Reception

We have thought about reception quite a bit after the last document was completed. Reception has been a tricky idea for us because reception needs to work without qualification. But then wondered why we insisted that the lack qualification should be a minimum criteria. And then we decided to vary the model a little bit.

Sure, reception needs to work in a common way for most people. But what is the bar for this commonality to be set? How common can common be without being completely generic? This is a matter of considerable debate because this bar of commonality defines what it means to be a person for us. We hold this bar very seriously. If humans still pretend to have a moral compass, this bar of commonality would be its needle.

So reception is a multi-variate process, and the receiver's qualification is one of these variables. The transmission holds the other set of variables that matter but these don't matter here.

Intelligence of the receiver is a parameter that seems to often come into play. What is intelligence? Is intelligence any different from intelligent behaviour? Can intelligence be possessed or only accessed through its enactment? What is the relationship between rationality, irrationality and intelligence? These questions assume that each of these words represent a static base of meaning and that each time we use these words, we are actually alluding to the same sentiment. But this is not true. These words and the syntax they represent have a differential relationship with the flux. They are only pointing in relative directions. These relative positions depend on the current position in which you find yourself. These words are like compasses. The language we use has many inbuilt compasses.

The extent of our vocabulary we can be unshackle to meaning and embed into the dynamic of fieldwork actually measures the distance we are able to travel from the centre of the bubble of language that we live in.

In the course of a conversation, which words have been mounted in a read/write mode and which have been mounted in a standard form can be discerned by the receptor.

This discernment happens through figuring the patterns of use and the general context of the sharpness of the established linguistic construct.

But what if this discernment does not happen? What if the sharpness of a language loses itself in the confusion of an ambiguous lingual system.

Acts cannot be absolute and their strength is often the ability to be flexible and respond to the expectations of the other acts.

To deal with lesser degrees of sharpness sometimes the adoption of a less specific vocabulary is necessary. This allows conversations to happen without the necessary pre-qualification of the participants in the conversation.