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.

The Law of the People, or Law of the Out-Land-ish

It is an interesting fact that law is not developed in a vacuum, that it is dependent upon the vagaries of popular opinion and cultural context. This is important to remember because we are often told that Law is impartial and Justice is absolute. How can this be if our courts can be swayed by the outcry of the populace? When judges are answerable to the citizenry? Could we possibly claim judicial impartiality when the judges have to bring their own perspective and viewpoint to the bench?

We are in fact blind in thinking that Justice ever could or even should be blinkered. What good is law that does not see the human face of those it would judge? How can it be "Just" to convict a person of a capital offense regardless of circumstance? What about age? Will we kill our own children for their innocent mistakes with the same laws that murder adult citizens who have premeditated a murder? Why is it I can only list that one capital offense? Why is rape or perjury not punishable by death? This makes no sense, to have judges to arbit punishment while at the same time taking away any differentiation they can make. There is no judgement involved in applying an algorithm: X crime = Y punishment. There is no justice in not differentiating between passionate and premeditated, youth and adult, cruel and competent.

More Unedited Ranting

I recently sent this off to my representatives in the nation's capitol in hopes of illuminating and influencing them somewhat on the issue of energy:

I would very much like to offer some information along with my opinion about a couple issues surrounding this topic. First, let me acknowledge that I was alerted to the possibility of using coal-to-liquid-fuel (GTL) technology by MoveOn.org, and was surprised that this is open for discussion. I can only hope that it signals a change in direction that something of this nature is being considered. Secondly, I have recently read Joshua Tickell's book "Biodiesel America" and if you haven't read it or taken advantage of his knowledge and insight in some manner, I strongly urge you to do so. He has succinctly very well laid out information and choices, as well as evaluations of many fuel sources. Next, I very much believe that we have taken too many haphazard steps in securing sustainable, clean sources for energy and fuels. Consequently, we find ourselves in quite a bind and seeking more desperately than if we had begun a serious, earnest quest for alternatives sooner. Hopefully we have learned from this and will take the time to evaluate the possibilities and outcomes of the options we have at this time. It is clear that a number of these are untenable, that we need more than they have to offer. To whit, BioDiesel, GTL, and Ethanol are all fuels we can use and control which, with proper oversight, can be ours into the future. Likewise, Biomass, Geothermal, Wind, Solar, and Hydro power sources can be used in conjunction with each other to meet our needs. I list these specifically so that it is clear that I am referring to our renewable, sustainable resources. Finally, we need to diversify and decentralize our grid both to make it more reliable and less subject to failure (through attack or overuse), as well as to keep consumers closer and more involved in the regulation and production of our own energy.

How Different....

For the longest time I thought that to be different, one needed to demonstrate a difference, to make it obvious for all to see. I thought one had to act crazy, look really weird, or have something noticeably off about ones' self to set one apart and make others aware of it. It's crap, it is just a way to justify needing attention, craving to be noticed. I was younger, and I didn't really know the rationalisation behind why I thought that was the way to individuality. What was happening is that I was fooling myself into thinking that, in order to cover the truth from myself. I didn't want to accept or admit that I was looking for someone to accept me. It was a way to test people, to see if they would see me through all the "difference" and still want to know me. Once I saw this, I was highly amused at the irony: I wanted people to see me, even though I was disguising myself. I wanted them to decode who I actually was, and like me even though I couldn't just be me and let them know me.

In fact, being "different" has become mainstream, something that everyone is trying to do, because it's "in". I think in part this is because there are so many of us now, we are so crowded together and homogenized. Being different truly only means that you are so, not that anyone else needs to know; there is no badge that one wears, and being seen as so does not make it any more valid. The only true way to be different-to have that actual uniqueness-is to be ones' self. There is no one else in the world who can do that, and that is truly different.

Discriminating Tastes

Let me offer one simple post here, everyone can follow this and I promise I'll be straightforward. Discrimination is discrimination, prejudice is prejudice, and bigotry is bigotry-and they are all the same. It's very obvious that whatever you call it, "reverse-racism" or "double-back flip, half-gainer", however you adorn it, it is what it really is. It doesn't matter if it's "reverse-" or "positive-", because that's just one more way of having a prejudice in the very language of discrimination. Being race/class/sex/etc.-ist is discriminatory and being bigoted is having a prejudice. None of it is good or acceptable and there's no need to complicate it.

That's it.

Stockholm is Everywhere.

I will argue that what has been described as "Stockholm Syndrome" is a common and necessary part of society, indeed a vital part of being human in any culture. It is widely recognised that the mechanisms behind this psychological condition apply to not only hostage situations but commonplace, everyday relationships as well. The reason for the ubiquity and necessity of this dissociation of mind and reality is twofold: there are societal forces coercing us to accept lifestyles which it also pushes us to resist and there is a natural predisposition towards insanity in the human psyche.

Throughout evolutionary history there have been adaptations, made by individuals and groups, which maintain homeostasis with the surrounding environment. That includes other peoples, other societies, and so there had to be a way to overcome the essential differences in encountering these foreign cultures. To whit, if one were to join another culture, by choice or by force, one needs to have some way of dealing with the new expectations and duties. This is important since the taking of prisoners and slaves is historically near-unanimous throughout all societies. The ability to empathize and excuse one's captors is vital in situations where escape is not an option. Not only does this facilitate physical self-preservation, but also as a mental measure. The constant rebellion against a situation, such as a rejection of ones' status or role, will lead to an increasing pressure upon the mind of the person. This will become unbearable if that individual cannot change that situation, even if only within his or her own mind. Imagine you believe yourself to be better than everyone around you and yet you are treated worse because of societal expectations. That belief will persist within your own mind, inescapably reminding you that you are not fulfilling your duty or potential. Not losing one's mind from all these conflicting stresses and messages is indispensable, especially in the daily life of modern times.

I mention the inherent instability of the human mind, and I do need to explain. I mean by this the capacity for deception: lies, to self and others. The ability to deceive others can be seen as an evolutionary adaptation, something that will contribute to survival. The capacity for self-deception, however, is different. It would seem to actually be contrary to ones' interest in most cases. To not be sure that ones' perceptions are accurate, means that one can never be sure that what one thinks is real actually is. This seems to be a maladaption, unless we factor in the nature of human culture, where this ability becomes useful and, as I've said, necessary.

Defeat Is In the Air

There are times when I've felt like a loser: like I didn't know what to do, that I owed something to someone else, or "they are right and I am wrong." These are all ways that I've felt less than myself-basically feeling sorry for myself. Of course this isn't all the time, I'm like most others in that I have "highs and lows", but I have found something about those low times. When I feel like there is no hope, or I've screwed up beyond redemption, like some other is better than me or has "shown me up", it's not the end until I think it is.

What I'm talking about here is being in a state of helplessness, or feeling vanquished. The concept of defeat is only with in the acceptance of the confines of win/lose, or "zero-sum", thinking. One can only be defeated if one believes in it. When you refuse to stop struggling even though you lie broken and crying at the feet of those who wish you harm, when your mind is still saying, "I'll get through this, I can make it!", you are still winning. When you refuse to slink off with your head down, when someone has taken their best shot and you simply carry on, there is nothing of defeat about you. How can you be beaten when you don't give up? It is only in your attitude, thinking that "once X happens, then all is lost" is just a way of cheating one's self. In essence, the only way to be beaten is to think so; the only one who can defeat you is you. Once again, it is thinking that makes reality and truth.

"It's Perfect!"

Sometimes we may be tempted to wait to do something: to improve the item, take stock more fully, or study the problem and find a better solution. If we put off doing it until it's a better time, we risk not doing it at all. It becomes a trap we fail to recognize, and we end up not accomplishing anything. I imagine that many artists, leaders, scientists, and presenters have been dissatisfied with what they put out. I could even picture Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. being unhappy about the content of one of his speeches, as amazing as they are to this day. It is easy for someone to find fault and nitpick their own work, to think they can do better. It isn't important, because if it were any more refined it might seem unnatural, or it may fly over another persons' comprehension. It is better to do the best one can at the time and go with what one has. The only reason this is here for you to read is that I finally gave up editing and just posted it! It is better to make a move and trust in, and hope for, the best than stand rooted and not accomplish anything. Don't wait until it's perfect, because it never gets there.

A Series of Rules, or Rulers

Society is nothing more than a collection of expectations, things that have come together to shape who we are and what we think. It would not occur to many of us to live another way, to have a different approach to living. It may seem odd to consider as anything other than the natural way of things having ones' life in two parts: "a job" and "life outside of work" . Yet things were not always this way, indeed, even the concept of money is relatively new. Life would continue if drastic changes were made, it was in the past when people lived simpler lives and it will be different in the future, in some way. Lives not filled with toiling at one thing all day, something that had no relation to one's life. Rather, in the past people were constantly connected with all aspects of their lives, and were not dependent on only one thing to sustain them, instead they were intimately familiar with everything around them. Life was filled with connections, between people and land and the world. I do, in fact, question those who think or say they would prefer to live in another time period, given how acculturated we are. Though there are still some remaining who continue historical lifestyles in parts of the world, and some vestiges of it in our own culture. I think people are beginning to figure out this separation is why they feel hollow and isolated, and how to reestablish themselves in the world. For a fun treatment on this, read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn.