Saturday, December 13, 2014

On linguistic accountability and the follies of perceptive-egotism

I agree that people tend to perceive things differently - which is why comprehensive critical analysis of all perceptive factors should be an essential prerequisite to every statement of importance that any person makes to another. Failing that, error is guaranteed; such errors of comprehension in interpersonal interactions inevitably marginalize someone or something of contextual or other factual importance, and an ideologically-destructive chain reaction is thus started. At that point, severe conflict is already underway - but urgent confrontation of that reality can potentially allow for the development of a solution prior to the inevitable—and rapidly ballooning—social cataclysm that would otherwise follow.

The notion that a non-confrontational solution is possible is unfortunately incorrect. If people either had or were generally capable of creating sufficient incentives to self-moderate in time to avoid making the worst logical mistakes, these mistakes would not permeate our entire civilization as they have historically done and continue to do. I recently re-read The Giver for the umpteenth time, (after being disappointed by the movie), and the phrase "precision of language" motivated me to momentarily focus my reflections on my near-constant frustration with what I like to call "conversation FAILS" - those instances in which a person simply cannot comprehend a precise idea due to a fundamental flaw in his or her language repertoire. Precision of language is, indeed, important. While an actively-remedial solution to the problem of unrealized and/or ignored perceptive bias is not readily available, (and may not even be feasible in modern society), a shift of focus away from ourselves and toward our mechanisms of expression IS both possible and easy to achieve - and may help make up the difference.

The purpose of language is to understand each other and our environments - and through doing so, to understand and exert control over our places and our futures within those environments. Language is the most useful and powerful tool ever developed by human beings - bar none. The ability to understand each other is vitally important especially within—and amongst—human societies as large as ours have become, and can be a source of great introspective wisdom even outside that context. However, understanding of this sort can only actually be achieved if language is consistently employed in its most useful capacity, and neither needlessly beyond it nor futilely short of it. It is best used to establish objective criteria with which the infinite personal contexts of our lives can be reduced to universal terms - from which wisdom, in turn, can be extracted. 

While it is possible to communicate any given idea and any given context for such ideas, the *value* of this potential is completely negated if the idea's context does not extend beyond the person expressing it - i.e. if language's transformative power—created for reduction and simplification—is abused for the purpose of self-expansion and needless complication. This is unfortunately the case whenever language is used to simply express oneself without a meaningful context - such as when a person simply states their perceptions without having filtered them through deliberate criteria with the intention of accessing—or providing access to—a more fundamental truth derivative of said perception. Language does not function meaningfully or usefully unless it is used either to teach, or to learn, or ideally to do both at once. In fact, it is this very concept from which the term "conversation" is descended.

The truth is that language has become over-used, and in doing so has lost some of its *real* usefulness. A specialized tool can no longer fulfill its function if it is homogenized and inflated to the point of dullness or superfluity. If you try to combine a hammer with a screwdriver, for instance, someone will eventually decide to use the hammer to remove a screw, or the driver to pry up a nail - imperfect compromises in lieu of perfectible solutions. They may "work," but they create an unnecessary effort overhead; they corrupt the ideas of the individual solutions each tool represents. Over time, people devise additional half-measured "solutions" to the new problems that inevitably follow the original compromise, and so on, and so on. The *purpose* of language is specifically to address the ideological version of this problem. 

When people use language to communicate ambiguous ideas or—worse—when people fail to realize that their communicated ideas are fallacious or useless or both, the fundamental objective of language is defeated in such interactions. All it would take to save language is for everyone to pause, imperceptibly, for just a fraction of a second before every sentence, and ask: "What purpose do I intend for these words, and how can I arrange them such that my purpose is self-evident to my listener?" It is not possible to perfectly adhere to "conversational law" without fail - but everyone must at least maintain a conscious awareness that such an idea exists, that it is useful, and that it is necessary if we are to maintain useful and productive interpersonal relationships. Of course, a person must first be taught to think proactively in this way, and therein lies the real rub of modern first-world "education."

Comprehensive language education within any human civilization is just as if not more fundamental and important as are food and shelter.

No comments:

Post a Comment