[Possibly Rhetorical] Question for the evening:

[wolven7]

Tori Amos - [Blood Roses]--- Is a considered word, a thoughtout choice of phrasing, so rare as to cause immediate assumption otherwise?

Follow Up: If so, why do we stand for it?

Comments

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

Becuase, maybe, a lot of people are afraid of what it means for things to be preconsidered. The ideas of responsibility as opposed to reflex, or of a premeditation which may seem distasteful.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Spontinaety can still be Considered. If it's done in a flash, judgement is.. Still Judgement.

I don't like Not considering consequences. Too many years of that, and watching that... Too many years of watching people Miss factors, and crumble... I'd rather not.

[wacko1138.livejournal.com]

In my experience, yes.

I don't stand for it. I consider my own words and phrasing and point out to others (when possible) when what they say means something other than what they meant.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

But that's a fine line... Because maybe they took that meaning into consideration, as well... The glaring and the subtle....

An interesting qustion, to be sure

[mr-hinzelmann.livejournal.com]

There are a number of ways to deal with your question:

1. It's possible that general society's use of the language has degraded so far as to miss the implication, or to distrust it where they find it. Language, as a communicative art, is maintiained only by those we, as a group, do not trust, do not understand, or affect our lives in ways we cannot comprehend (e.g. lawyers, politicians, academics, and authors). Sadly then, we, in a broad categorical sense, assume that language is deceptive and, if it conveys something we do not understand, assume either that (a)the person saying those words is duplicitous in their use, or (b) the person is the same as us, and also does not understand.

2. There is alsom the possibility that people do not trust you, or, for one reason or another, do not believe that you, individaully have authority to convey or understand those ideas. I don't necessarily think that is the case, but I don't tend to be part of the broader category.

The symptom is this: communication is a lost art.
The disease is some combination of general disrespect of people for the source of information, general disrespect for the language itself, and societal apathy.

Solution: the key to effective communication is framework, people need the frame of reference constructed as they absorb information. It is for the writer to provide it. If you write for yourself, write whatever the hell you damn well please. If you wish to affect others, you must frame the information by making it personally relevant to your audience. Secondly, you must always move from the old information to new information. It is unreasonable to expect others to jump into your chain of logic head first, they won't focus and they'll be less likely to actually listen or read.

Re: An interesting qustion, to be sure

[wolven.livejournal.com]

So, to sum up:

First Law of Cybernetics: Communication is only Possible Between Equals.

I get you.

I get a different conclusion

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

When conveying an idea to another person, it is your responsibility to attempt to bring that person into your frame of reference. While it is their responsibility to try to interact well enough to allow you to do so, it is still incumbent upon you, the speaker, to try to lead them to where you are coming from. Your conclusion ("communication is only possible between equals") assumes that anyone who doesn't instantly understand your viewpoint is somehow lacking and/or incapable of understanding. If you always assume that (and that is in itself a harsh judgement to make) then you will rarely have the satisfaction of real communication. If you really want to impart an idea, perhaps a new or uncommon idea, to another person, then you are the one who has to make the effort to be understood. Otherwise, you're just pulling elitest maneuvers on unsuspecting folks - some of whom might actually be your "equal" - in order to feel superior.

Re: I get a different conclusion

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I used to look at it tht way, but not so much, anymore. Equality is not instantaneous.

Re: I get a different conclusion

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

Assumption of lack is resignation. No one ever said being "enlightened" was easy. Likewise, being radical comes with no guarantees or immediate rewards. If you want to be understood, you have to work for it. Otherwise, don't complain. No one owes you their effort especially if they didn't ASK for your input. You want to bring forth something new, you better be prepared to do the dirty work of preparing the world for what you bring. Don't be lazy.

to put it simply

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

"sink or swim" mentality never won anyone's allegiance.

Re: to put it simply

[wolven.livejournal.com]

No, it tends to drive people away. As for the other thing: People rarely ask; doesn't mean they might not benefit.

so...

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

if you are actually interested in benefitting others, how in the world do you justify the contrary attitude of "if they don't get it right the first time, screw 'em"?

People aren't benefitted by being slapped upside the head with something they can't grasp and then turned away when attempting to parse it out. Either you're trying to communicate/benefit others or you're puffing up your own ego. If it's the former, then you need to do better in the communication department on your own side. If it's the former, then you have no right to bemoan your position as "misunderstood" as it's disingenuous.

err

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

I meant "if it's the latter..." in the last sentance.

Re: so...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I have more than enough willingness to work. I'm simply stating, here, that i'd rather people Ask what i meant, before assuming they Know what i meant. That's the wuality i'm not receiving, here.

see, that's what annoys me

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

people always saying "if you don't understand, just ask me what I meant" as if a person KNOWS when they don't understand. Ridiculous assumption. When trying to communicate with another person, most people come from the notion that they are somewhere on the same wavelength. So whatever subject is at hand, they have some knowledge of and therefore make certain base assumptions. To say that every person should somehow magically know that they have the wrong idea is like saying we should know the vocabulary, grammar and slang of another language: if we knew that, we wouldn't be ignorant. If I was aware of my own ignorance, I wouldn't stay ignorant and I sure as hell wouldn't sit quietly by while someone knowledgeable went on... I'd tell them up front that I was ignorant. If people aren't telling you of their ignorance or lack of knowledge, its because that self-awareness is part of the ignorance or lack. Good gravy is that so hard to understand?

after all

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

you wouldn't be conversing with me here if you thought I completely lacked the capacity to understand what you are saying. If I do not grasp your meaning inherently, I should HOPE you would point that out to me with some amount of tolerance, clarity and patience. Otherwise, why should I bother listening to you?

At the same time, there are times when you yourself think you know what you are saying when in fact YOU are the one who is confused or incorrect. You refusal to accept the possibility that other people may be more hip to your meaning than you is indicative of inflexibility. It is also possible that certain labels or categories applied to your stream of thought are in fact, correct by usual standards. If you want to be understood, you have to speak in the language of the listener.

lastly

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

how many times must a person misconstrue what you meant before you realize that perhaps your communicative skills need brushing up?

Re: lastly

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Communication skills... Hm. I happen to think I communicate fairly well. I make my points clearly, purposefully leaving layers and levels of meaning to my words and phrases, intending most of the meanings that can be drawn from them, so that A) I'm usually not disappointed when someone pulls out those layers and B) my words aren't lightly chosen.

My problem, as i was stating, comes from the fact that people, recently, have thought that i Meant Section A, subheading ii of the definition of my word choice, but was unaware of Section B subheading i. That presumption, that base disregard for the idea that i may have thought about levels and layers, That's what pissed me off, enough to ask this question.

In so asking, i've seen that, yeah, people do consider layers, and do start with base assumptions, because otherwise there would Be no start, and i can accept that. I still think that the number of starting assumptions can be greatly reduced, if the Type of Starting assumptions were more carefully directed.

And that's all i have to say about that.

Re: after all

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Patience is a difficult virtue to keep, and i've always been rather bad at applying it, across the board. Where one area may see Much of my patience, many other areas suffer lack of it. It's a matter of balance.

If other people are more keen to what i mean than i am, then there is something deeply wrong. Not saying it's not possible, simply that it, in my view, should not be the case.

In my opinion, no one should know someone else better than that person knows his or her self.

Re: see, that's what annoys me

[wolven.livejournal.com]

People know when they are Confused. If something may mean something, but might not, that possible confusion rings out.

"So it's like _________."

"No that's not what i meant."

"Oh. What did you mean?"

"I meant ______."

"Oh, Ok."

Re: I get a different conclusion

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That's what i'm Saying. It requires work to be equal, or even understand the terms on which one is approaching someone else.

Re: I get a different conclusion

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

people don't know what you know until you tell them. If you don't like that fact, don't try to tell them anything.
Likewise, you don't know what people know until they tell you. Sounds like they are telling you and you don't like the fact that it doesn't match up with what you know. Being smart is work.

Re: I get a different conclusion

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Everything is work. What i know matches up with Everything, if i know what i think i know... Rather, if what i believe is, in fact, true.

That's my point. That, and that the reverse is not necessarily a perceptual Truth.

and you miss a finer point

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

you ASSUME and JUDGE and LABEL someone to be "not equal" to you if their reaction does not match your desire or preconception. you ASSUME, JUDGE and LABEL someone as "not worthy" of your effort to be understood if they do not understand at the outset. Yet you are musing upon being judged yourself?

Re: and you miss a finer point

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Actually, it was... partyly self-reflexive. As all my questions are... I long ago hit the idea that Any problem i have with other people probably reflects something in myself, with which i'm dissatisfied. Always Easier to Externalise, than to do the internal work, but the first step is asking the question, to get it out there.

It's an unconscious judgement, if it's there, which makes it worse. If they misunderstand, at the outset, and i get upset, it's because i'm sick of working, so much, at the time.

As i said, equality is not instantaneous. That goes for the perception and understanding of terms, as well.