Communication Breakdown is Inevitable

I said previously (in my post Apart-ment of 21Dec04): It doesn't matter what I'm here to say anyway, because you might not understand it, what matters is what you are going to get out of reading it.  This is the constant limitation of communication and an issue which we come up against every day: the division between what is said and what is understood.  Our own thoughts are often a mystery, as when we find ourselves laughing hysterically at grave news, so it is difficult enough to be clear with ourselves.  Add to this the notion of communicating these garbled and convoluted notions to another who has the same problems.  The other person has to be able to listen through their own limitations and interference.  They need to be able to get out of their own preconceptions, judgements, and emotions to reassemble the ideas they are hearing.  Say we're making plans for a trip, "We'll get up early, clean up, and go for a short hike."  What do "early", "clean", and "short" mean in this context?  Certainly different things if we're camping out than when at home.  Yet somehow we end up taking for granted that others know what we're saying.  One of the most annoying things to me is the phrase "you know", mainly because it completely counterproductive.  If someone uses "you know" in recounting an experience there is very little chance I will, at any point, actually know what they are talking about.  As a verbal tic it is rivaled only by the word "like", when this is used outside of comparisons.  As I don't mean to turn this into a rant, I will not belabour the point.  Suffice to say, since I wish to be understood I use as many adjectives, nouns, and complete sentences as possible when talking.  I still remember the example I heard as a young child in class, which was to think of a chair and describe it.  Just the simple concept of "chair" evoked so many different types!  Amplify that to include the myriad nuanced peculiarities in our everyday discussions.  Unless we're painfully explicit when discussing these things, we can't be understood.  I think this is why it is so remarkable and memorable when we feel listened to and heard.  We know how difficult it is and we value it when someone else gives it to us.

Trying Their Fuedal Best

I'm interested in fantasy and people's choices in what they like to imagine.  As creatures capable of untruth what we choose to lie about can be very informative.  In this case, a popular area of fiction is devoted to the collapse of civilisation and the resultant aftermath.  It further seems a recent trend, one divergent from past fictions of isolated disasters, local terrors, and removed tragedies.  I don't know of many post-apocalyptic stories from history.  The only ones that come to mind are myths about floods, sinking islands, and the retribution of the gods.  The stories nowadays revolve around technological collapse, resource exhaustion, biological threats (zombies and super-viruses), and large meteorite strikes.  I recall a time when jargon like "extinction level event" was practically unknown.  This trend may have started in the 1980's with widespread concern about nuclear warfare and the resultant fallout.  Nowadays regular citizens are concerned about space debris and genetic manipulation.  This sort of threat, while incomprehensible in scope, effects everyone.  It feels personal because there is no way to escape it and so we would all be effected by it.  What happens after everything we know is destroyed?  What is left after our technologies fail?  Finally, what does it mean?  The farther we rise, the higher we have to fall from.  This seems to be a central concern of this new genre.

As a tenacious species we look for ways to overcome all obstacles to our survival.  It may well happen that we exhaust the Earth's energy reserves and survivors are reduced to pre-electrical/pre-petroleum technologies.  What could we then do?  How could we, as a species, continue?  I know a group of people who engage in the real-life re-enactment of the Medieval period (Society for Creative Anachronism or S.C.A.).  This is the other half of my inspiration for the post.  The S.C.A. was founded and continues as an educational group, and I understand their mission to be that of preserving history as a living thing.  I am not suggesting these good people are delusional or preparing for the collapse of civilisation.  It is fun and enjoyable to study and participate in these things for those individuals.  There is the possibility-however remote-that the skills and knowledge preserved by them would be needed, not that I wish to find out.

In the end, I think these two, unrelated things simply indicate a certain amount of dissatisfaction with present circumstances.  I think these and other factors demonstrate that people don't feel comfortable with all these technologies and just the amount of stuff.  If that is the case, I can certainly agree with the notion.

Occupy Your Democracy

Okay, granted I'm a late arrival in commenting on the movement, but I've been an armchair cheerleader this whole time. I support all those out there, in various countries around the world, who are taking their time and energy to stand or sit against the 1%.  I am also writing to urge everyone to not lose focus or energy around this issue.  Real changes can only be realised if we keep pushing, even after they say we've won or that they can't give any more.  I look back at indentured servitude, slavery, serfdom, rule by divine mandate, physical or financial force and wonder what could arise from a real change in our system. Can we eliminate the inequality? Is it possible that we might only take back some of the ground we've lost in the past 30 years?  Either way, it would be better than leaving it in the same hands that have limited and controlled us all this time.

My suggestion in this case is that we "act as if" instead.  Rather than only getting those things that we are allowed by the "powers that be", we should create our own system and act it out.  If your business requires that you cover piercings and tattoos or wear a uniform, don't.  The 99% reaches down to management, it reaches down at least to the upper offices and echelons of large companies.  Don't fire those under you for stupid rules that even you don't agree with.  Take back your time.  Be more human and allow yourself to enjoy life free from the oppressive tyranny of work, work, work.  As long as the majority can agree on these things, we can implement the changes we desire!

Competition, Saviours, and the Fate of Us All

There is a persistent idea that there is one answer: an individual, a correct path, or "way".  I see this in religions, with their "one true" gods and messiahs, in medicine, where disease A gets treatment B, and in government, where the answer to any and every problem is more and stricter laws being passed.  This single-solution thinking leaves us vulnerable to snake oil salesmen when we pin all our hopes on this or that all-in-one device. This becomes magical thinking when we believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that one answer can be applied to every situation. It's also self-sabotaging when we expect only one thing from ourselves, one way of being. We are all complex and experiential animals who vary in reaction and ability, sometimes from minute to minute.  We are capable of both amazing generosity and destructive selfishness.  We can be both saints and sinners, brave and cowardly, knowledgable and ignorant.  These are all just parts of being human.  Expecting one without the other-thinking a person is only either "good" or "bad"-is childish.  I am reminded of a phrase I heard years ago. I think many of us have heard of a "silver bullet" which eliminates a mythic problem. The real problem is neither of them exists; I mean neither the werewolves nor the "magic" bullet solution. The phrase which I heard is "silver buckshot" because there isn't one "bullet" that will dispel the "monsters" we need to deal with. Rather, by taking a larger-scale approach of putting a number of holes in the problem using different methods will we be able to truly and realistically solve these problems.  In my judgement, single-solution thinking is destructive and deceptive, there is no one size that fits all. It is not about having the right answer, or even one that everyone can agree on.

I don't claim to have "the answer", or at least I should not-especially after this post.  What I try to do is make observations and hope to instigate discussion. As individual and unique as every one is, as every individual is a universe unto themselves, I don't believe there can be such a thing as "one way".

Totally Brilliant Idea (Patent Pending)

In a flash of insight I had today the best idea of my life, and I've decided to share it with you here because I'm very excited about it.  This harkens back to the series of posts I did on capitalism (09-10), which I'm sure you are familiar with. What I will do is to get an appropriately-trained genegineer with an adequately-stocked laboratory to alter the makeup of the bacteria for the most common illness (the "common cold") and then patent that organism!  That would mean that every person who catches a cold will have to prove that it isn't mine or pay me royalties for usage of it!  Thank you, SCOTUS!

I had recently been doubting my genius, but I feel vindicated now.