kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca:
> Check the archives. If there isn't an anticipation of understanding, then
> we're not talking about communication. See, I just enacted an idealization.
> I anticipate that you'll understand what I just wrote, I can't help it -
> its structural, even if I'm lying.
Charles Brown:
> CB: There's a sense in which the proposition " communication is
> done with the purpose or anticipation of understanding" is quite
> trivial. Of course, communication is done trying to be understood.
> What is the more subtle or profound significance of this ? How is
> it not a truism ?
I believe it is incorrect. Communication is often intended to decrease or eliminate understanding. Unless by accident or divinely given, communication must have arisen as a method of affecting the behavior of others, which will often be unrelated to the other's understanding. Even rather primitive organisms can be observed practicing deception.