Languishing in Language

There are a number of people who cannot effectively communicate, but limp along in some manner, managing to navigate life through whatever means they can. Yet they can only do so until their methods are challenged and that system breaks down. This type of person is a time-bomb, an accident waiting to happen. The trigger is an encounter with a person or a problem that requires being able to communicate in a way that they lack or who has a similar deficit. In this case, if there is no common term for discussion, information missing, or there isn't a word or concept that can be substituted, then it creates confusion and possibly anger. Instead of being able to use language and resolve a situation, the inability to communicate creates the problem, and there can be no solution until all parties are able to meet that basic need. Given this basic premise and truth, why is it that we are not better at communicating? We know that it is essential, yet this problem remains nearly unaddressed and unchanged. A simple example: if one says, "chair", those around may think: "recliner", another "rocker" and the last "wing back", they are talking about the same subject, but have different pictures in mind. When this reaches the point where they are talking about the different aspects of their "chair", there will be misunderstanding since they are actually discussing completely different objects. To overcome or prevent this is simply a matter of accuracy and knowledge. We should all be familiar with the words being used and know how to use them properly. This in addition to some practice and dedication would go a long way to solving the problem. It does require us to have some proficiency in utilizing our own language, and agreement on the basic components of the same. It is important to note that which language is less important than both the desire to communicate and the agreement on the actual words or language to use. After those points are addressed it will be much simpler going, and the basis of agreement will remain so revising is simpler in future as the framework is set.

I would like to leave you with an example from Douglas Adams' "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" that illustrates how specific and accurate knowledge can help, here in describing rain: "types 33 (light pricking drizzle which made the roads slippery), 39 ( heavy spotting), 47 to 51 (vertical light drizzle through to sharply slanting light to moderate drizzle freshening), 87 and 88 (two finely distinguished varieties of vertical torrential downpour), 100 (post-downpour squalling, cold), all the seastorm types between 192 and 213 at once, 123, 124, 126, 127 (mild and intermediate cold gusting, regular and syncopated cab-drumming), 11 (breezy droplets), and now his least favourite of all, 17. Rain type 17 was a dirty blatter battering against his windscreen so hard that it didn't make much odds whether he had his wipers on or off."

Food v. Sex

It is a fascinating subject, people's attitudes about normal bodily functions. For example, what if we were to have a stigma attached to eating such as we have for sex? Eating, like sex, is something that maintains the species (on an individual basis rather than as a whole), is nearly universal, and has dysfunctions attached, so I think there is an equivalence between them. If eating were considered strictly a private, intimate, and even taboo subject, what would people have to do? Would people have much the same reactions to witnessing a person eating as they do now to sexual behaviour? Imagine what it would mean.

People currently take classes on how and what to eat, nutrition classes that help them understand better what their bodies need and how to take care of them-but even the preparation of food would be risque in this scenario. Children would have to be taught that they don't put things in their mouth in public, that they shouldn't even put their finger in their mouth as it could remind someone of the act of eating. People would have isolated rooms for the act of eating. Accidentally walking into the eating room when someone was in there EATING would be embarrassing and could be made scary or traumatizing. All these things over a simple, natural activity we all engage in and require for various reasons, as well as one we should enjoy.

Yet we instead have this taboo around sex, and how has this improved our society and condition as a race? It is unfortunate that we have such a problem with the subject, even to the point of causing dysfunction.

The education children receive currently in "sex ed", if that is even the term for it anymore, as it has generally been "no-sex" education in this country. The government has gone so far as to deny funding for people who actually want to put some education about sex in there. Maybe teaching them the things they need to know, even though their parents are afraid of it is not such a bad thing. Maybe a universal minimum education should include some direction on how to take care of and understand our own bodies. We all need to know how to protect ourselves from many things, and take care of ourselves in many ways, yet this vital area is completely ignored. Many of the same people who limit sexual learning want to teach children all about guns and war, a much more perverse thing, and one which does actually have a demonstrable negative and lasting psychic impact. Just ask the millions dead and suffering from physical and psychological wounds because of it. The only way people suffer from sex is if it's forced, manipulative, or just unsafe in some way. Which is the same with all activities, even eating.

Going home, going home.

It has been entertaining to follow the similarities between my two classes this term. For instance, the concept that habits shape personality over time; what one does is what one becomes (I think this may have been the idea behind a number of "undercover cop" movies, but I'll leave that). This relates to the "Virtue Ethics Theory" of Aristotle we discussed, in which a person has to consistently demonstrate traits to be a "good person". I appreciate this myself because it has been my practise to not to be confrontational, but rather allow situations to run their course and let people deal with their own consequences. Although I had tried to be conscientious and not allow harm to befall anyone in those circumstances, of course. Even though I frequently play "devils' advocate", this can actually be rather difficult after years of not speaking up. I find myself questioning whether I should say something, or if it's appropriate to do so, all the time. I didn't think it would be so hard to do something that seems so simple and banal.

I begin to think that, "we can never go home again." There are certainly events which are traumatic and obviously life-altering, but even the banal, everyday things that go on have their effects. I could use myself (as above) as an example again, but think another will do nicely: you. How many of you come from another part of the country, or even another part of the world? Think of how living in this place has changed you: the way you drive, what you think of as 'expensive'. Do you feel different than you did before you moved? When you visit "back home" do you really feel like nothing has changed? I would say, rather, that it has simply not changed as much as you have; you may even feel that it is a bit quaint, that you know so much more and have seen things that you never would have if you had stayed there. The point being that even though you don't feel it, you change every day, and every change is irrevocable, you cannot unlearn what you have experienced. All we can do is decide what to do with what we have gone through.

Something to think about

Recently I had a conversation with someone who gave me a much better explanation about the need for people to stay in contact with their own family. Family is the first social group, and often the most important and influential in our lives. As such, it serves as a model for many of the interactions in the rest of our lives. Now, there are a lot of families that are so dysfunctional that to stay is unbearable and/or dangerous. I'm not advocating that a person continue to live with their kin if they feel threatened or endangered. Some folks think that since kids can't escape, since they are stuck, it means they can do whatever they want to kids, or that family is for beating. Neither is true, and there is no way to accept the thinking, "you are a child and so need to be hurt to get better." When families go wrong, the victimized individual needs to know it is not their own fault.

In the end, what I'm taking from this persons' comments is that family are our model for the world, and if we cannot find some way to accept the family we have, we will have trouble with the world as well. This means we should find a way to be ourselves, while maintaining a balance with our own families, however we can do that. Not just to be a 'part of the family", but to learn from our experiences within the family. If we never deal with the issues we grow up with, we never overcome them; they will be repeated and become a major obstacle to us ever living happily. Of course, by this I am meaning that we cannot run from ourselves-our conditioning and training-and we have to confront our problems to beat them and become better.

"Sold Out" or "Sell Out"?

I have often heard people comment on this or that person or group "selling out". In this sense meaning they aren't as "cool" as they were (generally because they are now successful) or they are doing something different than before. This may be another contrivance to make us feel better about our lack of creativity or, seen another way, a division to keep people distracted from an underlying tension. I will hold that it is due to a clash of fundamental values that the parties hold. The very nature of capitalism demands that items are produced for profit; this holds true even for artists. Artists have a desire to create and display or distribute their art. This means that anyone with a message they want to transmit has to "sell" it to do so; as do those who simply wish to live and create art. The artist will feel a "cheapening" of their art, with cause, as there is a grain of truth to people thinking art is not meant to be sold. Yet there is nothing in that which says we should vilify the artist for doing so. It is natural to want to create and, once created, to share that creation with others. It is also natural to want to survive and prosper; but to do so in a capitalist culture, one must have capital. So here we have another instance of "blaming the victim", where artists are disparaged for doing what is natural inside a system that is not.

See previous blog, on artists v. entertainers of 20July06, for more.