Words Left Along

Its hard to elaborate ideas that aren’t ones that exist in the zeigtgeist of culture. Well, I suppose that its not that they don’t exist, I’d bet a good deal the things I think of are well established and flushed out ideas by greater thinkers than I could ever be. That being said, it doesn’t change the fact, flushed or not, that an absence is an absence. 

Yesterday, I explained to a friend of mine that the biggest hurdle in current discourse isn’t anything that is being discussed, rather it’s the division of realities that we find ourselves in; well, not really find ourselves in, but the division that I see people in and they themselves do not. 

I really don’t wish to have my writing come across as me being pompous or “high and mighty”. “oh I see the things that others don’t”, but as it stands, in my eye, I do. Of course I say that, then immediately say now that, “ this must have been how Copernicus must have felt when he began to see that the universe did not revolve around earth.” 

I don’t feel that extreme about it, but it does make me feel moderately crazy to even think or postulate that I am one who sees something that others do not. Matter-of-fact, when I find myself in a position such as this, my first instinct is to check myself. After all, how many times where it’s one vs the world it’s the one who’s right?

how could I know? How could I be rationally sure about my stance? The only thing I can think to do is to dismantle it as far as I can to see what’s standing afterwards. I suppose in that sense, proving an idea’s legitimacy or reasoning is sort of like Janga. Brick-by-brick the tower is dismantled and the weight placed back on top of itself. 

Where do I even start? Well, perhaps the best place of any to start is the definition. So, what is it that I am arguing? To put it simply, I believe that individuals apply their perceptions and assumptions on what reality is and how it operates onto conversations with other individuals. I believe that when communicating, the difference between peoples’ perceived reality go head-to-head with one another without any second thought or consideration. Because of this, conversations are not, two people on level ground talking and communicating. Allow me to construct an example that will hopefully illustrate what I mean and remove any confusion. 

Like all conversations, let’s start with the minimum needed. We need some communicators, so let’s create Jack and Adam. 

Jack, to give essential and foundational background to my argument, grew up poor. Parents divorced when he was 12, father was an alcoholic and his mom died when he was 23. Jack somehow managed to overcome the statistical trends and pushed himself through college. He is now an engineer and has managed to avoid the pitfalls that plagued his immediate family.

 Adam is a black man who grew up in a well to do suburban neighborhood. He didn’t care for school much. He got by but barely. His parents got him into a good school through their own ten year at the university. Adam is far from perfect, but he got his degree, works in a management position and does alright for himself. 

Adam and Jack bump into each other and begin a conversation after seeing that they both had some kind of indicator that they both went to the same college. 

“Oh, You went to U.” Said Jack.

”yeah, I did. What year did you graduate?” Adam casually replied. 

The conversation carried on and one could easily imagine what kinds of conversational small talk could happen on such a subject. Let’s pause, here. 

When the University name is mentioned. What do you think each person associates University with? What feelings, if any, would you suspect each man has or feels for that term? 

Adam chose to go to this university, whereas Jack was told to go or at least it was for him a guaranteed path. Adam might feel pride, joy, sadness, a whole range of feelings towards it and so could jack. But the odds are they both have differing and individual associations with that word and the entity. Because of this, even though they both are talking about the same university, they both understand that they are both talking about the same university. They are on the same page about what the entity is in which they speak of. 

However, just because two people are talking about the same thing, does not mean they both understand the thing the same. Jack sees the university as something that allowed him to get out, away and overcome the woes that had been his early life. There’s a level of fondness that is embedded into the entity. In Jack’s mind, university is something that gives people bootstraps to pull themselves up by. In Jack’s perceived reality, university is important to success. 

Adam on the other hand sees university rather nonchalantly. It merely is, people go there and learn then leave. There is a quality of passivity with a slight bias towards negativity since he has the knowledge that his parents got him in. It’s not held in high regard in any capacity that isn’t more than just mediocrity. Because of this, the importance or what university could be to others isn’t something Adam would give much consideration towards.

this is the uneven ground in which the conversation unknowingly operates at. Sure, their responses to one other about their time there may provide illumination on how one truly feels about the university as an entity. Because of this one instance, their understanding on how reality is and operates is not in alignment.

It’s my assertion that every noun, adjective and verb carries with it connotations larger than what currently might be addressed. Because there is a disconnect between how one assumes the universe operates, debate about any idea isn’t one of subject and its immediate material, rather the debate material is picked because of its alignment to the person’s individualized and personal view of how the world works. Yet, to those debating, watching and judging, the merit of what’s being said is checked against their own personal understanding of how the universe works and if it can fit within their model it moves in. This means that no matter how hard you research your stance, it’s those who have a compatible understanding of how the world works that are able to integrate your ideas into their world view.