The trouble with people

[fpb]

I recently had a private exchange with a BNF whom I like and respect, and that left me fuming. It was, to begin with, one of those weird experiences when a word leaves your mouth or keyboard as "water" and, along the way to the other person's ear or eye, undergoes some weird alchemical transfiguration and becomes "fire". Conversation of the deaf does not begin to cover it.

Worse still - the element that has gone on itching beneath the skin, till I was provoked to write this entry - was the usual and stupid reaction to trouble with other people: "Will you go on defriending anyone who disagrees with you?" Which, as far as I am concerned, is the fandom equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Anyone who actually takes the trouble to look at my f-page would notice that the vast majority of denizens disagree with me on a number of major issues. I have maybe five Catholics out of twenty friends, with no guarantee that any of them would agree with me on anything else bar the rule of faith - in fact, Thepreciouss for instance had one or two quite interesting run-ins with yours truly. And I would like anyone to point out where the likes of Sergeant Majorette, Ashesofautumn, Kikei, Curia Regis or Private Maladict may be said, either to agree with me on much of anything, or to have the kind of submissive, cowardly temperament that the question implies. You know, BNF, you have insulted a number of people with the implications of your question.

Of course I draw limits. If you approve of murder under form of law, there are going to be certain obstacles in the way of understanding each other - for instance. But the real issue with people I defriended - apart from a couple of people who let me down badly on a personal level, and whom I felt I could no longer trust - is simply this: not that I want anyone to agree with me, but that I want my views taken seriously. I take yours seriously, even if I do my best to demolish them. If you have something against mine, then - as I said in another context - just ARGUE, dammit! Do not sloganeer; and do not get angry if you sloganeer, if you repeat empty phrases that mean nothing, and I point it out. I have had twenty years of politicians destroying our liberties while filling their mouths with empty verbiage about "choice", for instance, and any phrase that has "choice" or any similar pseudo-concept at its centre is not going to impress me. There is nothing either good or bad about choice in itself; morally, it means nothing - but it is made to sound as if it meant something, and something good. (And no, I am not speaking about abortion - at least, not about abortion alone.) So, use words for what they mean, and make up sentences that actually describe ideas. Look at whatever it is that is the issue on its own merits, and find reasons why you do not see it as I do. And let them be reasons, not justifications - not things that have to do with my corrupt personal motivations to be wrong, but things that have to do with the matter at hand. One would not think it would be so difficult, but to some people, it is.

Comments

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

Not commenting on this entry (in this case, I think it's wise to just stay out!), but a friend of mine was asking for help with something I thought you might know. Here's the link:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/avus/14752.html

[fpb.livejournal.com]

This is a copy of what I told your friend:

The text in question is not an essay but a whole book, co-written with the secular Popperian philosopher Marcello Pera, who is currently Speaker of the Italian Senate. I regret to say that if you want it translated, you will have to spend a considerable amount of money hiring a professional (such as me - not that I'm promoting myself, quite the contrary), since, as a debate between an Italian and a German professor of philosophy, it is certain to be demanding. I thought you referred to an article or something of the kind, which I would have gladly translated for free, but a whole book is a different matter.

[avus.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your help on this, and on many things.

avus

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I am going to friend you - sorry for not asking first, but as I have infrequent access to e-mail, it would take too long. If you don't want to, let me know and I will reverse it.

[avus.livejournal.com]

Please do. If I may friend you back? Although you may wish to read what I've posted on your lj. *grins ferally*

[avus.livejournal.com]

As usual, I wade in where angels fear to tread. But then no one, in my memory, has every accused me of being angelic. Your posting is a bit like we used to say in the Yank countryside, "like two dawgs fightin' under a rug. We know there's a hellova lot goin' on, but it's kinda unclear what's happenin'.

May I argue about your arguing?

I fear if most people could argue or, let's step back, think clearly, the world would be much different, and much better. Not that there's one way of thinking, but almost any clear way of thinking would be an improvement over what generally appears.

In my limited experience, a large part of the problem isn't intelligence. There are many forms of intelligence. I've heard wise & thoughtful words in many quarters. The problem, often, is the failure of education & the paucity of good models. In my own history, I've been through two grad programs in the US, both of which were at the same world-class institution (University of Chicago). No one taught me to think. Now I will hasten to agree that the fields are not covered with intellectual glory, at least not back then -- musicology & social work. But still. Hell, I didn't even get help in writing. And God knows I didn't get help earlier. "Some thought, relatively good grammar, could work a bit on the spelling. Next."

Now here, dear fpb, I'm flying near-blind. In general, I try to help people understand the implications, the structure of what they're thinking & writing before going on. (Perhaps you do, too.)

*He dances merrily into the bog*

Could it be that your ex-f really doesn't understand the difference between arguing & sloganeering? If he's Yank, it would be nothing short of miraculous if he did, given our educational system which, under our dear president, is going down for the third time.... But, typically, I digress.

Most people are unaware that words have meanings beyond their feelings, though feelings with words are very important & precious, and they can, if properly nurtured, lead to an ever-widening creativity of more excellent meanings, as anyone such as yourself, well-versed in words, fully knows.

Words, unlike the current fashion of deconstructionism, also have a structure and a clarity that goes with their unclarity. Defining such important words as "choice" can be a useful exercise in understanding. Putting them together into arguments can, for some, be building blocks, carefully defined & logically assembled into reason. For others, they can point metaphorically and "aspectually" to an englobing Truth. (Yes, both of these points do believe in not merely accuracy, but also Truth -- a position I treasure.) Others remain understandably wary of Truth, either in its constructed or its imperfectly revealed forms, and try to stay pragmatically with the problem at hand, another exceleent & worthy mode of thinking.

Unfortunately, for us & for our world, many believe that convincing, in the felt way -- marketing, if you will -- is all there ever is, all we have. And so the most forceful communication, the pithiest sound-bite, the most "moving", what I suspect you're calling sloganeering, becomes a tool not of reason but of battle, the battle for people's feelings. This battle is not only fought in lands of authoritarianism, but in lands of democracy. In fact, it is a position that is quite nurturing, on one level, of democratic movements.

It's also, as we both well-know, the prime technique of thuggery.

But to someone caught up in that form of thinking -- understandably caught up, perhaps, really, quite unaware of the alternatives, your notion of arguing that, "Here is a Truth (legal killing isn't justified killing -- an excellent Truth)!", a Truth that transcends my "feelings".... Well, I fear that they may not understand it. How you're thinking is so different from how they think -- and it is a form of thinking -- that you might as well have gone into Portuguese. (One reason I stopped reading Ezra Pound, but only one.)

Does that make sense?

Is this at all relevent to your situation?

Was it at least amusing to read?

Should I draw my sword?

Affectionately,

avus

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

FPB, have you read Orwell's excellent article 'Politics and the English Language, 1946'? (Stupid question: you probably have.) Could I remember the link, I would post it for you, in the odd chance you haven't read it.

I think the Left in particular is guilty of such usage of empty language and sloganeering, and I think that his point that political speeches from anyone slightly left of centre have simply degenerated into a loosely-connected string of empty cliches and abstract nouns holds so much truth. Language has simply become passionless and devoid of meaning and colour, and whenever I read your writing, which is so pure and descriptive, it makes the stuff I read in the paper and hear from the mouths of politicians of any political leaning seem all the more banal.
Comparing your language to the empty language of modern left politics is rather like comparing Bach or Handel's music to modern Christian pop.

On that note, I do have to praise your word choice and writing style: it is particularly beautiful, and your academic background in etymology, history, linguistics and religion is so evident in it. I'm yet to read much in the way of Dante, or anything in particular of that ilk, but the way you write makes it evident that you are fluent in other languages, and that fluency makes you consider your word use and simile all that more, which is something I've noticed in some authors who speak English as a second language.

Arguments where sloganeering and empty phrases are thrown in aren't particularly good arguments, or ones that are good to get into. Might I suggest also, as a book choice, Don Watson's 'Weasel Words: Contemporary Cliches, Cant & Management Jargon'. It's a bit stinkin' pinko, compared to your particular political and social leanings, but the points and examples the fellow makes can't be understated.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Actually, I come from an old-fashioned Socialist background. Have a look at this: http://www.livejournal.com/users/fpb/13532.html. One of the many things I dislike about the so-called contemporary Left is how little it has to do with really helping the poor and the workers, especially those close to home.