the websurfer's journey

WARNING: Agenda hijack in progress!!

I am not actually the one here burying he lede! And it's all not my fault!

  

One way or another, 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.

    

And thus, into the present FoolQuest.com hypertext, the reader so quickly arrives at that proverbial fork in the road: Whether first to proceed together with yours truly. the author, upon howsoever lengthy digression in order to confront at some length, such seemingly intractable obstacle thrust upon me everywhere that I turn, or instead together to forge ahead on all that I yearn so desperately to engage, by clicking here.

And so, gentle reader, smile upon the present endeavor, and kindly do not perceive the protocols of communications struggle, directly following, as any so burdensome imperative or requirement, or indeed as arbitrary, which they are not. Rather, apprehend herein an offer, a value, an opportunity of outreach in likeminded spirit of friendship.

And just in case at any juncture, nevertheless all present exposition may even dawn as entirely belaboring of the obvious, therefore superfluous, and so much the better: Then the happy option remains, of returning to primary topic. And nothing would please me more! Alas otherwise, the author alone, yours truly, enjoys no such luxury as indeed simply skipping ahead. Because the following must be deemed, if not self evident beyond all further necessity of deliberation, then alas, entirely inevitable. 

clarity and frustration

Gentle reader, unmet friend, 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.

Because: Alas, psychological asymmetry, simply meaning that we are not so odd, but only strangers. That within our own minds, we access our own minds so voluminously and immediately, but by contrast, immediately glean so very little of one another's thoughts. Thus, everything ever expressed, even actually however poorly, nevertheless can make such perfect good sense to the message sender. And all because one already completely knows and fully understands all that one indeed intends to communicate. Or at least so often believes that one does. Hence the need of greater care together. And therein, Socratic Dialectic with earnest philosophical habits of clear thinking, predicates shared responsibility in all striving of communication. Not sycophantic socialization and toadying desperation merely to fit in socially. Not blame or shifting the burden upon either party, abandoned, as we have been, each and all, to our own devices and setup for failure.

Instead, 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. Because in case of the latter, what then would even be the point?

Moreover, response from sheer incomprehension, will never do any good. No uncomprehending response can ever be salient. Because, obviously, an uncomprehending response, can only be a reply to subjective incomprehension, never howsoever pertinent to actual intended message content.

Thus from incomprehension, no other response except as first of all, by together coherently addressing and seeking to remedy said incomprehension, can ever become at all actually relevant. Indeed, best via ongoing Miscommunication Competent Socratic Dialectical method of miscommunication detection and repair of whatever communications errors and ambiguities.

And thus the achievement of Intersubjectivity. 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).

Indeed surely to belabor the obvious, 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, indeed ensues, anon!

After all, authorial problem statement such as per my own particular and indeed simple forthright request for pertinent critique, herein remaining entirely so essential to knowledge work, creative solution finding, feasibility study and brainstorming together.

Because, if anything, only even the more meticulous deliberation together, remains ever fundamental in the very nature of such intrinsic fulfillment via 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 remain determinedly embarked upon some other gnosis entirely, and welcome to it! But not to digress (from the present digression, returning to primary topic).

Alas however, said request for pertinent critique is so consistently rejected out of hand. Either ignored, or directly rebuffed and even with such blatant and unremitting hostility and ill manners, such as that on the internet, no longer even shocks anyone anymore. As has so frequently been observed: The wonderful thing about the Internet,  is that just anyone can log on! And the awful thing about the Internet,  is that just anyone can log on!

And if anything, only even the more meticulous deliberation together, remains ever fundamental in the very nature of such intrinsic fulfillment via 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 remain determinedly embarked upon some other path entirely, and welcome to it!

never assume

Never taking the bait and snare merely of whatever invited inference, indeed from such cultural background as any reflex of common sense assumptions and expectations, let alone from the most ordinary civility, interest and empathy, all that, on second thought, really does not follow logically and therefore is not necessarily true in any given instance. Instead, and case in point:

Let us all take extra care ever to bear in mind that even merely attesting to, or actually so much as complaining, although perhaps even at all politely (and indeed entirely without acrimony as of what is called: derisive incomprehension), indeed of incomprehension, by no means and in no way whatsoever, of any logical necessity whatsoever, actually implies whatsoever even remotely the same agenda as actually and expressly requesting whatever desired or needful clarification. Let alone then truly paying interested attention to, and pouring over, whatever good faith response, or then to respond helpfully and seriously in turn.

Even worse, what can there be more flagrantly obnoxious among headgames, 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!

For nowadays more that ever, in the immortal words of Simone Weil: “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.” Nevertheless, accept no substitutes or workarounds. No mechanical and solitary productivity routines.

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.

subject, object and predicate

Indeed there remain so many all too common simple and complicated ways and kinds of communications failure, mistakes and ambiguities, and corresponding remedies each and all thereto. But just for most rudimentary example, the following question of message form, specifically of grammar, uniquely remains at the same time, also actually pertinent to subject matter or message content, beyond mere syntaxic pedantry:

What are the subject, object and predicate of any given sentence? In other words, specifically what takes action upon or produces effect upon specifically what else, and specifically how so? The subject and objects are nouns, and the predicate specifying an action taken or effect rendered, is a verb. For example: She [subject] kissed [predicate] him [object]. But in English grammar, even to be or to exist, will be denoted by a verb, something that one does. Being is doing, because doing is being: “Scooby-doobee-doo!”

And so, if indeed said predicate, is specifically the verb: to be, then the object will be a state of being even such as an emotion. For example: She [subject] was [predicate] happy [object]. Instead of any tangible entity or item, happiness, a state of being, specifically an emotion, indeed serving as the object in question.

These elements define fundamental comprehension of a sentence. And if for the message recipient, they turn out to differ from intention of the message sender, then miscommunication can be identified and rectified, handily, with only a  little friendly connection and diligence together. Would that be so terrible?

All thus by helping and abetting better individual reader comprehension, best to assist therefrom in rewriting more clearly for any future audience. Because, individually or in collaboration, writing is like photography: Easy to do, but difficult to do well. Indeed, alone or in collaboration, writing is rewriting, patient, hard work and never a waste of time.

But only guessing whatever might not be getting through, hit or miss, remains inefficient if not entirely ineffective and quite impossible, thereby only exacerbating confusion and exasperation. At least in the experience of yours truly, the author. And it may often remain quite difficult not to belabor whatever points, even unnecessarily, when left so bereft of specific indication regarding precisely whatever might remain so unclear in the first place, how so and why.

And so, and to reiterate, just in case at any juncture, nevertheless 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 nothing would please me more! Alas otherwise, the author alone, yours truly, enjoys no such luxury as indeed simply skipping ahead.

 hijacked agenda then fully addressed

So I am not actually the one here burying he 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 scrolling down or skipping ahead by clicking here.