Communication 18
The following was designed specifically for Bodyc, who apparently had difficulties decifering one of my latest communications. Perhaps this will assist his understanding . . . or not.
On March 4, (of a time removed from the present), I attended a lecture wherein it was proposed: there are radically different operations (uses) which different words perform. The speaker used the following as examples: noun (words) describe subjects, verb (words) indicate action, and adjectives or ‘color’ (words) point to quality. To accompany this ‘operational idea,’ the speaker attempted to portray its significance with the use of three different analogies: The Chess Analogy, The Tool Analogy, and The Job Analogy.
In this communication, I intend to expound upon the speaker’s intent of conveyance (which, I believe, was actually premised on one of Wittenstein’s ideas in terms of defining language in terms of its operational use), and see just how far I can push one of these analogies (and the ideas it employs) as I continue to compare a chess game to the game we play with language.
The ‘Chess Analogy’ could best be described as follows: Each particular chessman (word) has a different role (function) upon the gameboard (within the structure) of the game (sentence). To understand a move a player makes in the game of chess, is to understand the game of chess. To understand the game of chess, is to be a master of a technique. Similarly, to understand a sentence a person uses in the structure of a language is to understand a language, ‘To understand a language is to be master of a technique.’
Chess is a game that demands a certain knowledge of its rules; of knowing which rules apply to the roles of the sixteen chessman each player moves across the board. This knowledge in and of itself is not enough to achieve a mastership of technique. To be successful in the game of chess, a chess player must acquire the skill to anticipate the opponent’s moves. A player must also attain a calculative deftness to counter his or her opponent’s position on the gameboard with an alternate move in order maintain a ‘power-of-position on’ the gameboard. The game of chess progresses by such alternative moves, aforementioned, until 1. one player wins by checkmating the opponent’s King, or until 2. neither can do so and a stalemate results.
Let us superimpose this same idea onto the structure of language and make the determination if we have come up with similar results.
The use of language is a structure which demands the knowledge of its rules: of knowing which rules apply to the different functions of the variety of word forms that each conversationalist intends to employ in a conversation. This knowledge in and of itself is not enough to be a master of technique. To be successful in the art of conversation (the structured use of language) the conversationalist must acquire he skill to anticipate the other’s use of the language. The conversationalist must also attain a calculative deftness such that s/he is capable of an alternate response to the ideas being conveyed by the Other in order to assure his or her own strategic participation in the conversation. A conversation progresses by such alternate responses, aforementioned. until 1. one conversationalist gets his or her idea across to the other by careful explanation, and an idea is shared, or 2. the Other is simply incapable of grasping the idea(s) being conveyed, in which case a stalemate results.
I suppose (at this time) if I am going to continue to draw upon this analogy, I should be inclined to ask: What is the purpose of language?
I have heard that the purpose of playing a game of chess is to ultimately win the game by checkmating an opponent’s King, but what does someone hope to gain (or to win) by using a language?
I once had a professor tell me: You are not listening to what is actually being said. Consequently, you continue to impose your ideas onto the Other’s ideas simply to get whatever ideas you have across.
In further examination of this remark, I had to look at what he meant by what is “actually being said.”
Why is it that when someone tells you, “You are not listening to what is being said,” that you initially experience a sense of confusion on your part?
“Okay . . . tell me again . . . You said “such-n-such-n-such” (as you repeat verbatin what words were used to design what was actually being said) . . . and that means this-n-this-n-this.”
And the other looks at you and says, “No! You are still not listening to what is actually being said.”
What is ‘actually being said’, and the ‘words’ being used to communicate what one actually wants to say falls under two completely different categories. The communicator wants to convey his or her understanding (what is actually being said), however, the communicator is limited to the tooling of words to get his or her understanding across to the Other.
More importantly, what is actually heard is actually quite different than what is actually felt insofar as Understanding is concerned.
For example: Have you ever had someone approach you, and before he or she says a single word you sense something in your being that was not there a moment before? And there is something about what you are sensing that brings about a heightened sense of awareness (almost as if something awkward -or even threatening-has stepped into the phenomena of your experiencing)? Well . . . indeed it has, and not only has something entered into your experiencing, this same ‘something’ is communicating its presence at a quantum level.
So, then this person, who has entered into your space, opens his or her mouth, you may very well hear kinds words flowing into your ears toward your brain, but you are not still feeling any sense of kindness whatsoever. In fact, you may actually experience some confusion by his or her ‘worded-kindness’ because what you continue to sense and what you hear seem to be diametrically opposed. Briefly, you feel uncomfortable because two things are being communicated to you simultaneously on two different levels, and they do not click.
In such a case, “what was actually being said”? Or . . . to put it in different terms . . . do I listen to what I ‘feel’ is being communicated (something is not right about what I am sensing right now) or do I listen to what I hear being communicated (something nice is being said about
‘me’)?
The reason I want to make this distinction is because there is a distinction. Unfortunately, ‘peep-holes’ have been enculturated to devalue their ‘sensed-world’ and over value their ‘word-world’. And this is reason for concern because ‘peep-holes’ have learned how to use words to manipulate circumstances to get at almost anything they want.
My ideas do not belong to a ‘me’. I simply share things that are crossing over. These ideas are not expressed to change ‘you’, nor can they change ‘you’. ‘You’ can decide to change what ideas ‘you’ entertain, but these ideas will not change ‘you’. Do clouds change the blue sky or do they simply shroud That which Is ever-present and unyielding?
So . . . what is the purpose of a language? Is it to convey our ideas or to force people into our opinions? Is it to share our Understanding of Truth or to exploit others with sophisticated lies? Is it used it to discover the knowing of ourSelf or is it used to condition the Self with formulas of knowledge? Is it used to simply create noise because ‘peep-holes’ are too afraid of what they might ‘hear’ when Silence speaks?
There are no meanings in words in that a word (in and of itself cannot contain a meaning without a listener). However, with a true listener, there is wisdom to be shared in all the noise that they can create.
Self observe and pay close attention to how words are being used . . . or how ‘you’ are being used by words.
Silence is still golden
May 10th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Thanks for the welcome mysticrosemystic.com Please check out some relevant information about this mysticrosemystic.com Why you so think? Much respect!