This is not what I meant by 'direct communication'. I just meant: to say what it is that you mean. Is metaphor the best way to discuss anything? Maybe it is.
Romance isn't the only thing we as a people talk about. But, who needs it? We all do.
And kudos to Tooter Turtle. I admire the guy. Tough journey, and dangerous for sure...but so worth it!
Why do you suppose language ever evolved at all? Do you really think it "evolved" so that we could "communicate" and "share" information equally?
Nietzsche postulates in "The Dawn" (I think?) that language developed as a result of some clan leader's needing to give orders to other hunter-gatherers. If you didn't do what he said... well... you got a bonk on the head. Justice consisted of whatever the stronger man said it was.
(I'm ad-libing now) Then the first woman came along with a "better" idea as to what would work. The clan leader should have bonker HER on the head, but instead, he listened to her, and her idea worked better. He then "promoted" her to babbling witch/seer, got her "high" on mineral vapours and set her upon a tripod/altar... and everyone soon came to listen to what SHE had to say instead of listening to their leader's commands. Justice was no longer based upon strength, but "merit". This confused everyone, and the clan leader had to do a LOT more head-bonking from that point forward.
Pretty soon, EVERYONE started to have "better ideas" of their own and completely ignored the "stupid" clan leader's commands. They all began to suffer from a syndrome known as "The Rage of Achilles" and a new concept of justice based upon "equality" was born.
And when we meet each other on the street, is it just for me to give you commands for you to follow? Or should I give you reasons as to "why" you should do something? And which method will likely earn me your resentment more quickly?
Now that you understand the "genealogy" of language... you can perhaps comprehend the origins of the male-female paradigm of conflict.
Men practiced as children and came to understand the "expediency" inherent in the "head bonking" concept of justice. Women just don't "get it" as they were seldom in the position of strength necessary to benefit from it. ;-)
Now Rousseau thought that he could conquer atavism through education. But that meant that children would have to be raised in a manner "different" than their ancestors. He postulated as to what that upbringing might look like in his classical trreatise on education entitled 'Emile'. But even in his system, men and women are given 'different' (but complimentary) upbringings.
But even so, that "education" must begin at birth...
Rousseau, Emile (Book I)
[13:] Plants are fashioned by cultivation, man by education. If a man were born tall and strong, his size and strength would be of no good to him until he had learned to use them; they would even harm him by preventing others from wanting to assist him.[note 3] Left to himself he would die of misery before he knew his needs. We lament the helplessness of infancy; we fail to perceive that the human race would have perished had not man begun by being a child.
[14:] We are born weak, we need strength; we are born lacking everything, we need aid; we are born stupid, we need judgment. All that we lack at birth and that we need when we are grown is given by education.
[15:] This education comes to us from nature, from men, or from things. The inner growth of our organs and faculties is the education of nature, the use we learn to make of this growth is the education of men, and what we gain by our experience of our surroundings is the education of things.
[16:] Thus we are each taught by three masters. The pupil in whom their diverse lessons conflict is poorly raised and will never be in harmony with himself; he in whom they all agree on the same points and tend towards the same ends goes straight to his goal and lives consistently. The latter is well raised.
Language doesn't permit clear communications. In every word we utter lies an element of falsity, of making up and make believe. A dialectic of language yields two subtypes of letters, vowels and consonants. Do you know what each type signifies? Then we have "syllables". Do you know what they signify? Then we arrive at a word. And then we string these words together in a particular order and require these sentences to contain a certain structure, contain certain required elements, and follow an accepted rule structure.
A music of tones, mutes, harmonies, rhythyms and scales would be more clear and "intelligible" to an ancient than the babbling of a modern prose journalist.
Now I have my own crackpot theory as to the significance of vowels and consonants. I also have a pretty good idea as to the reasons for them and how they function when combined into syllables. And from THAT point on, I could probably tell you a pretty convincing story as to how they are used and stored in the human mind (the general drift of which you could arrive at by reading Freud's "Psychopathology of Everyday Life".) And of course, tone, tempo, etc. ALL have a direct bearing on the clarity and efficacy of oral communications/punctuation in the written.
Language doesn't permit clear communications. In every word we utter lies an element of falsity, of making up and make believe. --------
I don't agree with this. I think that it is possible to tell the truth, to the best of our ability. I know that when we attempt to tranlate our thoughts into words, more often than not we lose the essence of what we are conveying. But I don't consider that lying. Language just doesn't capture everything we have inside of us.
Me? I'm at a loss more often than not. I try to not feel obligated to say anything. ---------
Because...it's not MY job to take out the other guy's mouldy garbage. ;-) Nor is it his job to take out mine. Is it my desire? Sometimes. But I must have the freedom of "no" before I can say "yes", and vice/versa. No obligations free me up to forge my own path and not revert to what I THINK "the other" expects of me, thereby being small.
In the areas of married life at which I am expert, I am the boss. No one can mow a lawn like I can. ;-)
But when it comes to matter of health (my wife is an R.N.) or the welfare of my children, I defer to one with greater knowledge and experience.
My wife and I concentrate on developing "complimentary" skill sets. And in that manner, the whole of our marriage has become MUCH greater than either stand-alone part.
Not that there isn't a little "generation from opposites" every now and again. There's plenty of that... but there's also much beauty in the quieter moments.
I don't see where you are being made small. I think you've been sold a bill of feminist goods.
Being a paid labourer is hardly "worth" the rewards of an unpaid mother. And if you think it is, then you're crazy. -------------
Well, you don't know everything about me and my life, which is why you don't understand why I feel small at times. It's not about motherhood. I don't think it has much to do with the collective ideas pushed on me (Jung would disagree) about womanhood and motherhood. I know that motherhood is noble and lovely. Do I feel that it is? Not always. Do I KNOW that I'm not small? Yes. Do I FEEL that I'm not small? Not always.
Help me, Mr. Wizard....
ReplyDeleteUgh. Ever wish you could un-hear something? ;-)
ReplyDeleteThis is not what I meant by 'direct communication'. I just meant: to say what it is that you mean. Is metaphor the best way to discuss anything? Maybe it is.
Romance isn't the only thing we as a people talk about. But, who needs it? We all do.
And kudos to Tooter Turtle. I admire the guy. Tough journey, and dangerous for sure...but so worth it!
Even us hard-hearted ones need it.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you suppose language ever evolved at all? Do you really think it "evolved" so that we could "communicate" and "share" information equally?
ReplyDeleteNietzsche postulates in "The Dawn" (I think?) that language developed as a result of some clan leader's needing to give orders to other hunter-gatherers. If you didn't do what he said... well... you got a bonk on the head. Justice consisted of whatever the stronger man said it was.
(I'm ad-libing now) Then the first woman came along with a "better" idea as to what would work. The clan leader should have bonker HER on the head, but instead, he listened to her, and her idea worked better. He then "promoted" her to babbling witch/seer, got her "high" on mineral vapours and set her upon a tripod/altar... and everyone soon came to listen to what SHE had to say instead of listening to their leader's commands. Justice was no longer based upon strength, but "merit". This confused everyone, and the clan leader had to do a LOT more head-bonking from that point forward.
Pretty soon, EVERYONE started to have "better ideas" of their own and completely ignored the "stupid" clan leader's commands. They all began to suffer from a syndrome known as "The Rage of Achilles" and a new concept of justice based upon "equality" was born.
Funny thing, evolution.
So... what benefit do you think "metaphor" serves in the interest of "communications"?
ReplyDeleteIf I'm the clan leader and tell you to flank our enemies on the Left, will you follow my "communications" or develop your own "better" idea?
Will you be as General Washington's troops?
And when we meet each other on the street, is it just for me to give you commands for you to follow? Or should I give you reasons as to "why" you should do something? And which method will likely earn me your resentment more quickly?
Now that you understand the "genealogy" of language... you can perhaps comprehend the origins of the male-female paradigm of conflict.
ReplyDeleteMen practiced as children and came to understand the "expediency" inherent in the "head bonking" concept of justice. Women just don't "get it" as they were seldom in the position of strength necessary to benefit from it. ;-)
Dad made you go out into the cotton field and find a stalk. Mom told you that would happen when he got home.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, do you know what an "auroch" is?
ReplyDeleteThey say that when a "modern" man gets angry with a woman, he "reverts to type". I think that's pretty "true", atavism being what it is.
I see that the aurochs have already passed through here. Would you mind grabbing a shovel and lending a hand?
ReplyDeleteNow Rousseau thought that he could conquer atavism through education. But that meant that children would have to be raised in a manner "different" than their ancestors. He postulated as to what that upbringing might look like in his classical trreatise on education entitled 'Emile'. But even in his system, men and women are given 'different' (but complimentary) upbringings.
ReplyDeleteBut even so, that "education" must begin at birth...
Rousseau, Emile (Book I)
[13:] Plants are fashioned by cultivation, man by education. If a man were born tall and strong, his size and strength would be of no good to him until he had learned to use them; they would even harm him by preventing others from wanting to assist him.[note 3] Left to himself he would die of misery before he knew his needs. We lament the helplessness of infancy; we fail to perceive that the human race would have perished had not man begun by being a child.
[14:] We are born weak, we need strength; we are born lacking everything, we need aid; we are born stupid, we need judgment. All that we lack at birth and that we need when we are grown is given by education.
[15:] This education comes to us from nature, from men, or from things. The inner growth of our organs and faculties is the education of nature, the use we learn to make of this growth is the education of men, and what we gain by our experience of our surroundings is the education of things.
[16:] Thus we are each taught by three masters. The pupil in whom their diverse lessons conflict is poorly raised and will never be in harmony with himself; he in whom they all agree on the same points and tend towards the same ends goes straight to his goal and lives consistently. The latter is well raised.
But I digress... sorry Joe. ;-)
ReplyDeleteBabbler...
ReplyDelete*shakes head*
I don't know where to jump in...it's a long and winding...or babbling brook.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it did kinda twist around a bend...
ReplyDeleteI suspect that clear communications are something that only the gods could aspire to achieve.
ReplyDeleteLanguage doesn't permit clear communications. In every word we utter lies an element of falsity, of making up and make believe. A dialectic of language yields two subtypes of letters, vowels and consonants. Do you know what each type signifies? Then we have "syllables". Do you know what they signify? Then we arrive at a word. And then we string these words together in a particular order and require these sentences to contain a certain structure, contain certain required elements, and follow an accepted rule structure.
A music of tones, mutes, harmonies, rhythyms and scales would be more clear and "intelligible" to an ancient than the babbling of a modern prose journalist.
Now I have my own crackpot theory as to the significance of vowels and consonants. I also have a pretty good idea as to the reasons for them and how they function when combined into syllables. And from THAT point on, I could probably tell you a pretty convincing story as to how they are used and stored in the human mind (the general drift of which you could arrive at by reading Freud's "Psychopathology of Everyday Life".) And of course, tone, tempo, etc. ALL have a direct bearing on the clarity and efficacy of oral communications/punctuation in the written.
ReplyDeleteBut overall, I'm at a loss for words. And when that happens, I usually revert to type.
ReplyDelete*bonk* :P
That's alright. Sometimes it helps to just "talk it out". :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd for what it's worth, I think that saying "I'm at a loss for words" is better than reverting to type. :-)
Me? I'm at a loss more often than not. I try to not feel obligated to say anything.
Language doesn't permit clear communications. In every word we utter lies an element of falsity, of making up and make believe.
ReplyDelete--------
I don't agree with this.
I think that it is possible to tell the truth, to the best of our ability. I know that when we attempt to tranlate our thoughts into words, more often than not we lose the essence of what we are conveying. But I don't consider that lying. Language just doesn't capture everything we have inside of us.
Me? I'm at a loss more often than not. I try to not feel obligated to say anything.
ReplyDelete---------
Because...it's not MY job to take out the other guy's mouldy garbage. ;-)
Nor is it his job to take out mine.
Is it my desire? Sometimes. But I must have the freedom of "no" before I can say "yes", and vice/versa. No obligations free me up to forge my own path and not revert to what I THINK "the other" expects of me, thereby being small.
ru-roh. crossing wires here.
I don't see where you are being made small. I think you've been sold a bill of feminist goods.
ReplyDeleteBeing a paid labourer is hardly "worth" the rewards of an unpaid mother. And if you think it is, then you're crazy.
In the areas of married life at which I am expert, I am the boss. No one can mow a lawn like I can. ;-)
ReplyDeleteBut when it comes to matter of health (my wife is an R.N.) or the welfare of my children, I defer to one with greater knowledge and experience.
My wife and I concentrate on developing "complimentary" skill sets. And in that manner, the whole of our marriage has become MUCH greater than either stand-alone part.
Not that there isn't a little "generation from opposites" every now and again. There's plenty of that... but there's also much beauty in the quieter moments.
Western women ALWAYS have the freedom of "no".
ReplyDeleteThat is a right they earned w/Hypermnestra. And THAT gave them the right to say "yes".
...and as with ALL rights, come corresponding responsibilities.
ReplyDelete...broken Hypermnestra link, above.
ReplyDeleteIsn't long past time to stop carrying water for the feminist 'dividers'?
Motherhood is not "small". In fact, there is NOTHING greater and more valuable. Nothing.
ReplyDeleteNietzsche, WtP 493 (1885)
ReplyDeleteTruth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive.
I don't see where you are being made small. I think you've been sold a bill of feminist goods.
ReplyDeleteBeing a paid labourer is hardly "worth" the rewards of an unpaid mother. And if you think it is, then you're crazy.
-------------
Well, you don't know everything about me and my life, which is why you don't understand why I feel small at times. It's not about motherhood.
I don't think it has much to do with the collective ideas pushed on me (Jung would disagree) about womanhood and motherhood.
I know that motherhood is noble and lovely.
Do I feel that it is? Not always.
Do I KNOW that I'm not small? Yes.
Do I FEEL that I'm not small? Not always.
LOVED that Yes song, by the way.
You may not feel it because motherhood's virtues have been politically denigrated for over a century so that the cost of labour could be kept low.
ReplyDeleteNietzsche, WtP 534 (1887-1888)
The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.
...and women and their future employers had a GREAT need to feel powerful.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
ReplyDeleteAHH!
ReplyDeleteWhat a great song!
made my heart ache.
What is your art, Joe?
Connecting dots and putting the "big picture" together.
ReplyDeleteThersites knows what I'm talking about.
ReplyDeleteEditted thread to remove personal info.
ReplyDelete