One of the most unfortunate, dangerous, destructive forces in humanity is the impulse to do or say SOMETHING … anything. At many critical moments, both large and small, the only good option, and the very best thing, is to do or say NOTHING. We humans tend to have a problem with that. I doubt that anyone is totally immune to this urge, but it is especially notable with people in authority, and leadership positions.
This morning, the news is filled with historic developments on the opposite side of the world from the United States. Expert after expert is being interviewed on television and radio. To their credit, they all admit that there is no way of knowing how the situation will unfold, or how things will turn out, or whether the historic changes will end up being a good thing or a bad thing for the world in general. Actually, the various experts seem to agree on only one thing -- that there is nothing positive the American government or American leadership can do or say at this moment, and it is important for the American President NOT to make any official statements. So now they have announced that in a few minutes the American President will give a speech to address the unfolding situation.
I am not giving the specifics of what is happening, and I probably never will, and I will wait some time before I actually post this, because the specifics are both arguable and unimportant. I am horrified that the President is about to make an official speech, but not at all surprised. It is what Presidents do, and it is what everyone does, and if the President did NOT make a speech, there are those who would criticize him for his “inaction”. In fact, perhaps a large part of the blame for this unfortunate tendency lies with ALL of us, who regularly criticize the LACK or action, or the LACK of words, failing to acknowledge that inaction is sometimes/often the very best thing that can occur.
Any specific situation is arguable. Perhaps in this precise situation, making a speech is NOT the wrong thing for the President to do … but this does not change my overall point. SOMETIMES the very best course of action is no action at all, but we are all hesitant to “do nothing”.
This problem is not limited to global politics. Every day, each of us encounters situations in which our best course is to say and do nothing at all. Fortunately, many of these situations go un-noticed, and we DO in fact say and do nothing. IF we had some sort of narrator jumping out at us asking, “What do you do NOW?” we would probably be more inclined to do SOMETHING -- anything -- and THAT would be the wrong course of action.
I suspect part of this is a cultural bias. I suspect there are other cultures that more highly value the idea of doing nothing -- just as some musicians place more value on silence, while others focus on the sound interrupting the silence. Actually, I guess probably it is a “yin and yang” thing -- though I am not the best one to discuss the principles of yin and yang.
Hmmm. I have arrived at a point where the discussion could lead into fruitful areas of Chinese philosophy, but at the same time, I realize I am not particularly well-qualified to continue. This is a perfect moment for me to follow my own advice, and say and do nothing more.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Strength of Emotion
(This is the most difficult blog entry I have attempted to write. The subject is just TOO complicated, with too many possible directions and angles to pursue.)
It's hard to overstate the importance of our emotions -- the way we "feel." Though we can never escape our basic physiological needs -- things like oxygen, water, a tolerable temperature range, and a certain amount of nutrition -- it is our feelings that actually determine our quality of life. The saying, "Money can't buy happiness" may sound trite, but it is absolutely true. One person may have wealth and power, but be miserable, while another may be impoverished and powerless, but happy. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we all seek happiness.
Happiness gets complicated because each person may have different standards for happiness. Some thrive on challenges, and would not be happy lounging on a beach with all their basic needs provided for them, while others might consider the beach life to be paradise. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. We all want happiness, but differ in what makes us happy.
As in many other areas of life, our natural tendency to view others from our own perspective can cause problems. Just as we can never know how another person thinks, we can never know how they feel, or the strength of their feelings. The key point is that everyone is different. At the same time, it is inevitable that most people view others from within their own frame of reference, and tend to judge others by their own personal standards. We use our own standards to decide whether another person's feelings are valid, and how strong those feelings are. While a case can be made for judging the validity, or justification, of feelings, this is not necessarily relevant, and is especially not necessarily related to the strength of those feelings, which defies our own understanding. The fact that someone’s feelings do not meet our own criteria for validity does not necessarily make them any less valid, and certainly not any less intense, regardless of validity.
As an example, consider hunger. For reasons unknown, I generally do not feel much hunger. Especially if I am occupied with other activities, and not in particular "eating" situations, I can easily go twenty-four hours or more without eating, and without particularly noticing the fact that I have not eaten. Other people might feel hungry if they go four hours without eating. In this particular case, I am aware that I am unusual, and if someone complains to me that they have not eaten in twelve hours, and feel hungry, I try not to be critical of them -- though I cannot truly relate to their discomfort. Whether or not a person SHOULD feel hungry is irrelevant, and the strength of their hunger cannot be estimated by someone else’s hunger in the same situation.
Especially in conflicts, each side tends to believe that they have some special perspective, circumstance, or knowledge that makes THEIR emotions stronger and more valid than those of their opposition. One side's emotions may indeed be more valid than the other's, but this determination requires either divine knowledge or a complicated set of completely subjective value judgements. Furthermore, the STRENGTH of emotion is not necessarily related to the validity, and can probably be truly assessed ONLY by divine knowledge.
Our emotions do not necessarily "make sense", especially in regard to their strength. We may feel quite strongly about something that seems unimportant to others, and that even we ourselves would not have expected to feel strongly about. Our emotions sometimes defy our own understanding, and are largely outside of our own control, though this is sometimes debated. It may be possible to modify our feelings to a certain degree in certain situations -- for example, there are those who believe that forcing yourself to smile may ease depression, or that by closely examining feelings we can bring them under control -- but to a certain extent our feelings are just "there".
Assessing the strength of another's emotion is impossible, yet we regularly make decisions based at least partly upon our perceptions of the feelings of others. We continually must judge whether and to what extent our own emotions conflict with the emotions of others, and what path to choose between conflicting emotions. Often, we are unaware that we are making these judgements and decisions. Other times, we agonize over difficult choices involving complicated sets of overlapping priorities and conflicting emotions. In each case, we end up deciding whether to place our own emotions ahead of our perceptions of the emotions of others -- and this involves assessments of the justification, appropriateness, and strength of all the emotions involved. Naturally, we are more likely to defer to the feelings of others if we consider those feelings to be justified, appropriate, and strong.
Life gets more complicated when we consider the feelings of others to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. THEN what do we do? Especially when those feelings are quite strong. Some of the most problematic issues on earth involve conflicts between groups of people with opposing feelings who consider the feelings of their opponents to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. There are also times when we might consider opposing feelings to be justified, appropriate, and understandable ... yet still we are unwilling or unable to modify our actions based on those feelings which conflict with our own.
We constantly face issues regarding feelings, and not just with controversial, emotion-charged issues. Every interaction we have with another person involves weighing our own feelings and priorities against our perception of their feelings and priorities. For example, if you encounter an acquaintance walking down the street, your decision on whether or not to greet them, and how to greet them, will depend on a complicated variety of factors including your feelings and their feelings. If you are in a hurry, you might prefer to skip a greeting altogether, and you might consider pretending not to notice them -- but you might fear "hurting their feelings" and decide the only way to keep YOURSELF from feeling bad is to stop for a chat. You actually may go through this same decision process even when encountering a complete stranger, though in either case you may not be AWARE that you are going through this decision process.
The issue of awareness is deeply ingrained in the issue of feelings. Feelings can range from overwhelming to unnoticeable. Science teaches us that things like the color of paint used in a room can modify our feelings, but we are not necessarily AWARE of the calming effect of a certain color, or even of the fact that we have grown calmer since entering the room. Or we may not be aware that we are nicer to a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago friend, and distrusting of a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago enemy. At the same time, when we are overwhelmed by our own feelings, we may become blind to the feelings of others, or largely unaware that others even HAVE feelings.
Then there is the issue of "hurt feelings," which is really just a part of everything that has been discussed already. An extra problem with "hurt feelings" is the implication that INTENT was involved. When our feelings get hurt, on some level, whether we are aware of it or not, we tend to believe we have been the victim of a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being. On a more logical level, this is clearly not necessarily true. A special case is when we feel victimized for having been ignored or neglected, and consider THIS to be a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being.
"Hurt feelings" can become a significant factor in our day-to-day interactions with others. The whole area of "hurt feelings" is a dangerous minefield. Arguing that you did not INTENTIONALLY hurt another person's feelings can cause even MORE hurt feelings, just as being unaware of the fact that someone believes you have hurt their feelings can also cause more hurt feelings ("How could you be so oblivious to my feelings?").
A person suffering from "hurt feelings" MAY have been the victim of a deliberate emotional attack, or they may be simply the victim of their own emotional perspective, or there may be a combination of factors, including conflict between various peoples' feelings. There is often great emotional trauma associated with attempts to balance the conflicting feelings of several individuals, such as a person torn between the feelings of their parent and their spouse, or a person placed in the middle of a battle between two of their friends. Needless to say, these are often "no-win" situations -- though each of the people involved, focusing on their OWN feelings, may see the situation as very straightforward, with themselves as the "victim". And, perhaps each person IS the victim. Besides, even feelings that are totally unjustified can be life-shatteringly painful.
Sometimes it seems sensible to make decisions based mostly on perceived strength of emotion. If I slightly prefer one restaurant, while a friend strongly prefers another, I will probably never insist on us going to my preferred restaurant, no matter how many times we visit the other restaurant. I suppose one could argue that this is not "fair", and that we should occasionally bow to MY preference. Or one could even argue that the perceived strength of emotion is irrelevant, and both restaurants should be patronized equally. I disagree. If the choice of the restaurant is of great importance to my friend, and little importance to me, then why should we not defer to the friend's preference?
In fact, I suspect this would be a better world if we all tried to pay a little more attention to the strong feelings of others, especially when we ourselves do NOT have strong feelings about the topic. I am NOT advocating that we automatically defer to whomever shouts the loudest. People have very strong feelings on an infinite number of topics, and you cannot please everyone, nor should you try. Still, ignoring someone's strong emotion is like ignoring someone's tears -- if you cannot help, perhaps you can at least offer them some slight comfort.
Sometimes, though, you can offer them no comfort, and the most you can do is silently and privately hope that they can find their own inner peace, while realizing you cannot comprehend their emotion, nor its strength.
Truth is complicated.
It's hard to overstate the importance of our emotions -- the way we "feel." Though we can never escape our basic physiological needs -- things like oxygen, water, a tolerable temperature range, and a certain amount of nutrition -- it is our feelings that actually determine our quality of life. The saying, "Money can't buy happiness" may sound trite, but it is absolutely true. One person may have wealth and power, but be miserable, while another may be impoverished and powerless, but happy. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we all seek happiness.
Happiness gets complicated because each person may have different standards for happiness. Some thrive on challenges, and would not be happy lounging on a beach with all their basic needs provided for them, while others might consider the beach life to be paradise. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. We all want happiness, but differ in what makes us happy.
As in many other areas of life, our natural tendency to view others from our own perspective can cause problems. Just as we can never know how another person thinks, we can never know how they feel, or the strength of their feelings. The key point is that everyone is different. At the same time, it is inevitable that most people view others from within their own frame of reference, and tend to judge others by their own personal standards. We use our own standards to decide whether another person's feelings are valid, and how strong those feelings are. While a case can be made for judging the validity, or justification, of feelings, this is not necessarily relevant, and is especially not necessarily related to the strength of those feelings, which defies our own understanding. The fact that someone’s feelings do not meet our own criteria for validity does not necessarily make them any less valid, and certainly not any less intense, regardless of validity.
As an example, consider hunger. For reasons unknown, I generally do not feel much hunger. Especially if I am occupied with other activities, and not in particular "eating" situations, I can easily go twenty-four hours or more without eating, and without particularly noticing the fact that I have not eaten. Other people might feel hungry if they go four hours without eating. In this particular case, I am aware that I am unusual, and if someone complains to me that they have not eaten in twelve hours, and feel hungry, I try not to be critical of them -- though I cannot truly relate to their discomfort. Whether or not a person SHOULD feel hungry is irrelevant, and the strength of their hunger cannot be estimated by someone else’s hunger in the same situation.
Especially in conflicts, each side tends to believe that they have some special perspective, circumstance, or knowledge that makes THEIR emotions stronger and more valid than those of their opposition. One side's emotions may indeed be more valid than the other's, but this determination requires either divine knowledge or a complicated set of completely subjective value judgements. Furthermore, the STRENGTH of emotion is not necessarily related to the validity, and can probably be truly assessed ONLY by divine knowledge.
Our emotions do not necessarily "make sense", especially in regard to their strength. We may feel quite strongly about something that seems unimportant to others, and that even we ourselves would not have expected to feel strongly about. Our emotions sometimes defy our own understanding, and are largely outside of our own control, though this is sometimes debated. It may be possible to modify our feelings to a certain degree in certain situations -- for example, there are those who believe that forcing yourself to smile may ease depression, or that by closely examining feelings we can bring them under control -- but to a certain extent our feelings are just "there".
Assessing the strength of another's emotion is impossible, yet we regularly make decisions based at least partly upon our perceptions of the feelings of others. We continually must judge whether and to what extent our own emotions conflict with the emotions of others, and what path to choose between conflicting emotions. Often, we are unaware that we are making these judgements and decisions. Other times, we agonize over difficult choices involving complicated sets of overlapping priorities and conflicting emotions. In each case, we end up deciding whether to place our own emotions ahead of our perceptions of the emotions of others -- and this involves assessments of the justification, appropriateness, and strength of all the emotions involved. Naturally, we are more likely to defer to the feelings of others if we consider those feelings to be justified, appropriate, and strong.
Life gets more complicated when we consider the feelings of others to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. THEN what do we do? Especially when those feelings are quite strong. Some of the most problematic issues on earth involve conflicts between groups of people with opposing feelings who consider the feelings of their opponents to be un-justified and/or inappropriate. There are also times when we might consider opposing feelings to be justified, appropriate, and understandable ... yet still we are unwilling or unable to modify our actions based on those feelings which conflict with our own.
We constantly face issues regarding feelings, and not just with controversial, emotion-charged issues. Every interaction we have with another person involves weighing our own feelings and priorities against our perception of their feelings and priorities. For example, if you encounter an acquaintance walking down the street, your decision on whether or not to greet them, and how to greet them, will depend on a complicated variety of factors including your feelings and their feelings. If you are in a hurry, you might prefer to skip a greeting altogether, and you might consider pretending not to notice them -- but you might fear "hurting their feelings" and decide the only way to keep YOURSELF from feeling bad is to stop for a chat. You actually may go through this same decision process even when encountering a complete stranger, though in either case you may not be AWARE that you are going through this decision process.
The issue of awareness is deeply ingrained in the issue of feelings. Feelings can range from overwhelming to unnoticeable. Science teaches us that things like the color of paint used in a room can modify our feelings, but we are not necessarily AWARE of the calming effect of a certain color, or even of the fact that we have grown calmer since entering the room. Or we may not be aware that we are nicer to a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago friend, and distrusting of a co-worker who on some level reminds us of a long-ago enemy. At the same time, when we are overwhelmed by our own feelings, we may become blind to the feelings of others, or largely unaware that others even HAVE feelings.
Then there is the issue of "hurt feelings," which is really just a part of everything that has been discussed already. An extra problem with "hurt feelings" is the implication that INTENT was involved. When our feelings get hurt, on some level, whether we are aware of it or not, we tend to believe we have been the victim of a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being. On a more logical level, this is clearly not necessarily true. A special case is when we feel victimized for having been ignored or neglected, and consider THIS to be a deliberate attack on our emotional well-being.
"Hurt feelings" can become a significant factor in our day-to-day interactions with others. The whole area of "hurt feelings" is a dangerous minefield. Arguing that you did not INTENTIONALLY hurt another person's feelings can cause even MORE hurt feelings, just as being unaware of the fact that someone believes you have hurt their feelings can also cause more hurt feelings ("How could you be so oblivious to my feelings?").
A person suffering from "hurt feelings" MAY have been the victim of a deliberate emotional attack, or they may be simply the victim of their own emotional perspective, or there may be a combination of factors, including conflict between various peoples' feelings. There is often great emotional trauma associated with attempts to balance the conflicting feelings of several individuals, such as a person torn between the feelings of their parent and their spouse, or a person placed in the middle of a battle between two of their friends. Needless to say, these are often "no-win" situations -- though each of the people involved, focusing on their OWN feelings, may see the situation as very straightforward, with themselves as the "victim". And, perhaps each person IS the victim. Besides, even feelings that are totally unjustified can be life-shatteringly painful.
Sometimes it seems sensible to make decisions based mostly on perceived strength of emotion. If I slightly prefer one restaurant, while a friend strongly prefers another, I will probably never insist on us going to my preferred restaurant, no matter how many times we visit the other restaurant. I suppose one could argue that this is not "fair", and that we should occasionally bow to MY preference. Or one could even argue that the perceived strength of emotion is irrelevant, and both restaurants should be patronized equally. I disagree. If the choice of the restaurant is of great importance to my friend, and little importance to me, then why should we not defer to the friend's preference?
In fact, I suspect this would be a better world if we all tried to pay a little more attention to the strong feelings of others, especially when we ourselves do NOT have strong feelings about the topic. I am NOT advocating that we automatically defer to whomever shouts the loudest. People have very strong feelings on an infinite number of topics, and you cannot please everyone, nor should you try. Still, ignoring someone's strong emotion is like ignoring someone's tears -- if you cannot help, perhaps you can at least offer them some slight comfort.
Sometimes, though, you can offer them no comfort, and the most you can do is silently and privately hope that they can find their own inner peace, while realizing you cannot comprehend their emotion, nor its strength.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Dennis Moore
In an earlier blog entry I mentioned the British comedy troupe "Monty Python's Flying Circus", and the indelible effect they have left upon my thinking.
One of their sketches that often comes into my mind involves the (fictional?) highwayman Dennis Moore. (As far as I have been able to determine, there was no actual historical highwayman named Dennis Moore.) Like Robin Hood, Dennis Moore robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. One of the sources of humor in Monty Python's Dennis Moore is that he always robbed from the SAME rich, and gave to the SAME poor ... with the result that eventually the poor became wealthy, while the rich were left destitute. Even then, Dennis Moore continued to attempt to rob the same rich people, who by now had nothing left for him to rob, while the formerly-poor people now lived in luxury, yet still awaited more loot from Dennis Moore.
When someone finally points out the error of Dennis Moore's ways, he responds, "Wait a tic ... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought." In the final scene, he "robs" another coach, but this time he simply has everyone reveal their valuables, and he attempts to redistribute them more evenly among the coach occupants.
The thing that makes me think of this sketch so often is the fact that LOTS of things are trickier than people think, and sometimes real life offers examples that are practically as laughable as Monty Python. Often an action has unintended -- yet in retrospect, totally predictable -- consequences, such as cutting down a tree and having it fall and crush something.
I doubt that the Monty Python folks were attempting to make a direct political statement, but many of the things that are trickier than you think actually involve government attempts to redistribute wealth. Raising taxes often reduces government revenue, while decreasing taxes often increases it. Attempts to take money from "the rich" often end up hurting "the poor" more than "the rich" (for example, anything that decreases corporate profits can lead to lay-offs).
Another thing that is trickier than you think is the relationship between various life forms in an ecosystem. Stereotypically, but also truly, if you eliminate the cats, the mouse population may explode. On the other hand, if you specifically ADD cats, to get rid of the mice, you may also get rid of the birds. There are many examples around the world of a plant or animal being introduced to an area where it is not native, or a plant or animal being eliminated from an area where it IS native, often with disastrous results.
A few years ago National Public Radio did a series on worldwide efforts to end child labor. It turns out that often, attempts to stop child labor in places like factories results in the child and their family being devastated by the loss of income generated by the formerly-laboring child. The child and their family may simply starve to death, or be driven into even worse circumstances than the original child labor, such as sexual slavery. Granted, this example is not particularly funny.
If you watch your own life, you will find examples of things being trickier than you thought. Hopefully, at least some of them will be funny.
Truth is complicated.
One of their sketches that often comes into my mind involves the (fictional?) highwayman Dennis Moore. (As far as I have been able to determine, there was no actual historical highwayman named Dennis Moore.) Like Robin Hood, Dennis Moore robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. One of the sources of humor in Monty Python's Dennis Moore is that he always robbed from the SAME rich, and gave to the SAME poor ... with the result that eventually the poor became wealthy, while the rich were left destitute. Even then, Dennis Moore continued to attempt to rob the same rich people, who by now had nothing left for him to rob, while the formerly-poor people now lived in luxury, yet still awaited more loot from Dennis Moore.
When someone finally points out the error of Dennis Moore's ways, he responds, "Wait a tic ... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought." In the final scene, he "robs" another coach, but this time he simply has everyone reveal their valuables, and he attempts to redistribute them more evenly among the coach occupants.
The thing that makes me think of this sketch so often is the fact that LOTS of things are trickier than people think, and sometimes real life offers examples that are practically as laughable as Monty Python. Often an action has unintended -- yet in retrospect, totally predictable -- consequences, such as cutting down a tree and having it fall and crush something.
I doubt that the Monty Python folks were attempting to make a direct political statement, but many of the things that are trickier than you think actually involve government attempts to redistribute wealth. Raising taxes often reduces government revenue, while decreasing taxes often increases it. Attempts to take money from "the rich" often end up hurting "the poor" more than "the rich" (for example, anything that decreases corporate profits can lead to lay-offs).
Another thing that is trickier than you think is the relationship between various life forms in an ecosystem. Stereotypically, but also truly, if you eliminate the cats, the mouse population may explode. On the other hand, if you specifically ADD cats, to get rid of the mice, you may also get rid of the birds. There are many examples around the world of a plant or animal being introduced to an area where it is not native, or a plant or animal being eliminated from an area where it IS native, often with disastrous results.
A few years ago National Public Radio did a series on worldwide efforts to end child labor. It turns out that often, attempts to stop child labor in places like factories results in the child and their family being devastated by the loss of income generated by the formerly-laboring child. The child and their family may simply starve to death, or be driven into even worse circumstances than the original child labor, such as sexual slavery. Granted, this example is not particularly funny.
If you watch your own life, you will find examples of things being trickier than you thought. Hopefully, at least some of them will be funny.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Terminology
As I have stated elsewhere, words are not clear. It is hard enough to communicate when both sides of a conversation are trying to be clear. If either or both sides deliberately use words to make things less clear, then communication becomes nearly impossible.
When people are advocating for or opposing a particular belief, position, or approach to a problem, there is a natural, understandable, and, in my opinion, highly objectionable tendency to manipulate language and terminology in a way that favors your own point of view. This is an inflammatory subject. The issues involved are often controversial and emotionally charged, and some people feel they must advance their opinions and crush the opposition using any means available, while others simply see their manipulative terminology as accurate and objective. Worst of all, many see THEIR terminology as accurate and honest, while the terminology of their opposition is inaccurate and deceptive.
The very best example, but also one of the most dangerous and emotional, involves the debate over legalized abortion. Rather than having one side called "anti-abortion" and another side called "pro-abortion", we have "pro-life" and "pro-choice". I initially viewed both of these terms with equal scorn. Although I have been politically active pretty much my entire life, I only recently have learned to instantly associate the term "pro-life" with "anti-abortion"; I used to have to stop and ponder the issue every time I encountered the term. I have, over time, come to accept the somewhat distracting term "pro-choice" since it is fundamentally honest. The pro-choice side does not advocate that ALL pregnancies end in abortion -- they simply argue for legalized choice.
"Pro-life", for me, represents the very worst kind of manipulative terminology. It is fine for those who oppose legal abortion to believe that THEY are "pro" life while those who oppose them are "anti" life, but those who favor legalized abortion may also consider themselves to be "pro" life. Much of this controversial issue comes down to a question of what constitutes a human life, and what therefore constitutes murder. For one side in this highly controversial, emotional issue to claim the title "pro-life" is akin to one side deciding to call itself the "right" side and their opposition the "wrong" side. This may accurately represent THEIR belief, but does nothing to enhance or clarify communication between the opposing sides and for those undecided on the issue. By the way, PLEASE note that I am not stating my own personal opinion on the issue of abortion. If YOU believe that I am, it is because you are viewing my words through the distorting lens of your own perception.
Another more insidious case of manipulating terminology is the term "Palestinian". On its face, "Palestinian" would mean "of Palestine", but it has now come to specifically exclude Israel and Jewish Israeli citizens. The TRUTH, though it has been hidden and almost lost at the present time, is that Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders who opposed the existence of Israel made a conscious decision to adopt the term "Palestinian" for themselves, to further their own agenda. This has been highly effective. It seems completely reasonable to argue that "the Palestinian people" have been displaced by Israel, and are now worthy of their own special consideration. Again, I am not stating an opinion on this emotional issue. I am simply stating that Israelis are just as entitled to claim the label "Palestinian" as are those who oppose the nation of Israel.
It's interesting to note that by citing these two prominent examples of manipulating terminology, I have potentially angered those on both the political "left" and the political "right". People from a wide variety of political persuasions manipulate terminology to further their own agendas and attack the agendas of their opponents. In both of these examples, "Pro-life" and "Palestinian", the terms could just as well be applied to those with opposing views -- but the current "Pro-lifers" and the current "Palestinians" do not see it that way. For them, it is obvious that THEY are the only ones who are truly "Pro-life" or "Palestinian".
There are countless examples of this use of words, and sometimes it becomes a question of where one draws the line between honest terminology and manipulative terminology. Those who oppose the idea of an "inheritance tax" often choose to call it a "death tax". In a sense, it IS a tax on death -- though those who favor inheritance tax argue that the term "death tax" is misleading and inflammatory. I truly HAVE no opinion on this issue.
Those who employ the technique of manipulating terminology to suit their own ends generally push ME in the opposite direction. If they are willing to engage in behavior that I view as essentially dishonest, then I am suspicious about whatever position they are advocating. This does NOT mean their position is WRONG, but it does make me suspicious.
Truth is complicated.
When people are advocating for or opposing a particular belief, position, or approach to a problem, there is a natural, understandable, and, in my opinion, highly objectionable tendency to manipulate language and terminology in a way that favors your own point of view. This is an inflammatory subject. The issues involved are often controversial and emotionally charged, and some people feel they must advance their opinions and crush the opposition using any means available, while others simply see their manipulative terminology as accurate and objective. Worst of all, many see THEIR terminology as accurate and honest, while the terminology of their opposition is inaccurate and deceptive.
The very best example, but also one of the most dangerous and emotional, involves the debate over legalized abortion. Rather than having one side called "anti-abortion" and another side called "pro-abortion", we have "pro-life" and "pro-choice". I initially viewed both of these terms with equal scorn. Although I have been politically active pretty much my entire life, I only recently have learned to instantly associate the term "pro-life" with "anti-abortion"; I used to have to stop and ponder the issue every time I encountered the term. I have, over time, come to accept the somewhat distracting term "pro-choice" since it is fundamentally honest. The pro-choice side does not advocate that ALL pregnancies end in abortion -- they simply argue for legalized choice.
"Pro-life", for me, represents the very worst kind of manipulative terminology. It is fine for those who oppose legal abortion to believe that THEY are "pro" life while those who oppose them are "anti" life, but those who favor legalized abortion may also consider themselves to be "pro" life. Much of this controversial issue comes down to a question of what constitutes a human life, and what therefore constitutes murder. For one side in this highly controversial, emotional issue to claim the title "pro-life" is akin to one side deciding to call itself the "right" side and their opposition the "wrong" side. This may accurately represent THEIR belief, but does nothing to enhance or clarify communication between the opposing sides and for those undecided on the issue. By the way, PLEASE note that I am not stating my own personal opinion on the issue of abortion. If YOU believe that I am, it is because you are viewing my words through the distorting lens of your own perception.
Another more insidious case of manipulating terminology is the term "Palestinian". On its face, "Palestinian" would mean "of Palestine", but it has now come to specifically exclude Israel and Jewish Israeli citizens. The TRUTH, though it has been hidden and almost lost at the present time, is that Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders who opposed the existence of Israel made a conscious decision to adopt the term "Palestinian" for themselves, to further their own agenda. This has been highly effective. It seems completely reasonable to argue that "the Palestinian people" have been displaced by Israel, and are now worthy of their own special consideration. Again, I am not stating an opinion on this emotional issue. I am simply stating that Israelis are just as entitled to claim the label "Palestinian" as are those who oppose the nation of Israel.
It's interesting to note that by citing these two prominent examples of manipulating terminology, I have potentially angered those on both the political "left" and the political "right". People from a wide variety of political persuasions manipulate terminology to further their own agendas and attack the agendas of their opponents. In both of these examples, "Pro-life" and "Palestinian", the terms could just as well be applied to those with opposing views -- but the current "Pro-lifers" and the current "Palestinians" do not see it that way. For them, it is obvious that THEY are the only ones who are truly "Pro-life" or "Palestinian".
There are countless examples of this use of words, and sometimes it becomes a question of where one draws the line between honest terminology and manipulative terminology. Those who oppose the idea of an "inheritance tax" often choose to call it a "death tax". In a sense, it IS a tax on death -- though those who favor inheritance tax argue that the term "death tax" is misleading and inflammatory. I truly HAVE no opinion on this issue.
Those who employ the technique of manipulating terminology to suit their own ends generally push ME in the opposite direction. If they are willing to engage in behavior that I view as essentially dishonest, then I am suspicious about whatever position they are advocating. This does NOT mean their position is WRONG, but it does make me suspicious.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Affected versus Effected
This is not a blog about grammar. In various previous entries, I have mentioned the fact that I place communication above grammatical rules or “correctness”, and sometimes consciously disregard both grammatical rules and correctness.
I should perhaps also acknowledge that I am far from perfect, and while some of my “mistakes” are intentional, many of my grammatical mistakes are totally unintentional, and do nothing to enhance communication. I believe I may have already mentioned that I tend to misuse the word “several” (which I grew up believing included as few as “two”).
One of the most common grammatical difficulties in the English language is confusing “affected” and “effected”, and it is something that I personally struggle with. There are many web pages devoted to this problem, and there is no point in my attempting to deal with it in detail here, since I myself still find the subject confusing.
A few general rules: Affect is most often a verb, while effect is most often a noun (though there are certainly exceptions). Affect, in its verb form, usually means “to impact”, while effect deals with a result. A good tip is that affect generally deals with something pre-existing, while effect can bring something into existence.
The POINT of this brief discussion is to acknowledge that I have difficulty with this topic, and to apologize for the times when I am sure I will make mistakes in this blog.
Truth is complicated.
I should perhaps also acknowledge that I am far from perfect, and while some of my “mistakes” are intentional, many of my grammatical mistakes are totally unintentional, and do nothing to enhance communication. I believe I may have already mentioned that I tend to misuse the word “several” (which I grew up believing included as few as “two”).
One of the most common grammatical difficulties in the English language is confusing “affected” and “effected”, and it is something that I personally struggle with. There are many web pages devoted to this problem, and there is no point in my attempting to deal with it in detail here, since I myself still find the subject confusing.
A few general rules: Affect is most often a verb, while effect is most often a noun (though there are certainly exceptions). Affect, in its verb form, usually means “to impact”, while effect deals with a result. A good tip is that affect generally deals with something pre-existing, while effect can bring something into existence.
The POINT of this brief discussion is to acknowledge that I have difficulty with this topic, and to apologize for the times when I am sure I will make mistakes in this blog.
Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Counterintuitive
I enjoy anything being counterintuitive -- which the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines as "contrary to what one would intuitively expect." I even like the WORD "counterintuitive" -- I like the sound, and I like the way it feels coming out of my mouth.
I suppose part of the reason counterintuitive things give me pleasure is that they illustrate the idea that "Truth is complicated." Sometimes if you want to go left, you have to turn right. On the surface, this just sounds wrong -- but truth is complicated.
I once heard a phrase on television that really stuck with me. Someone said: "This is an example of the 'it stands to reason' school of thought." The person went on to illustrate that the particular idea was not true, although it DID "stand to reason."
Though I have never heard this term since, it is amazing how many times people use the concept -- how many times people use "it stands to reason" to support an idea which is actually not correct. Just because an idea SEEMS to "make sense," or seems to be supported by other ideas which are correct, does not necessarily make that idea true and correct.
Counterintuitive ideas are the opposite end of the spectrum. Counterintuitive ideas do NOT "stand to reason." They do NOT seem to make sense, yet they are true and correct. I LOVE that. Truth is complicated.
I suppose part of the reason counterintuitive things give me pleasure is that they illustrate the idea that "Truth is complicated." Sometimes if you want to go left, you have to turn right. On the surface, this just sounds wrong -- but truth is complicated.
I once heard a phrase on television that really stuck with me. Someone said: "This is an example of the 'it stands to reason' school of thought." The person went on to illustrate that the particular idea was not true, although it DID "stand to reason."
Though I have never heard this term since, it is amazing how many times people use the concept -- how many times people use "it stands to reason" to support an idea which is actually not correct. Just because an idea SEEMS to "make sense," or seems to be supported by other ideas which are correct, does not necessarily make that idea true and correct.
Counterintuitive ideas are the opposite end of the spectrum. Counterintuitive ideas do NOT "stand to reason." They do NOT seem to make sense, yet they are true and correct. I LOVE that. Truth is complicated.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Twelve Days
This time of year puts me somewhat at odds with my neighbors.
My feelings about Christmas are complicated. On the one hand, I am fully aware that our current “Christmas” celebration is a conglomeration of various midwinter celebrations, dating back from before the time of Christ, and that historians and biblical scholars doubt that the actual birthday of Jesus was anywhere near December 25. On the other hand, I see no harm, and some benefit, in celebrating what has become a “traditional” Christmas.
With these underlying beliefs, I have little sympathy for those at either extreme of what has been referred to as “The War on Christmas”. The fact is that in our current society, Christmas is not an exclusively religious holiday … and when you get right down to it, it probably has NEVER been an exclusively religious holiday. Still, I see no harm in public nativity scenes, or in school children singing traditional carols about the birth of Jesus. When I was in school, we sang songs from various religions and cultures. If YOU choose to be offended by Christmas displays, then that is YOUR choice. At the same time, if YOU argue that the Christmas season is exclusively about the Christian religion, then you are historically inaccurate.
Perhaps too many of my beliefs about Christmas come from my two favorite recurring Christmas TV specials, “A Charlie Brown Christmas” and “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”, often broadcast back-to-back in days gone by. Interestingly, while both preach against commercialization and materialism, the Grinch story carefully avoids any mention of the birth of Jesus, while one of the highlights of the Charlie Brown tale is a recitation straight from the Bible. These two views do not have to be in opposition to each other. In my humble opinion, Christmas can and should be a season of joy, peace, and goodwill, with or without any specific religious underpinnings.
In practice, Christmas has become the most important shopping season of the year, crucial to many businesses. While I do not begrudge peoples’ need to make a living, or the tradition of exchanging gifts, the focus on shopping does interfere somewhat with experiencing a time of peace and love. There is also the problem of Christmas travel, and the preparation for that travel. For many of us, Christmas has become a stressed, frenzied period, with little time for peace and goodwill.
With the emphasis on Christmas as a commercial event, Christmas Day, or even Christmas Eve, marks the end of the Christmas season. After that, Christmas items are moved to “clearance” displays, Christmas decorations are removed, and Christmas music is no longer played. It is not uncommon to see Christmas trees disposed of ON Christmas Day. Many of my favorite public Christmas displays are taken down on the day after Christmas. At the latest, displays remain up through New Years Day, since the two celebrations, Christmas and New Year’s, have become intertwined in our culture.
My personal partial solution to the problems of a harried Christmas is to return to the old idea of celebrating the Twelve Days of Christmas. Marketers would have you believe that this phrase refers to the twelve days leading up to Christmas, but in fact the tradition refers to the twelve days BEGINNING with Christmas. Since the emphasis on “last-minute” shopping is over, during the “Twelve Days” I am free to concentrate on the non-material aspects of Christmas -- a season of joy, peace, goodwill, and whatever other traditional “Christmas” concepts that come to mind.
This approach is not without obstacles. Many people are hurrying to get back to “normal”. The Christmas decorations are gone or vanishing, only a few of us are still playing Christmas music, and people tend to be a bit puzzled when I am still wishing them a “Merry Christmas” on January 6 -- the traditional “end” of the Christmas Season. I suspect that my neighbors view the fact that my Christmas decorations are still up and lit as more of a sign of laziness than a deeply-held spiritual conviction … which in turn makes me feel somewhat militant, which is the opposite of the feeling I am striving for.
Truth is complicated.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
My feelings about Christmas are complicated. On the one hand, I am fully aware that our current “Christmas” celebration is a conglomeration of various midwinter celebrations, dating back from before the time of Christ, and that historians and biblical scholars doubt that the actual birthday of Jesus was anywhere near December 25. On the other hand, I see no harm, and some benefit, in celebrating what has become a “traditional” Christmas.
With these underlying beliefs, I have little sympathy for those at either extreme of what has been referred to as “The War on Christmas”. The fact is that in our current society, Christmas is not an exclusively religious holiday … and when you get right down to it, it probably has NEVER been an exclusively religious holiday. Still, I see no harm in public nativity scenes, or in school children singing traditional carols about the birth of Jesus. When I was in school, we sang songs from various religions and cultures. If YOU choose to be offended by Christmas displays, then that is YOUR choice. At the same time, if YOU argue that the Christmas season is exclusively about the Christian religion, then you are historically inaccurate.
Perhaps too many of my beliefs about Christmas come from my two favorite recurring Christmas TV specials, “A Charlie Brown Christmas” and “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”, often broadcast back-to-back in days gone by. Interestingly, while both preach against commercialization and materialism, the Grinch story carefully avoids any mention of the birth of Jesus, while one of the highlights of the Charlie Brown tale is a recitation straight from the Bible. These two views do not have to be in opposition to each other. In my humble opinion, Christmas can and should be a season of joy, peace, and goodwill, with or without any specific religious underpinnings.
In practice, Christmas has become the most important shopping season of the year, crucial to many businesses. While I do not begrudge peoples’ need to make a living, or the tradition of exchanging gifts, the focus on shopping does interfere somewhat with experiencing a time of peace and love. There is also the problem of Christmas travel, and the preparation for that travel. For many of us, Christmas has become a stressed, frenzied period, with little time for peace and goodwill.
With the emphasis on Christmas as a commercial event, Christmas Day, or even Christmas Eve, marks the end of the Christmas season. After that, Christmas items are moved to “clearance” displays, Christmas decorations are removed, and Christmas music is no longer played. It is not uncommon to see Christmas trees disposed of ON Christmas Day. Many of my favorite public Christmas displays are taken down on the day after Christmas. At the latest, displays remain up through New Years Day, since the two celebrations, Christmas and New Year’s, have become intertwined in our culture.
My personal partial solution to the problems of a harried Christmas is to return to the old idea of celebrating the Twelve Days of Christmas. Marketers would have you believe that this phrase refers to the twelve days leading up to Christmas, but in fact the tradition refers to the twelve days BEGINNING with Christmas. Since the emphasis on “last-minute” shopping is over, during the “Twelve Days” I am free to concentrate on the non-material aspects of Christmas -- a season of joy, peace, goodwill, and whatever other traditional “Christmas” concepts that come to mind.
This approach is not without obstacles. Many people are hurrying to get back to “normal”. The Christmas decorations are gone or vanishing, only a few of us are still playing Christmas music, and people tend to be a bit puzzled when I am still wishing them a “Merry Christmas” on January 6 -- the traditional “end” of the Christmas Season. I suspect that my neighbors view the fact that my Christmas decorations are still up and lit as more of a sign of laziness than a deeply-held spiritual conviction … which in turn makes me feel somewhat militant, which is the opposite of the feeling I am striving for.
Truth is complicated.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)