Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work theory The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

The Buddhist principle of skill in means and theorising communication

I was struck recently that my teenage encounter with the Buddhist principle of skills-in-means was the start of an interest in communication which has increasingly defined my research over the last decade. As Edward Conze puts it, this refers to “the ability to bring out the spiritual potentialities of different people by statements or actions which are adjusted to their needs and adapted to their capacity for comprehension”. If I understand correctly, it foregrounds effective communication (in the sense of bringing about the realisation of spiritual potentials of others) instead of ultimate truths which may not be easily communicable. It highlights the purposes of communication rather than simply the content of communication, opening up a space in which this can be modulated to better suit the specific character of different contexts and different audiences. It suggests to me a sense of repertoire, the need to cultivate a range of modes of expression, in order to communicate with others in a way which is potentially transformative. This in turn implies an understanding of contexts and the people within them, as well as what this means for how we modulate our message. It intrigues me that so much of how I theorise communication was latent within my teenage musings about this principle after I first encountered it.