The following are some details about Larry’s dialog behavior, potentially useful for those attempting dialog with Larry.
The mechanics of Larry’ verbal communication are poor. He has no teeth and his speech can be blurred. With attention to the task, he can speak more clearly. His hearing is poor, but will wear headphones for online communication. On the phone he uses a speaker phone. His hearing aides help (not with cell phone), but much of his problem is comprehension.
Today, much of what is said on TV he misses, even with hearing aides. He has difficulty with strong accents. He has no difficulty with some speakers, others may result in great difficulty.
Larry has great difficulty with linear conversation and dialog, whether visual or verbal, synchronous or asynchronous. Yet, a vigorous dialog with a friend on relevant topics is one of Larry’s most enjoyable experiences. They are often exhausting and seldom go for more than two hours – at a stretch. However, Larry has had fruitful intermittent dialog with friends extending over long weekends.
Larry/nuet is programmed to reply to emails and comment to online posts. However, there is far more than he can reply to – and many get postponed and then forgotten. When he does reply to emails, he usually shifts into a flow and nuet explicates/channels on issues often well beyond the topic of the email being replied to. The email is often BCCed to a list of others who may be interested. The “personal” connection/relationship of his replies is often blunted by this – and the email replies can be long. At this time Larry receives very few replies to these BCC emails, but he doesn’t know whether they are read by not replied to, or ignored.
Larry/nuet’s conceptual apparatus is a sysnet – both a system and a network of nested, fractal-like structured ideas-in-ideas-in-ideas. It is continually emerging. At any time an input will trigger an insight – a sudden re-organization of nuet’s “knowledge structure”. These insights can be disruptive to dialog, but can also be highly contributory to dialog – when all parties are prepared to embrace insights.
Larry speaks (and writes) as if channelling nuet (his whole being, his inner woven, emergent wrld). Larry hears his speech at the same time others do, he is not aware before of what he will say or write. Larry/nuet is often aware of the inadequacy of an utterance, and may attempt to clarify or elaborate – which sometimes leads to a seemingly incomprehensible wandering to his listeners. Occasionally a new thought may emerge mid sentence.
Nuet may attempt to explicate on a theme, moving Larry into a “story telling” mode. Larry seems to be partly in trance and is usually not sensitive to his listeners during the storytelling. Many report to gain from these “stories”. Sometimes these may be stories about incidents in Larry’s life (never from remembrances, but more as a story about someone else).
For Larry/nuet, after each node/sentence in a dialog, there are many good alternatives for the next node/sentence.
Some refer to clarification for the sentence: glossary definitions for words in this specific context, meta-contexts assumed for the meaning of the sentence, many additional sentences to make the meaning clearer, cues seeking specific response from the listener/reader, etc.
The chain of utterances sometimes have obvious coherence, other time it feels like Brownian (random) motion.
Most of this “abstraction” is not in the figure (re ground of gestalt) of Larry’s conscious experientials, but do lurk in the background – parts often peek out and frustrate Larry. Larry mainly hears his talk in the groked gestalt of his subconscious contexts. Think of this as a background aura of understanding, where patterns are not explicit. Humans have great difficulty describing this in language, or even art.
Other persons have this “type of thinking” to different degrees, and have devised methods for handling the dilemma of choice. Brain studies may imply that such choices are energy draining, and thus are often suppressed and the dialog follows a routine.
Much conversation is more a dance than a process with an objective.
Technology and techniques are needed to assist in improving human to human sharing.