Definitions

A recurring theme in my writing is that words are not clear, due largely to the fact that each of us has our own continually-evolving definition of every word.

Once in college I faced a multiple-choice exam question about the precise definition of a particular scientific term. When the instructor marked my answer incorrect, I went to visit him carrying a textbook that defined the term exactly as I had defined it. He reached for a different textbook that defined the term as HE had defined it, though he admitted that he had never TAUGHT us that definition, or specified a textbook, so he reluctantly gave me full credit for my answer.

Even if we base our choice of words on precise dictionary definitions, someone armed with a different dictionary, or even a different edition of that same dictionary, can come up with a different meaning for our statements. If we use precisely the same definitions from the same dictionary, there is still the question of context and which part of the definition applies at that moment. The matter is further complicated by the fact that definitions are generally made up of even more words, each of which has its own definition.

Here is my very favorite definition, straight from my 1961 "Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary" (Merriam-Webster):
"calender -- One of a Sufistic order of wandering mendicant dervishes."

The two things that make me love this definition so much are:
1) It takes a familiar-sounding word, calendar, changes one letter, and defines it in an unexpected way that has nothing to do with the passage of time or days or months of years (or even with pressing cloth, rubber, paper, etc. between rollers to make it smooth and glossy, which IS spelled "calender"), and
2) The definition itself contains words that most people will need to look up in the dictionary in order to understand.

If I start talking about a "calender", and I am talking about a wandering mendicant dervish, YOU probably can be forgiven for thinking I am talking about a document that breaks the year down into months and weeks and days. There may be some confusion, and possibly even some hard feelings, but probably we will eventually be able to clarify the misunderstanding.

The problem comes when the differences in our definitions of words are more subtle. When people listen to my mother tell stories of her youth, it is easy to describe her as a "flirt". She is appalled at being described with this word, which for her seems to include the idea of sexual promiscuity. For ME, being a "flirt" may LEAD to sexual promiscuity, but the word "flirt" does not intrinsically contain this implication (I would use a word more like "slut" if that was what I was trying to say).

The problem is amplified when people insist -- or believe without even thinking about it -- that THEIR definitions are correct and universal.

With some words, it is the very definition of the word that is controversial and causes problems, yet people refuse to acknowledge that the definition itself is controversial. Politically, we throw around "-ist" words like "racist" or "socialist" or "Zionist" without ever bothering to establish or acknowledge the subtleties and controversies surrounding the definitions.

I will often pause in a discussion to attempt to at least vaguely define my terms, but I realize I can never fully define anything, and there will always be room for misinterpretation, even if both you and I are both armed with the best dictionaries money can buy.

Truth is complicated.

Stories

Stories, Memories, and Truth

It is widely believed that humans have told and re-told stories since long before there was writing, or books, or any sort of audio or video recording devices. My use here of the term "story" is intentionally vague. It is always difficult to know to what extent stories are based on truth, original fiction, or possibly earlier stories -- which may have been original fiction or based on truth. No matter how hard we try, even true stories are not totally accurate representations of past events, as they are told from a certain point of view, which can never be totally objective, and often evolve somewhat over time and to suit certain situations.

The latest research on human memory suggests that rather than accurate records of past events, our memories are constantly evolving, so that even the most vivid recollection may not be precisely accurate.

Under most circumstances, I sing the praises of truth. In some cases, though, truth is not particularly important or relevant. A story may illustrate an important concept, regardless of whether or not the story is true, just as a memory of an incident may serve as an important life lesson, whether or not the incident actually occurred as remembered. The problem comes only if one presents a fictional story or an erroneous memory as truth, especially if someone is deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order for their story to be more compelling or persuasive.

I try to be as honest as possible about the stories that I tell. Some of my favorite stories are probably pure fiction, while others seem to be based on real events or possibly-flawed memories of my own life. Now that we have access to not only spoken stories but also writing and audio and video recording devices, many of my favorite stories come from fictional television shows and movies (I believe that science fiction is the mythology of our time) -- so the story that I tell is based upon my possibly-flawed memory of something that was probably fiction, or at least fictionalized, to begin with. It can be argued that in this day and age a person should endeavor to accurately research the details of an episode of a 1960s TV series before making reference to it, but under the circumstances that seems to me to be both a waste of time AND irrelevant.

Stories and dubious memories -- of both real events and fictional accounts -- can be viewed as crossing over into the territory of hypothetical situations, where the parameters of reality are defined by the storytellers.

Truth is complicated, and sometimes irrelevant.

Hypothetical

Hypothetical Situations

There are physical "tools", like a hammer or screwdriver, and there are more abstract tools, like mathematics. One of the most valuable "mental tools" for me has always been the "hypothetical situation." I am defining a "hypothetical situation" as a situation defined not by reality but by one or more persons, for the purpose of examining ideas. The KEY attribute of a hypothetical situation is that, unlike the "real" world, all the variables can be defined and controlled, or altered and re-defined at will, since the hypothetical situation exists only in the form of ideas.

It is important to note that while more than one person can participate in the creation and modification of a hypothetical situation, all must agree on the attributes of the given situation throughout the process in order for the tool to function effectively. For example, if I say, "Imagine a city where everyone can fly," and you say to yourself, "That's ridiculous -- in MY imagined city, no one can fly," then the process has broken down, and we are dealing with two DIFFERENT hypothetical situations -- which has some value, but not for mutually examining ideas together.

Actually, I find that hypothetical situations are becoming less and less useful, and one of the reasons is that many people fail to grasp the basic concept that ALL of the parameters of the situation are user-defined. If I say, "Imagine that you could instantly transport yourself between locations. How fast could you get to the grocery store?" many people will respond, "Well, it takes me about twenty minutes to drive to the grocery store," since they deem the entire hypothesis "unrealistic." One of the POINTS of a hypothetical situation is that it does not have to comply with currently-understood principles of reality; only the realities defined in the hypothetical situation.

In my opinion, though, the KEY reason that hypothetical situations are becoming less and less useful is that we are becoming so polarized and opinionated that we are afraid to examine abstract ideas, for fear we will come upon conclusions that contradict our ideas about the "real" world. For example, if I say, "Let's examine a hypothetical middle-eastern country," then many, if not most people are instantly suspicious of what ideas I am trying to promote. As I go on to define my hypothetical country, they try to decide what country I am "really" talking about -- maybe Iraq, maybe Iran, maybe Israel. Their ideas about these "real" countries, and their ideas about WHICH country I am "really" talking about dramatically color their thoughts about my "hypothetical" country, losing most of the benefits possible from using a "hypothetical" situation.

It's all very sad. We are either incapable or unwilling to examine ideas which might somehow reflect badly on the ideas that we already embrace. I'm not sure whether "incapable" or "unwilling" is the greater tragedy.

Questions

Questions are complicated things. I believe that questions are generally under-rated, at least in our society, where we tend to focus on answers rather than questions, and on solutions rather than problems. The key to advancing knowledge is generally finding and asking the right questions, rather than coming up with the right answers. At the same time, anyone wanting to manipulate information can achieve the most success by manipulating the questions rather than the answers.

People often use questions as a rhetorical device, suggesting an answer from within the question rather than actually seeking an answer. Raising a question can be viewed as making a statement, especially when the question is related to an emotional issue. Personally, I often find myself having to clarify that, "I do not know the answer, and I am not suggesting an answer. I am truly asking a question!"

Unfortunately, in our polarized, opinionated society, it is commonplace that the questions themselves take on a power of their own. Questions become accusations, and accusations imply guilt. While we officially embrace the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty", anyone whose name is linked with something is to a certain extent forever tainted, even if it is eventually revealed that they had nothing to do with it.

As a consequence, we become afraid to raise the questions, or questions that might be worthy of at least cursory consideration get quickly pushed aside in an attempt to minimize their impact. This hinders communication, and limits the advancement of knowledge and understanding.

I do not have an solution to this. I am merely pointing out a problem.

Problems

The latest research indicates our memories are not particularly reliable. Instead of accurate snapshots of our past, they evolve over time. Still, there are memories that take on importance as a sort of reference point for an idea, whether or not the memories accurately depict the past. This is all an introduction to the fact that I have vague memories of a specific episode of the 1960s TV series "Combat!" which may not be particularly accurate, but have remained to illustrate an important principle in my life.

The series dealt with a squad of American soldiers in Europe during World War II. As I remember it, one episode dealt with German snipers hiding unseen in trees, killing members of the squad as they passed. One American soldier, new to the squad, became increasingly agitated as the story progressed. He finally confessed that, although the snipers were camouflaged and hidden in the trees, he could clearly identify them, but for some reason (I believe it was religious) he could not bring himself to cause them harm, so watched powerlessly as other members of the squad were killed by the unseen snipers (which HE could clearly see). Eventually he was convinced to go into the forest with someone else, who could not see the snipers, and the soldier who COULD see the snipers would tell the other guy where they were, and that other guy would shoot them, and then there were no more snipers and the episode ended.

Whether or not my memories of this episode are accurate, it has always illustrated to me the idea that certain people have certain talents, and sometimes things that are easy or obvious for them are difficult or impossible or hidden from others. Perhaps we all have rare talents. It is well-documented that certain people have incredible math skills, able to almost instantly perform complex calculations that are difficult for others. Others can quickly solve any Rubik's cube. I am fair at math, but slow, and struggle with Rubik's cubes.

One talent that I seem to possess has always reminded me of the "Combat!" episode with the snipers hidden in trees. I can spot PROBLEMS. This does not seem like much of a talent, and certainly not unique. What makes it a talent is that often problems that are obvious to me seem difficult for others to see. For some, this is a dubious "gift" since I have no special abilities when it comes to finding SOLUTIONS. Like having the "gift of tongues" without the "gift of interpretation of tongues", or inventing a sound recording device without inventing a sound playback device. Still, often correctly identifying the problem is the key step in the process of solving it.

If nothing else, my own self-perception of having the gift of clearly seeing problems may provide some personal justification for writing this blog. Perhaps I can spot a problem that someone else has been having trouble seeing clearly, or at least provide some small insight that assists someone in utilizing their own talents more fully.

"I think"

In high school, and possibly at other points in my formal schooling, I had a running argument with more than one instructor over my use of phrases such as "in my opinion" and "I believe" and especially "I think". It's always dangerous and extremely inaccurate to try to state the positions of those with whom you disagree, but I believe their objections were based upon the ideas that these phrases "weakened" your writing, and were unnecessary since anything YOU wrote was clearly YOUR opinion or YOUR belief or what YOU thought.

My opposition was based on the idea that sometimes a person writes their own opinions, beliefs, and thoughts, while other times they state facts -- and it is important to distinguish between the two, and it is important to acknowledge that each of us knows the difference. (I freely acknowledge that since we can be certain of NOTHING, including our own existence, the very idea that there ARE facts is open for debate. Still, I find "facts" to be a useful concept, given that we seem to exist among facts in a factual world -- whether or not we actually DO.)

Neither my instructors nor I ever backed down -- one of them wrote something like "I THINK you were a good student" in my high school yearbook -- and now that my writing is not regularly critiqued by them, I rarely have to face the issue directly. I believe, though, that the issue is becoming more important, as increasing numbers of people appear to be losing sight of the line between opinion and fact.

This is manifested in a number of ways. For one thing, we have a certain denial of facts. Many people take the position that if I believe one thing, and you believe something completely different, then we are both entitled to our beliefs, and they are both equally correct, including with regard to situations where these beliefs involve basic, provable facts, like whether the earth is flat or round.

Our society seems to be moving toward the belief that "facts" are determined by opinion polls and majority votes. If 52% of people BELIEVE something to be true, then it is true. This logic is actually ONLY correct in terms of speaking about what the majority believes to be true, and nothing else. For example, if 52% of Americans believe that Abraham Lincoln was our best President, then we can accurately state that the majority of Americans believe Abraham Lincoln was our best President. The fact that the majority BELIEVES he was the best President does not mean that he WAS the best President (actually determining the "best" President is impossible, since it will always involve personal opinion).

I suspect that some of the blame for this blurring of the line between opinion and fact falls on the increasing availability of information. Since we now have relatively easy access to great amounts of information about most topics, we are emboldened to consider our opinions to be just as valid as any other person's opinions. Millions of Americans feel free to pronounce an accused criminal "guilty" or "innocent" prior to any sort of trial. We become more and more politically polarized, as both sides are CERTAIN that THEIR side is correct -- and they use the outcome of polls and votes as "proof" that THEIR side is "right".

Perhaps this blurring of the line between opinion and fact is also the predictable outcome of people being taught since grammar school NOT to label their own pure opinions as opinions, but to state them as facts.

Arrogance

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "arrogance" as "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions". In their online thesaurus, they call it "an exaggerated sense of one's importance that shows itself in the making of excessive or unjustified claims" and give two antonyms, "humility" and "modesty".

Modern Americans have a complicated relationship with the concept of arrogance. At most times, in most circles, to call someone "arrogant" is considered a criticism, while to call them "humble" or "modest" is considered praise. Yet we also praise "self-confidence" -- which I consider to be a close cousin of arrogance -- and embrace phrases such as "Fortune favors the bold" (credited to the Roman epic poet, Virgil). When compared with citizens of other countries, Americans are sometimes described as "arrogant", which we deny while insisting that this is "the greatest country in the world".

In examining the Merriam-Webster statements on arrogance, I suppose it is a matter of degree, including the "overbearing manner" and "the making of excessive or unjustified claims". If someone is the best at something, and knows they are the best, and claims to be the best, then I suppose this is not "excessive or unjustified", though there is still the issue of the "overbearing manner", which may be largely in the eye of the beholder. Certainly many of our world leaders and celebrities may be viewed as arrogant, but perhaps it all comes down to where you draw the line between arrogance and confidence. OR perhaps we claim to embrace the idea that arrogance is "bad", while actually being drawn to it.

I have been thinking about the idea of arrogance as it relates to having a personal blog. I already have several web sites, with the basic goal of sharing specific information with the rest of the world, including information about musical groups and information about family history (which is targeted mostly at members of my extended family, rather than the entire world). These web sites do not seem particularly "arrogant" to me; people might want access to the information, and the web sites provide it. A blog sharing my personal musings about ideas, rather than specific information, moves toward more questionable territory. The idea that I somehow believe the entire World Wide Web community should have access to these musings, or more specifically that ANYONE should spend their time viewing these musings, is troublesome. I tell myself that the blog is an outlet for ME, and no one is under any obligation to visit it, and I do not particularly make any claims about its value ... yet it still feels intrinsically arrogant.

This remains troubling a month into this blog. I will attempt to deal with it more in a future entry that I plan to call "Problems".

Letters to the Editor

I enjoy reading "Letters to the Editor" in our local newspaper. I enjoy the letters for various reasons. I am interested in peoples' opinions. Sometimes I am amazed that ANYONE is concerned enough about THAT topic to write a "Letter to the Editor".

Often the letters deal with familiar controversies. Sometimes I consider them to be the most eloquent writing I have encountered regarding a particular issue, while others are barely coherent. Occasionally, there will be a letter-writer who obviously feels very strongly about the issue, but after reading and re-reading their letter, I cannot discern which side they are vehemently supporting. Some letters seem to me to be making a careful, logical, iron-clad case for one side of an issue, but then reach the opposite conclusion from what I had expected.

This brings up the troubling fact that people with opposing views may appear to use precisely the same facts and same logic and same arguments to come to opposite conclusions, while being incredulous that anyone could possibly hold the opposing belief.

This further leads to the idea that in our opinionated, polarized society, many people judge ideas at least partly based on the apparent source of the idea. An idea expressed by someone from "our side" makes good sense, while the identical idea put forth by someone from "their side" is preposterous. I hasten to admit that there is a certain logic to this. An idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to agree will logically be initially viewed in a more favorable light than an idea expressed by someone with whom we tend to disagree. This is one of the shortcuts we use to manage life. Since we cannot know everything, or be experts on everything, we build up a circle of those whom we trust, and accept their ideas less critically than we accept ideas from those outside our circle of trust.

When reading "Letters to the Editor", it is difficult to not glance first at the name of the letter-writer, and often these names are familiar, and often you can guess which side they will support, and, indeed, whether their letter will be worth reading. I suppose that in a perfect world, I would read every letter, no matter what, and never know the names or views of the writers until I finished their letter. Life is too short for that.

In a perfect world, it would be enlightening to realize that those with whom we disagree sometimes make excellent, valid points, and that sometimes information that seems to point to an inescapable conclusion points just as easily to an opposing conclusion. Sadly, this is not a perfect world.

This especially applies to the world of blogging. Unless a blogger takes steps to mask their opinions, eventually anyone reading the blog will come to a realization of whether the blogger is on "their side" or "the other side" and at that point, true communication becomes much more difficult. It might be enlightening for both you and me if you could read each entry in this blog, and especially on controversial subjects, without pre-existing knowledge of my opinions or point of view, but that cannot last for long.

At the same time, one of the whole POINTS of communication, and one of the points of READING a blog, is to try and figure out "where a person is coming from" and what they are trying to say, gradually increasing your understanding of their ideas. To read or hear every word from a fresh perspective would be enlightening, but probably also counterproductive.

This gets even more complicated when you include the idea that life is short, and no one has time to read every letter to the editor or every blog entry -- though there may be something to be learned from even bad ideas. In the end, I guess all I can suggest is that if you do decide to take YOUR valuable time to listen to someone or read a letter to the editor or read this blog, you should try to understand what they are actually trying to communicate, rather than what you expect or believe they are trying to communicate.

Truth is complicated.

Complicated

On the fictional TV series, "Chicago Hope," one of the main characters was killed, but returned a few episodes later to visit a good friend. The friend, knowing he was dead, found this visit to be somewhat troubling, and peppered him with questions about the nature of life and death, the afterlife, the universe, and other great mysteries. To most of his questions, the dead friend would answer, "It's complicated." Predictably, the still-living friend found this answer to be unsatisfying. (Note: I was not a huge fan of "Chicago Hope," and perhaps my memory of this episode is somewhat vague ... but it was, after all, a fictional TV show.)

Often, the most honest answer to a question is, "It's complicated." Yet we are trained, or perhaps born, to dislike and distrust this answer. We demand "straight answers," and accuse people of "being evasive" if they attempt to offer the truth rather than give a brief, but inaccurate, reply. Like it or not, we live complicated lives in a complicated world, or at least SOME of us live complicated lives. Perhaps a key problem is our tendency to impose our own standards on other people. Things that may seem straightforward in our lives my be complicated in another person's life.

The entire universe is complicated. Many things are simultaneously complicated and simple, which, in the end, is perhaps the ultimate complication. This is not necessarily what people want to hear. People have a tendency to want to know right and wrong, true and false. "Just the facts." In a conflict, we want to know which side is right and which side is wrong. We want to know why things happened the way they did, and we want a brief, simple explanation of why things happened the way they did. Sometimes, a brief, simple explanation is accurate enough, but other times there is no way to be both accurate and brief. It's complicated.

To say something is complicated is not to say that there is no explanation, or that there are no answers, or that there is no truth. It means merely that the explanation or answers or truth may be difficult (or even impossible) to discern, state, or fathom. Comprehension might take a few minutes effort, or more than a single lifetime. For someone expecting or demanding a "Yes" or "No", even an explanation lasting a full minute might be more than they are willing to try to understand.

One of the problems with living in "the information age" is that with easy access to so much information, it is easy to consider yourself an "expert" on many complicated topics. Often only the true experts realize just how little they know about the topic, or just how complicated it truly is.

So how do we function in a complicated world where we will never know all the answers? Appropriately, the answer is complicated. As humans, we can probably never fully understand anything. To function, and to keep our sanity, we rely on generalizations, simplifications, and assumptions. We also intuitively realize that total understanding is unnecessary. For example, we need not understand gravity in order to enjoy its effects, or carry on our daily lives.

Still, we should remember that the underlying truth behind the simplifications is often complicated. When we seek to label things such as emotions or relationships, for instance, the truth is almost always complicated, and words such as "love" or "lover" are simply the tip of complicated icebergs. While we have a need to try and view the world in simple terms we can cope with, these simple terms may give only vague approximations of truth.

A key point to remember is that different things are complicated for different people, and when someone tells you something is complicated, you probably are in no position to insist that it is simple. Basic questions like, "What do you do for a living?" or "How many pets do you have?" may seem straightforward enough, but for some people the only honest answer is "It's complicated." And if you disagree with me on this, I have an obvious response:

It's complicated.