Matters such as equality, ethics, emotion and (though I hate to break the e-lliteration) true-selfhood bring me away from this reality, and beyond what I find myself able to explain. I suppose this has something to do with the field of Metaphysics, though on a much less Theo-centric twist. I'm reading about Taosim as of late, and I get the feeling that reading books or talking with people is not the way to learn. Some things are better left to intuition and experience.
Embedded in this frustration at non-lucidity is the notion that one should be able to clearly explain ones ideas, so that two minds become one in their understanding of such-and-such a notion. It seems that with enough words and explanation, our interlocutors and we should have a crystal clear view of the truth before us. After all, if Truth is absolute, it would be the same for everyone, right? And, if we cannot express it, is it possible that we don't know what we're talking about? (For what do we know that we cannot express?) If I can't tell my classmate what I see from my perspective, could it be that my vision is too foggy to say, for sure, what (or how) the visage is?
My guess is that we do indeed see foggily. Our vision is never infinitely good. And, similarly, our communication is never infinitely lucid. As my friend and I talk about the truth from our own perspectives, undoubtedly our vantage points are different, and we could indeed be seeing two very different angles of what may be the same concept. Your side of the beach ball could be blue and orange, and white. The ball , I'll argue, is red, and white and yellow.
And we'll talk, and talk, and talk ourselves dizzy until we acknowlege our inadequate communication, our differing paradigms, and our own flawed vision.
2 comments:
It's interesting how you talk about intuition and experience. I thought, intuition about what and experience with what? I give much credibility to the notions that experience and/or intuition can reveal, but seemingly they are rooted in interactions with others. You could expand that to interaction with the spirit, physical, self and each other. So maybe experience in the physical universe or experience spiritually proves something about a Truth. Sometimes the chore of explain becomes overwhelming. In our software troubleshooting we had an option for database "explain" and for me it simply created a massive amount of information with very likely results of finding the problem. It's almost like you couldn't point at the problem unless you had that level of explain from the database/software logs.
I often hate explaining myself and I'd rather just have someone know what's going on. I find extreme power in identification with someone that just understands and someone I don't need to explain things to.
I like the image of the two minds becoming one. I like the vision for unity. One concept that is luring to me is that of being held together by one presence. If I understand another and am held together with them, that's powerful. It can go beyond explanation. It's almost like the identification with is at the root of this.
So thought provoking josh, but true too. What do you think about a world of people in which communication is flawed? Sometimes i wonder how have we survived as a community? Is it simple necessity?
I think I tend to find some value, or perhaps comfort in the effort of communication in the face of daunting odds that the person next to probably can't understand you. It may be a phsychological or just plain irrational benchmarker in which i find some relevance due to the fact that both parties are actively expending energy to come closer together, both in time/space and understanding.
Whether they succeed is another matter. I guess I find this effort as a type of emotional measure which can be concretely used even though(perhaps because) I dont see truth as Absolute.
As you say, if clear communication can only be begotten of clear ideology, it is my hope that inability to communicate, though frustrating and perhaps inevitable, would be the most positive way to reveal disparity between Truth and ideology. Thus revealed, an obscure idea can always be refined. And I believe you are correct that this redefinition needs to be self propogated through reflection.
It does not have to mean that communication, successful or not, is futile. It is my hope that with continued cycles of discussion then reflection, identification with another could build over time. Perhaps then verbal communication in its imperfections will be less relied upon. And a more comfortable and intuitive type of experience could emerge.
It may happen that this endpoint is only false, in that we find each different from self, or never arrive at said point. If this difference becomes intuitive in the relating of one another could it end in comfortability? Where does this realization lead us? Will we stop trying to talk about the beach ball, or try harder to imagine the other side?
Great blog, your ideas show plasticity and ingenuity. I can only hope that mine ring familiar as I aim to reconcile with unclear ideals.
Post a Comment