The Blind Shouting at the Deaf
Are words necessary for thought? Are pictures?
Over the dinner table I asked “When somebody speaks, and makes a case, and you feel they are wrong, and explain why: what sort of thing is it in your head that you are describing when you reply?” I was surprised at how different the answers were: “I see a picture,” “I sense a pattern,” “I have a feeling that it is wrong,” “I think with the words.”
Many philosophers insist that thought is impossible without words. Unsurprisingly, that is a common view among professional philosophers, who wrestle with words constantly. People who think in words are well-suited to that profession. But the assumption that we all “think” in the same way seems unfounded. Ask people, as I did, how they think, and the answers are as varied as their physiques. Some people are tall, some short; some musical, some tone-deaf; some optimistic, and some depressive. Our discourse is, of course, an attempt to find common ground in knowing about the world, but it often fails miserably. Some people think in pictures, some by instinctive appetites, some by patterns. Perhaps it is not so surprising that honest and earnest speakers, describing their thoughts, are astonished by the lack of understanding that confronts them. We use words to talk to each other, but our shared language may be describing radically different ways of perceiving, imagining, deciding.
As a conceit merely, I wonder if the Republicans think in words, the Democrats in pictures.
Republicans certainly behave as if a phrase like “a simple up or down vote” actually means something to them that they can chew on and deal with. Democrats, I suspect, reacting to that, see an instantaneous yet complex picture, depicting the Electoral College, warding off trivial majorities; the Supreme Court, axiomatically appointed to be above vote counting; a President who was appointed, not elected, after the counting of votes was stopped, (there being no danger that he would have won a popular majority); a House where serpentine, contrived districts ensure the election of Representatives chosen by the previous congress rather than the current electorate; and the Senate, a body specifically designed to be non-representative as regards the majority of the people in the union - non-representative of the will that would be expressed if the people had a simple “up or down vote.”
All of that is simple in a picture, or a diagram. But it takes a lot of words to spell out the hypocrisy. The Republican strategy is much more persuasive. Freedom! Values! Freedom! Values! Freedom! Values!
Repetition is powerful. The avoidance of the common requirement in deliberative assemblies for a wide-margin majority in important decisions (what a complex clause is that!) by chanting the simple mantra “An up-or-down vote that she deserves.” “An up-or-down vote that she deserves.” is very effective. Which is more convincing: a diagrammatic conception of the complexity of effective decision-making procedures, or the constant “Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!”? Surely there must be rebellion soon.
George Orwell described a world of misery from which there is no escape. We are enfolded by a warm, cuddly, world of plenty. Why would anyone want to escape? Don’t mess it up with information or understanding.
It seems like the slogan-wielders have convinced themselves with their words. But they are shouting, shouting, shouting, at the deaf, while the deaf are gesticulating their distress to the blind sloganeers. More and more, for each side, the other side seems uncomprehending and incomprehensible.
My Home Web Site
My Agent
Over the dinner table I asked “When somebody speaks, and makes a case, and you feel they are wrong, and explain why: what sort of thing is it in your head that you are describing when you reply?” I was surprised at how different the answers were: “I see a picture,” “I sense a pattern,” “I have a feeling that it is wrong,” “I think with the words.”
Many philosophers insist that thought is impossible without words. Unsurprisingly, that is a common view among professional philosophers, who wrestle with words constantly. People who think in words are well-suited to that profession. But the assumption that we all “think” in the same way seems unfounded. Ask people, as I did, how they think, and the answers are as varied as their physiques. Some people are tall, some short; some musical, some tone-deaf; some optimistic, and some depressive. Our discourse is, of course, an attempt to find common ground in knowing about the world, but it often fails miserably. Some people think in pictures, some by instinctive appetites, some by patterns. Perhaps it is not so surprising that honest and earnest speakers, describing their thoughts, are astonished by the lack of understanding that confronts them. We use words to talk to each other, but our shared language may be describing radically different ways of perceiving, imagining, deciding.
As a conceit merely, I wonder if the Republicans think in words, the Democrats in pictures.
Republicans certainly behave as if a phrase like “a simple up or down vote” actually means something to them that they can chew on and deal with. Democrats, I suspect, reacting to that, see an instantaneous yet complex picture, depicting the Electoral College, warding off trivial majorities; the Supreme Court, axiomatically appointed to be above vote counting; a President who was appointed, not elected, after the counting of votes was stopped, (there being no danger that he would have won a popular majority); a House where serpentine, contrived districts ensure the election of Representatives chosen by the previous congress rather than the current electorate; and the Senate, a body specifically designed to be non-representative as regards the majority of the people in the union - non-representative of the will that would be expressed if the people had a simple “up or down vote.”
All of that is simple in a picture, or a diagram. But it takes a lot of words to spell out the hypocrisy. The Republican strategy is much more persuasive. Freedom! Values! Freedom! Values! Freedom! Values!
Repetition is powerful. The avoidance of the common requirement in deliberative assemblies for a wide-margin majority in important decisions (what a complex clause is that!) by chanting the simple mantra “An up-or-down vote that she deserves.” “An up-or-down vote that she deserves.” is very effective. Which is more convincing: a diagrammatic conception of the complexity of effective decision-making procedures, or the constant “Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!”? Surely there must be rebellion soon.
George Orwell described a world of misery from which there is no escape. We are enfolded by a warm, cuddly, world of plenty. Why would anyone want to escape? Don’t mess it up with information or understanding.
It seems like the slogan-wielders have convinced themselves with their words. But they are shouting, shouting, shouting, at the deaf, while the deaf are gesticulating their distress to the blind sloganeers. More and more, for each side, the other side seems uncomprehending and incomprehensible.
posted by Andrew Massey | Saturday, May 28, 2005
|
0 comments
