Podcast Revived

Elkish Argumentation

Fri Dec 25 07:16:09 CST 2009

Earlier in the night I’d dreamed of a snowy ridge next to a road. The woods was conifer but not dense.  I glimpsed an elk to the north of me, itself next to the road and heading eastwards along it.  I began running eastward myself, wondering in the dream where I was headed and at the same time quite happy to simply be running.   I awoke grateful that in dreams we can run without tiring, and made  a note to myself that I’d  dreamed of an elk perhaps for the first time.  Long ago I’d been given  a Lakota name which translates to ‘First Elk,’ so a dream like this might
be worth noting.

Even so, the details of dreams are less important to me than the emotions, as I suspect that emotions are our most important challenges here on  this planet.  The testimony of near death experiencers and of all our most respected religious leaders urge us, not to get smart,  but to be nice.

The second dream was for me another unusual scene.  I was in a hallway, heading for class, one for which I hadn’t done the coursework, but at a university level.  Suddenly, as in dreams nearly all transitions happen with a simple change in attention, I was in a classroom of adults, faced by a brash young instructor who confidently addressed us from the ledge of the sole window.  That window spanned the student’s right side of the  front of the classroom, and the left side of the classroom front was dark.  Perhaps it had a chalkboard or the like, but the lighting was dim on that side.

I don’t recall the subject of the current lecture, but this guy seemed  young to be a full professor.  He was bright though, and talked with a witty gleam in his eye, the sort of masterful aggression that I might have feared in classrooms when I was in college. 

“I’d like to propose,” I began after raising my hand, “that the use of any language is necessarily inexact.”

The classroom erupted into discussion.  Several of the guys on the left side of the classroom had their hands in the air, and the classroom din made it impossible to hear what the instructor was saying, even as I stood to see him.

I waved my arms.  “Allow me to finish the point, and then perhaps we can entertain discussion.”

“Yes, let’s do that.”  His grin was even fiercer than before.  “Behave yourselves everyone,  and let’s hear the rest of this.”

“Everyone has had this experience,” I went on.  “You talk to a friend, and moments after you walk away, you say to yourself, ‘Agh!  I should have said such and so.’  Even in the best, most conducive of communication environments then, we later realize that our message hadn’t been projected most optimally.”

Here is where I woke up, but I’ll finish the thought within the narrative.

“Of course there are all the problems of transmission and reception of  any encoded message, and we all understand the necessity of feedback in those instances.  It is the responsibility of the sender, i.e. the only person who knows what the message is, to follow through to make sure the message is recieved and understood in a way to nearly match the notion that the sender wished to share.”

“In spite of all that, it is the realization of afterthought that informs us that the message might not have been optimal in the first place.  Consider that to be feedback loops within the sending organism if you will, but the likelihood of error cannot be dismissed.”

“Therefore, and I repeat, therefore, the promotion of social harmony must incorporate mechanisms of correction and renegotiation.  Consider the counter example of domestic harmony and the lack thereof.”

“What is the key feature of a family dysfunction?”  I looked at the class but didn’t pause long enough for the unruly din to re-emerge.

“Broken communication channels, of course.  Usually there is one member  of a family who cannot be negotiated with.  Communication channels are there, but this person, whether an alcoholic, a workaholic, a rageaholic, or whatever, this person cannot be argued with.  The worst sort of course is the same danger outlined in Adolf Guggenbohl-Craig in his book Power in the Helping Professions, wherein one person is empowered by the moral highground to think he or she knows what is
good for other people whether they realize it or not.  A thousand  years ago it was the Spanish Inquisition, and today it is Global Warming, being delivered as a one world government to save us from certain extinction.”

“As Guggenbohl-Craig says, everyone needs a friend who can argue with him or her.  My point is that it is the argument that saves us from the inexactitude of language.  Arguments themselves should not be avoided, but as Bill Gates does in business meetings, we must  look for the bad news and deal with that.  By doing so we promote the general harmony of a society, just as a married couple can fight like cats and dogs and yet be deeply in love.”