoing Miscommunication Competent miscommunication repair, in Dialectical collaboration among equals. Because Mistakes are the Essence. And because we only learn and progress from making mistakes, fresh bold conjecture and new mistakes instead of only ever repeating the same old mistakes. To quote Anton Chekhov: “... only he is an emancipated thinker who is not afraid to write foolish things.”

To quote Gian Vincenzo Gravina: “A bore is a man who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company.” Alas, ever more Existentially Absurd, we endure in an unfriendly and monological world, teeming with glorified pack mammals, self-sufficiently Solipsistic bleating sheeple, some quite famous and highly regarded, even venerated. Who only talk and never listen, not even to their own thoughts (indeed not even as perhaps soliloquizing), much less to one another, to anyone else. With no Point Of View to offer, the inattentive craving attention, void unto void, making interminably vapid small talk, talking with nothing to say about anything whatsoever in the entire universe. And indeed Solipsistic with no concept of anyone to say it to anyhow. So: Is that indeed Solipsism, soliloquy? Or is it just me?

What best might be done,

in case of communications error, breakdown and failure, indeed in any event of reciprocal incomprehension?

That is the question!

And there's the rub! Ensuing directly, on the one hand, my own heart felt urgent plea and best advice for requested volunteer beta readers, copy editors and the like, but on the other hand, also delineation of an important aspect of review and critique most generally. And then regards indeed not actually probortunity at hand, specific priority agenda here on FoolQuest.com toward true fulfillment and meaning in close collaboration among equals, but rather, and all too frequently and frustratingly, what others so determinedly concern themselves with instead. An impasse, then. A frustrating decoy. A proverbial tar baby to ensnare the unwary. And yet, strangely, Epistemological context and even knowledge work ethic.

To reiterate: Any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility of explicitly seeking and specifying precisely whatever manner and kind of feedback as they themselves perceive the need and as most helpful and relevant. In accordance then with non justificationism, wherein all hypothesis begins in unfounded conjecture, and without pedantic prior foundation or justification, collaborative miscommunication collaborative miscommunication repair and Miscommunication Competence, being the method undertaken herein, fully engages in ongoing communications error detection and course correction. And all as often best accomplished less by nitpicking mere formal errors, than by meticulously questioning ambiguities in actual message content.

Alas, ubiquitous Anti-Critical Bias ever remains toxic to any such worthy endeavor. Indeed, a writer who never exchanges critique, is no writer at all, indeed barely even a dilettante. And thin skinned writing communities that spurn critique, generally amount to bogus support groups for veritably and merely cosplaying as writers. The very term: 'critique' after all, remains merely a fancy French word for criticism. And the Socratic Dialectical practice of controversy remains the welcome and invited exchange of criticism. For frank and open criticism remains nothing hostile or threatening, but inherently friendly, an effort and expression of abiding respect and autonomy support. Only imagine then, the hapless consternation and thereby comedy trope ever at the expense of the well meaning mark, in any such Ulterior Transaction or: headgame wherein fervent request for brutally honest criticism or critique comes only from some empty headed, blithely thin skinned and no less haplessly injured Narcissist, actually craving only the most unwavering praise, validation, and frenetically wounded by anything less.

But frightened tact and comment withheld, consensus and ever simmering superficial harmony thus socially expected in subtext of emotional extortion, can no longer exist as true tact of voluntary, genuine sympathetic consideration for others, sincerely compassionate outgoing sensitivity and genuine authentic friendship. Instead of only disengagement, shunning, hostility, acrimony or merely indifference and rejection, controversy, the welcome and invited exchange of criticism, remains the interpersonal engagement remaining possible and even entirely congenial in case of disagreement as forever prevailing in the human condition. But people cannot even actually disagree, in case of communications error, failure, ambiguity and reciprocal incomprehension, also ever prevalent in the human condition. What then? Alas that some remain in their madness convinced that in the face of communications error, failure, ambiguity and reciprocal incomprehension, stark and sudden utter disengagement remains their only viable option, lest miscommunication and strife therein, only continue spiraling out of control! As indeed, all too common. But not universal. And more anon. Because in actuality, miscommunication remains no more fatal and irreversible than any other kind of mistake. And no less valuable. All not to get ahead of ourselves, however.



Indeed, Proverbs 17:28 KJV: “Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.” A passable observation or caution, nevertheless, for all peril, still a pernicious recommendation. For as the wiser and better enlightened saying goes, no question will be too stupid to ask, and no answer too wise to be given. Alas that such laudable persistence in questioning, so frequently triggers such virulent unpopularity that tastes of hemlock. For precisely such ubiquitously toxic anti-introspective anti-intellectual alienated short attention pervades. Alas, if there can be permitted no cogent discussion or conjecture or speculation upon anything not as yet well understood, then there can be no truly novel and original thoughts ever hewn from the daunting mass of the unknown in this life. Indeed to live error free and always get everything right the first time, even talking a great deal, say very little and dare nothing new.



Should ever one disapprove because one misunderstands, then the better one comes to understand, then perhaps thereby the more one will be reassured and the less one might eventually vex and disapprove. But if one utterly fails to comprehend but somehow so consumed with alarm and suspicion, already strongly disapproves, then because of confirmation bias, ever the better one may ever come to understand, then this may only fuel resentment all the more. After all, confirmation bias arises from accumulated corroboration while tending to downplay or ignore all refutation in the form of contrary evidence. Thus the more one learns, the more likely only the more harshly shall one disapprove! Therefore gentle reader, are we already working at cross-purposes? Alas, the self-absorbed bored, lonely and impatient short attention inspired and disingenuous bait of merely complaining of incomprehension, is not even remotely the same thing as actually requesting clarification and then actually listening interestedly. For to quote Karan Gaur: “Effort is the best indicator of interest.” And most insufferably Anti-Socratic of stone-deaf power plays, remains the self-absorbed impatient short attention mere feigning of incomprehension, but actually only disapproval. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. And confront the unknown, squarely. Never evince derisive incomprehension in case actually of bitter disapproval! For derisive incomprehension denotes contempt for anything in particular that eludes immediate clear understanding. Indeed, to quote George Orwell: “A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing.” But perhaps even most hapless of all, remain those so profoundly traumatized by formal education, who fall silent and dummy up, entirely paralyzed, or simply pretend to understand, whenever they do not understand at all. These are fools making fools of us all. And no sacred fool on any character arc of growth in wisdom and sagacity.



Lo and behold how one may tend to write at one's own level of understanding. Not simply because individual perspective, in the first place, remains how one understands anything whatsoever at all in order then to impart and share with anyone else, but because ones own understanding indeed so often remains integrally and exactly the very crux of such saliently intended message content of crucial incisive perspective, all so urgently to convey in the first place. Moreover, instead relating to and tailoring whatever message to whatever expected message recipient or receptive target audience, assumes that one even predicts at all whom that might be, much less understanding them intimately. And in reality that often remains the great mystery of lonely isolation for intelligent people with anything new and different to share. And so, unmet friend, you be you, and I'll be me. And with every diligence, let us strive together at bridging between us in order to grapple with all that everyone remains so desperate to know. Or else, if all of that seems just too much hard work, then FoolQuest.com simply might not be right for you.

Honestly, if only I already knew whatever remains unclear in message content herein, how so and why,

I would already have revised accordingly.

And so, this is to apologize ever profusely and most contritely for any and all difficulty in browsing FoolQuest.com



Intersubjectivity is achieved when the comprehension of a message by the recipient, is brought into closer correspondence with the intended message content of the sender. Indeed a desired result which even by itself, often requires purposeful, interested, engaged and adequately attentive and sustained effort in ongoing Dialectically collaborative miscommunication detection and repair. Whereas bypassing is blithe reciprocally unaware talking at cross-purpose, is exchange which is not genuine communication because it lacks sufficient Intersubjectivity and does not carry at all the same meanings or even purpose, intention or point at all between the increasingly exasperated participants as communications errors frequently increase and spiral out of control, that is, if only the discrepancy ever dawns on anyone. Once at last detected, what then shall be done in the event of communications failure and reciprocal incomprehension?

Either engagement or disengagement. Or indeed, active conflict between such directly antithetical objectives as on the one hand, deeper engagement, or on the other hand, utter disengagement. For while some delight in the challenge of communications struggle for improved Intersubjectivity out from even the most extreme reciprocal incomprehension, others only take fright, flee, dummy up or even lash out. Indeed from time immemorial, many continue to advocate such misguidedly venerated Zen abject surrender to Wittgensteinean paralysis.

But no less than ego, self and solitary reflection so misguidedly reviled by all Mystics, communications struggle together also remains essential in the human condition. Because as with uncertainty most generally, communications errors, failures and ambiguities are normal and inevitable, indeed indispensable to all learning, growth and autonomy. And as with any other kind of mistake, ongoing error detection and course correction remains essential. Because justificationism, the striving for firm foundation and thereby even relative certainty, by filtering out or otherwise preventing error beforehand, indeed yes: including communications failures, remains irresponsible, disastrously paralytic, repressive and confused. Because when errors of any kind inevitably slip through, what options does justificationism permit? In practice, only the worst dysfunction and acrimony.


Therefore instead, as a living author, ! remain ever at your disposal, gentle reader, for any and all required or desired discussion, explanation and clarification of content whatsoever, for anyone interested enough for the effort. Indeed, effort and interest of detailed editing, actually combing over whatever text together, identifying, locating and correcting whatever communications errors or ambiguities as arising throughout prose and composition herein. Because, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, hard work and never a waste of time. And thank you, gentle reader. Because to quote Karan Gaur: “Effort is the best indicator of interest.” And because nowadays more than ever, in the immortal words of Simone Weil: “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”



Indeed perhaps via asynchronous text communication, let us then discuss whatever substantive message content as yet not readily understood. No matter what measures of clarification taken beforehand, fallibility and mistakes remain inevitable. And this includes communications failure. But it only takes a little persistence to ferret out whatever errors or ambiguities and then improve any texts, even this one. Indeed, as shall be seen, such shall ever remain the cogent lesson of needless real world drama. Indeed, a most ordinary probortunity that (alas because of a decline in literacy, what passes for education, and a lamentable wont of philosophical habits of clear thinking), should be found less daunting and embraced as more engaging: An entirely manageable problem redolent with all manner of golden opportunity and growth. Miscommunication remains no more fatal and irreversible than any other kind of mistake. And no less valuable.

How best then persistently to assist one another continually to bring across and improve clarity of initially or hitherto howsoever unclear messages?

Barring then Zen abject surrender to Wittgensteinean paralysis, there remain at least three competing general approaches in order to surmount communications difficulties:

1) To prevail upon the message sender, one way or another, to communicate more clearly and effectively.

Indeed, all too common and alas often unhelpful strategy in what passes for assistance to improve another's prose, may be to fob off the most general, repeated, standard (and often so very bad) writing advice, so often misguided, and so dismissively without engaging whatever message in question, and content thereof, at all. Or to point out formal errors and to cite often silly rules. And all in such uncritical imitation of all such pedantry as whereof we have all been exposed as dutiful pupils figuratively set, metaphorically to jump through proverbial hoops, until robotic proficiency is attained. Alas, all of that only goes so far.



Worse, a particularly manipulative and unscrupulous message recipient in monumental bad faith, may seek power over the struggling message sender, by inviting or provoking response blithely refusing to listen. This toxic headgame is named: The stone-deaf powerplay. Or they can tune out from all thought. And this may be dubbed: The stone stupid power play.



2) To prevail upon the message recipient, one way or another, to decode the message more skillfully and effectively.

As for example, when a math teacher asserting power and authority, pressures the dutifully submissive student, first to learn more math, in order thus better to understand an equation or math problem, solve whatever puzzle, and at last fully and correctly comprehend. It remains however, that any better pedagogue might be more helpful, rather than simply abandoning any helpless pupil to their own devices. For such remain the evils of Inductivism. Not to digress. The point remaining as to how power relations frequently remain frustrating, unilluminating, oppressive and counterproductive.



3) Or, evidently, least commonly routine among alternatives, for sender and recipient, without subtext or implication of ill intent and willful obscurantism, to share responsibility and strive together for clear explanation and successful communication. For well beyond all stubborn and clueless pedantry, such remains, The Way of the Sympathetic Copy/Language Editor or beta reader.



As indeed (wait for it!) perhaps as allegorically glorified in the Science Fiction motion picture blockbuster: ‘Arrival,’ wherein as rational actors in all good faith, heroes of scientific discovery, by their shining example of ever redoubled effort, demonstrate for us all how to participate in ongoing communications struggle. Indeed, as cinematic rôle models by their example teaching us all how best to relate, human scientists and outer space aliens as portrayed on screen, are seen to engage tirelessly together, persisting for as long as it takes, in unflagging and nigh heroic communications struggle. Persevering indeed, until at last reaching Intersubjectivity.

Intersubjectivity as achieved when the comprehension of a message by the recipient, is at last brought into closer correspondence with the intended message content of the sender. Indeed, in Socratic Dialectical collaboration among equals. Because, writing is like photography: Easy to do, but difficult to do well. Indeed, writing is rewriting, patient hard work and never a waste of time.

Alas how many people seem to believe that as message recipients, they must only apply themselves to overcome communications failure, should the message arrive from a figure of authority, and not just any fellow human being, an equal merely struggling to get a point across and be understood. And even worse, there are those message senders who, when it comes to clarification, only seem to be able to repeat themselves. And of course, actual cooperation remains unheard of.

Consider how in troubleshooting the appearance, presentation or functionality of any webpage or other hypertext, just as with software in general, it may be helpful and necessary to describe, and to answer questions about user interaction and experience. A narrative sometimes referred to as: the user story. In attempting end usage of whatever system, a website or anything else, what were you trying to do? What did you do? What result did you seek? What then actually occurred? What result? Then together, Dialectically, investigation and remedy of whatever technical issues, may ensue. And as can be seen, troubleshooting incomprehension and/or miscommunication, remains actually somewhat similar. In reading and working your way through whatever body or composition of prose, what were you trying to do? What did you do? What result did you seek? What then actually occurred? What was the result? Then together, Dialectically, investigation and remedy of whatever communications errors and ambiguities, may ensue.



Obviously, even with the help of the author, trying to figure out what another struggles to communicate, by analyzing and correcting whatever errors and ambiguities, will always be more difficult and require more effort, then simply reading any corrected version afterwards. But only via the extra effort of Socratic Dialectical collaborative miscommunications repair, the means by which lucid and substantive prose ever arises at all, does lucid prose and composition arise out from the fundamental Epistemological human condition of perpetual communications struggle. All therein, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, hard work and never a waste of time.



Indeed, how poorly people tend to understand one another, and often so blithely unawares, bypassing. For bypassing here means, communication at blithely unaware cross-purpose. As for example, when different people talking together, use the same word but unsuspectingly mean entirely different things.

If only appreciation might finally dawn on folks, just how extreme and pervasive actually remains the phenomena of bypassing, and just how little consensus there truly is, even upon the most fundamental burning issues. Only then perhaps the less they might all balk at the necessary effort and diligence of Dialectical collaboration in ongoing miscommunication detection and repair, replete with philosophical habits of clear thinking.

For bypassing, blithe reciprocally unaware talking at cross-purpose, is exchange which is not genuine communication because it lacks sufficient Intersubjectivity and does not carry at all the same meanings or even purpose, intention or point at all between the blithely unsuspecting participants. Hence the aware frustration at the revelation and realization of communication failure and reciprocal incomprehension, constitutes a giant step forward out from that fools' paradise of blithe bypassing. Indeed, improved Intersubjectivity is achieved when the comprehension of a message by the recipient, is brought into closer correspondence with the intended message content of the sender. Indeed a desired result which even by itself, often requires purposeful, interested, engaged and adequately attentive and sustained effort in ongoing Dialectically collaborative miscommunication detection and repair. And alas, if all of that will be too much to ask, even so as to afford merely whatever most preliminary discussion any chance at all, then strategic discourse can only choke, sputter, collapse and dissipate.



I simply cannot abide helpless ninnies who dummy up when they don't understand, any more than flagrant obscurantists who obdurately refuse to help when they are not understood! As the saying goes, no question is too stupid to ask, and no answer too wise to be given. Never try to fake it. Don't make do just getting the gist of things. Whenever you don't understand, please just speak up! Because, rest assured gentle reader, that you can always rely upon me to do as much for you. Always point out and/or correct ambiguities, linguistic or otherwise, as ever arising. Indeed, I certainly will. Because:

‘Conversational Adequacy: Mistakes are the Essence’ wherein excellence in Miscommunication Competence remains crucial.
For the umpteenth time, yea blistering blockheads! And you know who you are! Emphatically, the only way for anyone to help anyone else better to get across whatever they strive to express and to communicate, is via Miscommunication Competence in ongoing miscommunication repair, Dialectically, wherein indeed Mistakes are the Essence towards excellence in Miscommunication Competence so crucial for conversational adequacy. Indeed, first for the message recipient to detect and to analyze whatever ambiguity or confusing error. And then somehow for said message recipient to convey to the message sender any indication of whatever in particular as may be, that the message recipient fails to comprehend, how so and why. Together detecting events of unfolding communications failure in close cooperation, an interaction most organic and spontaneous onsite in IRL or even as telepresent in remote real time voice communication with or without video. And never otherwise! Indeed, capable skill of Active Reading and Listening strategy, so much more conscious and deliberately learned within any medium of asynchronous text communication. Because, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, hard work and never a waste of time.

Optimally reciprocally engaged Artfully Effective Active Listening and Active Reading strategies remain integral to ongoing Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication repair.

It will be easy simply to assume that speaking, writing, or any other mode of composition and expression, all remain active, whereas any such mode of message reception such as reading or listening, all remain passive and fairy automatic in decoding whatever message even on the fly. Indeed, such ease remains for many exactly the ideal and standard of clarity. And yet, nevertheless, Active Reading and listening are indeed far from passive. Intellectual and interpretive participation entailing construction of alternative narratives, imagination and visualization, requires adjustment of emphasis to suit one's own interests, and assembly of the story or information into whatever the cognitive schemata and context that make up one's own systems of knowledge and belief. Indeed, as Eve Tushnet expounds in ‘Eros and Education,’ Eros, so alluring and enticing and yet so repellant and threatening, is no complacent and unquestioningly likeminded fearfully conflict avoidant uncritical willful positivity and superficial harmony, but rather to the contrary, nothing more or less than meaningful depth of reciprocal engagement and connection traversing into profound alien difference. — Off guard and drawn in, ideas, experience, new and uncanny subjective perception, the familiar made strange, and the strange familiar, Ontology, Phenomenology, poetical Axiology, very identity and all. Indeed, psychological visibility that penetrates psychological asymmetry. For what then can there ever be the more utterly subversive and disruptive than the core motivation that is named: Eros?

Alas then that yet another among that plethora of toxic headgames, will be somehow to proffer whatever sort of generic help or assistance, criticism or critique, but without engagement with actual content, or evidence of even having even attempted to read that which one critiques. Thus so innocently professing help and good intention, even in the act of sly invalidation and disengagement. And tactics thereof include all manner of pedantic irrelevance, silly rules, hack and robotic and stock bad writing advice, indeed particularly such as all braindead exhortation to simple writing style. Even citation of formal errors, may be no substitute instead for posing interested questions pertaining to, or pointing out ambiguity in, actual message content. Alas, to reiterate, merely complaining of incomprehension, is not even remotely the same thing as actually requesting clarification and then even paying interested attention to whatever response. Indeed, via pertinent questions as to the subject matter of prose. Whatever remains ambiguous and not understood. Because only then does actually relevant feedback indeed become possible. But without attentively relevant feedback, then simply left to guess, one remains likelier to guess wrong. And hence in every effort at better clarification, only sowing and exacerbating miscommunication ever all the more. The point herein to drive home, remains that in order to help another to revise more clearly, first penetration together of authorial intent remains key. For the most part, what follows remains less actually difficult, but rather merely systematic and even at all somewhat laborious, if only given any perseverance without balking at the effort, focus and concentration. In other words, just stick with it and give the process any sort of a chance!
To receive a message means then to decode it. And the key first of all, to full engagement with message content that one as yet does not comprehend, ever remains in Effective Active Reading and listening strategy, after all, an art. There is no helping another to communicate more clearly, until first together gleaning authorial intent, or identifying and locating specific ambiguity, in whatever the author struggles to express, even in a short sample text. Such remains optimally reciprocally engaged and involved collaboration in the Socratic Dialectic of ongoing miscommunication repair. Only then can specific and cogent rewrites be suggested. And that goes to the very soul of cogent and sympathetic copy editing/beta reading and critique. There are no short cuts. Because, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, hard work and never a waste of time. Even simplification without oversimplification, remains ever fraught with no end of pitfalls.
And in the abiding consternation of Joe Bob Briggs: “I can't believe I still have to explain this!” Alas, there often remains a certain ethos at hand, of passive hostility, rigid pedantry and stubborn unhelpful demands of those one does not already understand and agree with. And all in rejection of faliblism or non justificationism, indeed at all of the Hypothetico-deductive model of ongoing error detection and course correction. Embracing instead the long debunked yet enduring ideology of Inductivism: of certainty attained by somehow avoiding mistakes entirely. Perhaps indeed serving as misguided inspiration for ceaseless exhortation only to the most simple writing style. Hence refusal fully to engage in Socratic Dialectical collaboration of miscommunication repair. From the stubborn and obdurate blithe conviction arising from ever shorter attention span, that no effort from anyone involved, is actually required in communication or in thinking in the first place. In a word: anti-intellectualism.

Not to dispute with Marshal McLuhan, but the content, the meaningful substance, the information and ideas, of any message, "the payload" as it where, all remain distinct from whatever vehicle, means, media or format of communication. And even if substance is somehow truly obscured by whatever fine points of style and presentation, even so, substantive questions regarding content, will likely remain more illuminating than pedantically citing whatever sort of rule, established, observable or for better or worse, merely invented. Let alone actually antagonistic irrelevant cross-purposed soft-flame: Indeed, whatever lamentably blithe persistence and obsession with form to such adamant exclusion and disregard of substance and content. Because, no matter why anything is unclear, in order then to make sense, first of all, statement shall be required, as to precisely what is unclear and how so. And only then, why. Not to mention perhaps also specific location within whatever text or message body. Or any specific question or context unanswered. Only then, may different strategies come to bear, in resolving whatever ambiguity then emerging and revealed. Question whatever is not understood. Such, there can be no adequate substitute for close engagement with substance of message content. One cannot actually help from any position of aloof distance and distain, such toxic headgames, ambivalence and needless real world drama.



Alas then that for for many, clearly such reciprocal endeavor as herein extolled, indeed Socratic Dialectical collaboration among equals, over all or in whatever special case, remains no less utterly unheard of and quite inconceivable! Such willful halfwits expect and demand of everything to be simple, superficial, inattentive and easy. After all, they do not care to be challenged or surprised. And such remains short attention anti-intellectualism: impatient stupidity as an ideological lifestyle choice that can hardly suffice responsibly for capable deliberation together in serious fiction writing, much less business and project planning in collaboration towards new venture creation precisely, all precisely as extolled here on FoolQuest.com Because “The devil is in the details.” Alas antithetically to all as herein recommended and requested, there prevails at large, a blithe mentality of peer pressure, under the inexplicit yet staunch conviction that the competent writer on their own, must write correctly off the cuff and without effort, in stream of consciousness, knowing and complying with all what is expected of them. Entirely different from any mere acknowledgement that the writer remains fallible, as are we all. Because, and to reiterate, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, hard work and never a waste of time. Alas, despite ever more lip service to learning even only from our mistakes, nevertheless and all the more, the dread of error yet endures, culturally and psychologically. Not to mention lamentable though blithely unacknowledged decline in literacy, Active Reading and Listening. Nor therefore is evoked any appeal in veneration to the timeless disciplines of the writing craft. Indeed, such may even be treated with contempt. Instead the implication lingers, that dutiful writers must cheerfully abide with the presumable infallibility of prevailing fashion and dumbing everything down in order to spare everyone the dire embarrassment of learning and growth. That is, if any standards of writing quality are even acknowledged at all. For so the saying goes: “De gustibus non disputandum est:” There is no disputing tastes. So much then, for art appreciation and critique, which, after all, remains nothing other than the perpetual dispututation of tastes! Not to digress.



Metacognition, being the primary focus of cognitive philosophy, arguable historical precursor to psychodynamic psychology, only means any howsoever at all systematic conscious awareness and introversion into whatever one's own thought processes and patterns.
Metacognition thence becomes crucial to any self assessment of knowledge and capability. And herein by extension, Within Phenomenological inner life, linguistic metacognition remains the introspective observation and analysis of any process not only of listening or reading comprehension, but also of failure, of listening or reading incomprehension, alike.
For linguistic metacognition applies to the identification, both over all and line by line, of the mechanics not merely of reading comprehension, but of incomprehension, of communications failure and breakdown, of specific failure in linguistic comprehension of whatever message content received, indeed as ever arising. Indeed, beyond grammar, of syntax, even going line by line, or in over all composition back and forth as many times as it may take. And linguistic metacognition on the part of both message senders and message recipients, remains ever crucial to Active Reading and Listening strategies with excellence in Miscommunication Competence and conversational adequacy for whatever miscommunication repair, for capably troubleshooting any whatever miscommunication and incomprehension, Dialectically.
Alas also, that a particular and daunting linguistic metacognitive fallibility persists, even in the most sincere good faith, in that subjectively, whatever intended message already all makes such self perceived seemingly perfect sense to the sender. And all because after all, the sender already knows, or believes to know, full well, whatever it is that the sender so struggles to express and to communicate to anyone else. And all even quite aside from, additionally, the human tendency of projection. Meaning, as with empathy, to relate to others indeed from ones own condition, but erroneously. At any rate, the sender then, even in deepest contemplation alone, may be rendered quite blind to any undetected narrative gaps. And after all, no writer or speaker must ever impose responsibility for their own expressive shortcomings, onto whatever audience so troubled and put upon. Yes, all too true: Every effort on the part of the author to write more clearly, spares successive readers needles aggravation. Such trouble spared even perhaps by any somewhat inconsiderate writer, even from antiquity, accrues multiplied struggle and needless irritation for any such future readers, even across the ages, unto the present day. It's never easy.



Worse, what constitutes vital context for one, perhaps personage as yet entirely unacquainted or even as yet unborn denizen of whatever far flung tomorrow, amounts to belaboring of the obvious, for another no less worthy. Vexingly, whatever needs of any known or unknown immediate or future recipients of whatever message, even moment by moment let alone across ages of changing times, often remain such a mystery. And let alone actually disagreement. Not to digress. All hence ongoing communications struggle not just by trial and error, but persistent critical thinking and analysis, remains no anomaly, but entirely normal and even salutary to the human condition and salvation from self-absorbed bored, lonely and impatient short attention into passion, interest and effort.

Only shopworn and well familiar old ideas are certain always to come across effortlessly. The clear and concise mainstay of science and philosophy whereupon we all rely, was once the cutting edge of challenging thought. The well familiar clear and concise great ideas whereupon we all rely, are often, historically, the product of brilliant minds in lifetimes of boiling it all down, volume by volume, page by page, line by line, word by word. Again, easy to do but difficult to do well, writing is rewriting, hard work and never a waste of time. And to always get it right the first time, say very little and dare nothing new.

For again to quote Karan Gaur: “Effort is the best indicator of interest.” And as we each and all find ourselves ensnared in an overstressed attention economy, attention ever spread so very thin; indeed to quote Herbert Simon: “What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.” In the words then, of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: “Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least.” And thank you gentle reader. Because nowadays more than ever, in the immortal words of Simone Weil: “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”

And once at last prose and composition are rendered adequately lucid, good faith authorial responsibility shall be well discharged and fulfilled. Attacking writing style, composition and even somehow thereby character Ad Hominem, while simply ignoring substantive content or evading pointed criticism, used to be the favored stock diversionary soft-flame pseudoengagement tactic in order to sidestep ideas and information of which, actually, the reviewer somehow disapproves. Then eventually howsoever faulty webdesign eventually supplanted politically objectionable writing style and composition as the favored red herring. It's always something!

According to Quote Investigator, in the words not as misattributed to Alexander Butcher himself merely quoting, but of George Orwell no less: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.” So let the reader own their own emotions. And quite without any authorial obligation of pandering thereto. Let alone slavery to dullardly precept of only the most simple writing style, indeed even at the level of a small child or a moron. That obdurate reduction has never been, nor will ever be, the be all and end all.

Again, any serious author retains every right and bears full responsibility of explicitly seeking and specifying precisely whatever manner and kind of feedback as they themselves perceive the need and as most helpful and relevant. Indeed rejecting all such seemingly innocent tar babies and fashionable anti-intellectual hack bad writing advice as the only way, be all and end all. All in all, entirely sans any truly literate appreciation of meaningful depth and complexity, and entirely without empathy or regard towards authorial intent. A tasteless ill considered doctrine.

What then can possibly be so wrong merely with anything seemingly so innocuous as advocating simple writing style? Plenty. Is then simple writing style merely a means to an end after all, or actually an end in and of itself, a proverbial sacred cow beyond all admissible reproach or substitution? Because if simple writing style remains only a perfectly sensible means to improve writing clarity, then just perhaps, simple writing style is only one possible strategy among any number of entirely viable strategies and alternative for quality and clarity in writing. Of which, barring sheer dogmatism, the various merits each whereof, might be compared under varying circumstances, in order best to choose among them, as ever suitable, case by case. Indeed, just to the contrary, what about actually enriching the exploration and emphasis of prose, even with the most needles ornament and stylistic flourish, indeed as have the educated citizens and Literary masters in days of yore? Indeed, merely consider the previous sentence: It runs a little long, yet remaining well balanced. In the English language, we never use five words when eight will do!

Of course, the point remaining that neither stylistic opposite negates the need for coherent feedback to the actual text, to content, rather than inattentive and obliviously dogged fixation upon blockheaded empty generalities. Cretin regurgitation of all litany, all such correct rightthink, remains no fit substitute to be fobbed off for the effort whatsoever at fully engaged and relevant cogent critique or even beta reading and copy editing. To reiterate, Anti-Critical Bias ever remains toxic to any worthy endeavor. Indeed, a writer who never exchanges critique, is no writer at all, indeed barely even a dilettante. And thin skinned writing communities that spurn critique, generally amount to bogus support groups for cosplaying as writers. The very term: 'critique' after all, remains merely a fancy French word for criticism. And the Socratic Dialectical practice of controversy remains the welcome and invited exchange of criticism. For frank and open criticism remains nothing hostile or threatening, but inherently friendly, an effort and expression of abiding respect and autonomy support. Only that relevant criticism needs to be attentive and coherent.


In response, post to the for others to weigh in, orif it's private.

the downside

Caveat: Is the FoolQuest.com opportunity, Creativity Should be Social the right thing for you?

                                   WARNING: If all of this is quite simply too difficult just to read and discuss,

then how will be any easier to follow through and accomplish??!

Ask yourself: What do I want, and what will it take?

And what what can I be happy doing about it?

How unreasonably demanding is FoolQuest.com, truly? If there is an easier course to success than first of all, simply paying attention, and not just more snake oil, then I don't know it. Snake oil is simplistic. Reality generally turns out the more complicated, not less, and often daunting. But we can talk it over. By first taking and defining our positions anywhere on the scale or desired outcome and expectedly necessary effort, we can hope to move towards common ground. Let us consider that perhaps any correlation might be expected between organization, performance and results, first of all with the caliber of planning out from the sustained quality of discourse before hand. But those who reject such endeavor as hopeless, will never see any point in the effort and only resent the very idea and all false hope, expressing their resentment in triviality and disrespect.

Good students are enthusiastic. They join together into study groups on their own time. They are brownnosing eager goody two-shoes approval seekers, chomping at the bit to perform every dullardly fools errand put before them, hence often slyly despised by the other students, anything but enthusiastic, indeed, actually self-loathing and bitter in our oppression. But search the web, and alas, study groups are not found in any other context but schooling, formal education, what passes for education, in ever much the same heteronymous preparation for drone like travail, eager and grumbling alike, marked all for our stations in life.

Have they then forever destroyed our capacity for initiative and collaboration? Do not the oppressed fathom that we are at war with our condition of oppression, in whatever guise that oppression assumes, and whatever form that struggle for real freedom, autonomy supported by capability, may take? Prisoners of war, naturally skeptical towards the authority of their captivity, defy slave mentality and form escape comities, ever planning, preparing and finally taking serious action. So where then are the study groups and research think tanks of the rebellion, the escape committees from the rat-race? That is who I write this website for, if they will have me.

“Free Your Mind... and Your Ass Will Follow.” — George Clinton

So if you must whine, then at least whine honestly! Stymied and intimidated by big words? Really? Bah, humbug! Stand up! Get serious!

In our arsenal we shall maintain the two taboo values of intellectual autonomy, that cannot be taken until they are willfully surrendered: Open ended and free ranging conjecture, speculation only afterward subject to critical preference via controversy which is the free exchange of criticism. But such is abstraction. And therefore serious planning demands the violation of yet a third taboo actually against bridging the distant and abstract with the proximate and practical.

Yes, the actual taboo upon strategic planning: And what can ever become more toxic than the great divide, sheer failure of imagination, between passive lofty philosophical inquiry, inert and never building strategy much less taking action, and practical discussion willfully and woefully uniformed by abstract reasoning or background research, and therefore unteachably condemned only to the most rash, simplistic and misguided action? Riddle me this: When is the concrete abstract? Answer: Whenever reasoning is argued. All sound practical consideration resorts to abstract principle, just as all sound abstract reasoning must be informed by Empirical practicality. Otherwise, positions become arbitrary. And it happens all the time! A begged question ever obtaining as to the requisite level of communication to all of lofty ambition as herein. Not to digress, however.

In the words of George Orwell: “The main motive for 'nonattachment' is a desire to escape from the pain of living, and above all from love, which, sexual or non-sexual is hard work.” Indeed, even by the present juxtaposition thereby recontextualizing the words of Sophocles: “Without labor nothing prospers.” As misattributed to Thomas Alva Edison: “Recognizing opportunity is so difficult for most people because it goes around disguised in overalls, looking like hard work!” In the words of Theodore Roosevelt: “I don't pity any man who does hard work worth doing. I admire him.” And in the words of Henry Ford: “Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason so few engage in it.” Although, to quote Elon Musk: “No matter how hard you work, someone else is working harder.” Or just perhaps thinking and even loving that much harder! Is then even reading this webpage and responding actually so terribly difficult thinking? And in comparison to what available alternatives and to what end? What experience or result?

As the Yiddish saying goes: “If hard work was so wonderful, the rich would keep it all for themselves.” And indeed, when it is, they do! And pay and/or charge a pretty penny for the privilege. Not just lifestyle entrepreneurship, meaning greater fulfillment and job satisfaction, coming in trade off at sacrifice of even quantifiable maximum profitability, but instead of merely going on vacation, actually paying a fee for the pleasurable transient experience of ones own dream job!

Indeed, to quote Anthony Marra: “Work isn’t meaningful just because you spend your life doing it.” After all, in the words of J.M. Barrie: “Nothing is really work unless you would rather be doing something else.” Or to quote: Maxim Gorky: “When work is pleasure, life is joy! When work is a duty, life is slavery.” And that may certainly apply no less to any natural preference towards thinking about anything else less dystressing. And so, is the infliction of whatever such supposed reading and thinking difficulty at hand upon the reader, simply well avoidable by the author? Is it all my fault? Or might it be the agenda at hand, in and of itself, life itself being at all so difficult? Or is the agenda at hand so boring? Therefore, can we please just get serious: What else should be of so much greater concern, why and how so?

All manner of demands and conditions are placed upon the individual in life, especially as pertaining to specific endeavors, often needlessly and unreasonably or even quite detrimentally. But there are also conditions that are reasonably imposed only by circumstances and of actual necessity. It all comes down to that responsible question of what will actually be required in order to achieve whatever ends. And as the saying goes: "No question is too stupid to be asked and no answer is too wise to be given." Conversation ought not be impoverished by restriction to the clear and familiar. The question is of the author's responsibility to their readers. -Of the clarity of the text, the effort on the part of the author beforehand to spare the readers any repetition of needless and wasteful aggravation ever after. I am not an obscurantist! But over simplification is distortion, not clarification. Fortunately, I am a living author on the Web. I am free to continually revise from substantive criticism. I am never bound to abandon my prose as finished and deathless, as were the printed authors of olden days and pre-electronic darkness! And what a blessing: The communication and construction of new ideas is ever a struggle, reciprocally. Therefore failure of comprehension should not be a conversation killer, but indeed the most meaningful conversation starter, often surprising, sometimes frightening. To that noble end, it is always possible to offer, at the very least, copy editing remarks for clarification of any ambiguity in syntax and composition, and beyond such, analysis of concepts as may ever seem howsoever muddled or vague. Even disapproval begs question all the more so of why! The reciprocal engagement in criticism that makes for controversy, is the very opposite of both the maliciously empty hostility of flami ng and of the irresponsible denial so characteristic of vague hand waving and pipedreaning.

Critical thinking tools of Dialectic include:

Optimally reciprocally engaged Artfully Effective Active Listening and Active Reading strategies remain integral to ongoing Dialectic of collaborative miscommunication repair.

For excellence in Miscommunication Competence so crucial towards ‘Conversational Adequacy: Mistakes are the Essence’

How to use FoolQuest.com and for whom...

As Marshall McLuhan would have it: “The medium is the message.” Indeed, the massage in the mass age! For pervading characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. Indeed as Marshal McLuhan further expounds, artifacts of media, not to be overlooked, do indeed effect and affect any society and shape perception by their unique characteristics. As any society's values, norms and methods inevitably become changed by technology, social implications of new media emerge. Indeed such as asynchronous asynchronous text communication and hypertext. What then reveals itself as the inherent message at the very essence of asynchronous text communication and hypertext? And all to what impact upon Dialectical collaboration, so fundamental to Eudemonia?



For characteristics of whatever medium constitute message in their own right, easily overlooked. Indeed as Marshal McLuhan further expounds, artifacts of media, not to be overlooked, do indeed effect and affect any society and shape perception by their unique characteristics. As any society's values, norms and methods inevitably become changed by technology, social implications of new media emerge.

Question then: What commitment is sought for or entailed, even quite simply by reading and responding indeed via asynchronous text communication to the hypertext which is FoolQuest.com?Answer: Initially, nothing so demanding. No Herculean chore of voluminous and comprehensive cult scholarship. Find anything of interest? Then please just begin, gentle reader, with anything at all specifically on topic for ensuing discussion. Let's talk! Taking it from there, a most welcome commitment should one so to chose, might be in simply to continue and to hold up ones end of conversation even in accord howsoever with individual motivation and interest. But a more difficult question must arise eventually, if all goes well: What will be the nature of whatever necessary commitment in order to carry out whatever myriad difficult projects together, as proposed herein, for anyone so inclined?



In that light, the voluminously comprehensive content of FoolQuest.com as might be taken as so daunting to the casual website visitor, in context of agenda and ambition or aspiration, barely scratches the surface. And this should become obvious. Should we so choose, our work will be cut out for us. Should the very discussion thereupon then be summarily relegated to socially awkward thoughtcrime and taboo? The even forbidden question then, becomes one of feasible expectations. And what question can there be of greater practical import to high aspiration? It's daunting and complicated. What the Hell does anyone expect? The learning curve will be steep. Anyone who makes it all sound simple and easy is deluded, dishonest, or both! And anyone dismissing all as impossible and therefore trivial, can be no less toxic. And anyone without anticipation, and foreseeing no gratification, should be seeking elsewhere. Because perhaps the most important result from all deliberation in feasibility study, in business or project planning and brainstorming, may be the dawning realization of the impractical, unfeasible, or any disapointing danger of utter vexation and just no fun. But not to jump the gun:



How then does one read? How does one breath? You are doing it! Five minutes of full focus will decide more than a life time grumbling halfhearted short attention. FoolQuest.com is not another casually banal short attention website, trivializing anti-intellectual (anti)social media and ever more stupid smart phones grinding all of human thought and interaction down into concise and empty pabulum, out of context oversimplification, sterile, innocuous, safe and bland, yet frightening and disorienting, that has become such staple of veritably hypnotic algorithm driven adamant common expectation online. Are you intelligent, misunderstood, bored and lonely? Because FoolQuest.com only strives at serious content for serious people. FoolQuest.com strives to achieve the very antithesis of alienating braindead (anti)social media and blithe ideology ever stoked by empty and provocative clickbait algorithms. FoolQuest.com is an intentional outreach for collaboration cofounder candidates, in something new and unprecedented.



At least those pleasurably entertained, hence paradoxically more serious yet taking themselves less seriously, may therefore find whatever topics more engaging here on FoolQuest.com. And there will be no information overload, for those who devour content and knowledge resource because they find themselves intensely interested, motivated and engrossed in whatever they perceive as being most meaningful to urgent personal concern and crisis with which we all perpetually find ourselves so ceaselessly embroiled, and grapple ever tenaciously every day. Because when the going gets tough, nerds work the problem! For such remains real world drama, wherein complexity draws us in, no less than in fiction. Indeed, anyone at all finding themselves at all the less consumed, however yet remaining capably autonomous, may yet navigate this very hypertext for themselves and find their own way, quite without Totalitarian Interactivity leading them safely about by the nose. Further more, no one will be put off by writing style, even however rich and complex, that resonates personally. However there can be no guarantees, and your mileage may vary.



But quite aside from variable reader disposition and satisfaction, all things to all people, indeed as to any palpable thrust of specific authorial intent, here on FoolQuest.com there remains nothing less at stake in such desperately sought for collaboration among equals taking action together, than literally the most important known intrinsic social and intellectual human needs and stimulus appetites, so vastly and catastrophically underserved in our Existentially Absurd empty lives. And all indeed in accordance with the ancient wisdom of the greatest sages of old, as rediscovered under the very cutting edge of modern science. And so, gentle reader, can you relate? Are you overwhelmed, but in a good way? Am I your unmet friend?



To wit, in human interaction, what communication can there be more readily fulfilling of creativity, imagination and subversive transgression and rebellion than story crafting and counterpropaganda together? And in all of narrative, what vision can there be more alluring than that of business or project planning, bringing to bear the power of comrades in struggle summoning forth and taking the reigns of one's own destiny in disruptive innovation? Or shall we settle for anything less?


Alas that so far as execution, not everyone is very good at recruitment let alone implementation of group projects all from scratch. Indeed to begin with, some such notions are better, more fully planned, fleshed out and more practical than others. And so, gentle reader, you show me yours and I'll show you mine! Let's compare notes, gentle readers, and together begin undertaking no mere fireside pipedream, but the steady hard work at our own pace, of rigorously uncompromising honest feasibility study so crucial to joy and success. The key remains, that creativity must no longer isolate brilliance. Creativity can and Should be Social.

*

•	And here's a shocker: Cosmic context, master plan, the verity of my heart of hearts, and whole story in the wisdom of the
	ages, might elude, and never well reduce to, insipid bullet points!