As I was preparing for the sixth annual symposium I wondered why we communicate.  My conclusion was we do it 1.) to be polite, 2.) to attract attention, 3.) to inform, and 4.) to prompt action.

Shouldn't we, therefore, be more concerned about producing the desired outcome than about the means?  Isn't it sufficient if "symbols and emoticons" are effective and efficient in producing the desired outcome?   I note, in passing, that symbols have a much deeper and richer communications history than does the language I'm using to write this reply.

The equivalent of symbols and emoticons enter our communication every day.  Think of the jargon associated with various professions.

The crux of Agnieszka's post, it seems to me, is the role of communications in critical thinking.  I'm reminded here of the following from John Andrew Holmes.

"Speech is conveniently located midway between thought and action, where it often substitutes for both."

I interpret Holmes use of the word "speech" as representing communications of any kind.

We increasingly need to get from thought to action in shorter and shorter amounts of time in order to cope with the increasing pace of unpredictable change in the world around us.  If "symbols and emoticons" help us do that, so be it.  And if "symbols and emoticons" help us sense and interpret the world around us better than the language I'm using to write this reply, so be it.

My sense is that communications, in all its various forms, has changed through time to meet the demands of the time.  And that communications has been an essential enabler of patterns of thought that have also changed through time to meet the demands of the time.  Or maybe it's been the other way around.  Or maybe communications and critical thinking alternate as drivers of progress and as "first responders" to the demands of the times.

Anyway, I think I'll stop now and read a good book.

Reply to James Drogan