First, I'd like to return to a quote from Jen from a few posts back:
"Why can’t people think in the same way? Also, if everyone were to live in the same semantic environment and used the same language, would there be less arguments and more cooperation?"
Now, many of us agree that cooperation is often not possible due to our differing verbal intensional worlds. And if we all had the exactly same intensional worlds, then perhaps there would be less arguments and more cooperation. But I wonder, would that be right? Even if we could, would we force everyone's verbal intensional world to be the same?
After all, we'd have cooperation. There would be no more arguments, no more fights, no more war. We actually might have world peace if everyone on the planet had the same verbal intensional world, and we would all understand each other. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that we were all born with and maintained the same verbal intensional worlds. Would the world be a better place?
Actually, Mr. Lazarow's mention of the DNC prompted me to think about politics, which in turn led me to the subject of partisanship. More and more, nowadays, I see headlines telling us that politics is too polarizing and that the two parties are dividing us into two Americas, red and blue. We have vicious political bickering, and sometimes with all of the snarl words and purr words being thrown at us from political consultants, the truth doesn't always come through. Now, I'm sure that all of us know the major smears (snarling) against both Barack Obama and John McCain and have heard their life stories (purring) praised numerous times. But I wonder if we could offer a comprehensive and nuanced analysis of each of the candidate's policies, even complicated ones such as health care.
Sometimes I wonder whether partisanship is a good thing or a bad thing. The two parties result from the differing intensional worlds that we all have, and so sometimes compromise is impossible upon social issues such as abortion. After all, if the maps inside of our heads don't match, how can we agree? Could we get more done if we all had the same intensional maps inside of our heads? Even our Founding Fathers were wary of a two-party system.
Still, I have to conclude that argument is an essential part of society, and that we need to have different intensional maps and that we need disagreements and partisanship. And through argument, we all offer and receive glimpses of the verbal maps inside others' heads. Many times we learn to revise our own maps.
Besides, isn't it a bit like having an extra brain and perspective if someone has a different map than we do and offers us a glance of it? If we all had the same map and thought the same way, innovation would come to a standstill and language and communication might even stop. One reason we communicate is to learn about other people's maps, and if all of our maps were the same, why communicate?
Even though partisanship may seem counterproductive at times, I believe that it still is an essential part of democracy. We need disagreements and arguments and differing intensional maps as chances to improve and advance our own mindsets. Freedom of expression is needed for society to function.
Thoughts please? My mind was muddled a few times, so clarification would be appreciated.
(Eric Wei)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree with Eric in that argument is an essential part of accomplishing anything and that if everyone had the same "map" than it is unlikely that we could achieve nearly what we do in today's society because innovation would be at a standstill.
I wanted though, to make a few comments on the DNC. I would make my own post but for some reason despite my many attempts I can't seem to figure out how to post regularly I can only comment. I'm sure there is an easy soultion to this problem but I have spent almost three weeks trying to overcome it and still can't. So, about the convention. It does seem to be a perfect example of so many of Hayakawa's points. For one thing, mcuh of it seems to be almost as uninformative as the presymbolic language that Hayakawa describes as accompanying rituals in general. We have all known for some time that Obama would be the Democratic Nominee and it is clear that Biden will be his runnign mate. No information has truly been gained about his policies or anything else. In some ways it seems to be a more sophisticated version of a high school pep ralley. The players are introduced and much of the time is spent with tumultuous cheering after hearing slogans and remarks that are unoriginal and have been heard before. To me it seems that the main purpose of the DNC (and of the Republican counterpart next week) is so that voters can that they are part of a team. Well, perhaps team isn't the correct word but hopefully I'm getting my point across.
Additonally, I noticed that during Hilary Clinton's speech her voice was much calmer and less harsh than it was during much of her campaigning. I was wondering if this could have conceivably been part of the reason her speech was so well received.
Any thoughts?
(Molly Dunbar)
Oh, I absolutely agree that much of the language used was only presymbolic. Not much new information was being revealed, as the convention (in its current form) is just the "reaffirmation of social cohesion", as Hayakawa put it, as the candidate has already been decided.
But even if the speeches revealed nothing truly new, it still was enjoyable to hear all of the affective elements at work. One of my favorite parts of Bill's speech was when he stated that the "power of our example" is more impressive to others than the "example of our power." His tone of voice and cadence really emphasized his statements. And as you noted, Hillary's tone of voice was more subdued than it had been during her campaigning.
Another interesting part of their speeches was the interplay between levels of abstraction, something Hayakawa considered important for a politican. For example, Bill Clinton mentioned in his speech that right now the "American Dream is under siege", which was a statement on a high level of abstraction, before going down a few levels to refer to the specifics such as mortgage forclosures and the spike in commodity prices. Hillary used this interplay as well, as she first told us that "America's greatness is bound up in the lives of American people", and then mentioned the specific examples of people she had met (such as the single mom and the Marine Corps man).
By the way Molly, to make a post, just click the button to the top right under Mr. Lazarow's account. Under our personal accounts, like "eric w." and "molly dunbar", we can't do that yet, so you have to use Mr. Lazarow's username to make posts.
(Eric Wei)
Eric, I am so glad that you introduced this topic. I find it extremely relevant to our country's current political affairs and Hayakawa's writing.
You mentioned your concerns regarding polarizing political stands. Yet without such varying viewpoints, there would be no Democratic Party and no Republican Party. Campaigns would be seen as futile, and the process of electing leaders would possibly collapse as well. By that time, communication may have diminished. The lack of leadership, however, would result in a plunge into inevitable dilemma. Would not the loss of communication lead us to the end of the road?
The fact of the matter is that this scenario may be quite far-fetched, yet we, as a human race, live for the sake of arguing. Our language is never purely harmonious. There will never be an instance when a candidate's "purr" and "snarl" words will please each member of the audience. There will never be a time when presymbolic and directive utterances will please each member of our public society. Yet we strive for the thought of manifesting our beliefs grandly (by means of both verbal and non-verbal show) in hopes of convincing others that "our" way of life is more fulfilling than "their" way of life may be.
If all of us had the same maps and territories instilled within our minds, those maps and territories would never extend. Both our intensional and extensional experiences would become gravely limitied, possibly leading to the end of human discovery as we know it. I hope this is making sense to all of you!
(Samantha Maliha)
I agree with you, Sam. With our different intensional maps, we must argue in order to reconcile our differences and expose others to new ideas. In my original post, however, I was merely wondering what the world would be like if we all had been born with the same intensional maps, and if that would be better than the status quo. After all, sometimes all of this polarization is not really helpful. But as you said, on the long term, the disagreements between the parties offer us choices and argument drives America's polical system today. Besides, having numerous different intensional maps allows us to cover more ground together than we could with only one.
(Eric Wei)
Referring to Eric's comment that "With our different intensional maps, we must argue in order to reconcile our differences and expose others to new ideas.", doesn't this establish that arguments are necessary for intellectual advancement?
In the concluding paragraph of Chapter 1, Hayakawa builds upon his assumption that language is a fundamental part of human survival to say that "when the use of language results...in the creation or aggravation of disagreements and conflicts, there is something linguistically wrong with the speak, the listener, or both."
Yet previous comments have made it clear that there are many merits in disagreeing and arguing. Of course, this would usually call for the presence of some rational thought. However, the point that arguments make progress possible is clear. "Language...makes progress possible." (Hayakawa 7) That much is clear as well.
Thus, how can it be possible that there is something linguistically wrong with the participants in an argument when the argument/disagreement is fulfilling the basic role of language - to make progress possible?
Any thoughts?
That's a good point.
However, I feel that the comment of mine that you quoted and Hayakawa's words are not incompatible. The first regards arguments resulting from intensional differences, the other concerns arguments resulting from linguistical misunderstandings.
First of all, I believe that Hayakawa is referring to situations in which the usage of language itself results in conflict, not situations where existing differences are resolved through language and debate.
For example, if someone says a demeaning remark of some kind or a verbal taboo mistakenly, an uproar may result from that remark and people may bicker and argue, but in the end of the day, progress has not been made because the argument had resulted from a misunderstanding of language itself: something is linguistically wrong with the participants.
However, if there is an existing clash between the intensional maps of two people, then language and debate can help resolve that through compromise and discussion. Differences that once were irreconcilable may become more nuanced and workable, and the use of language can result in cooperation through debate.
So while Hayakawa stated that arguments arising out of the usage of language itself (ie taboo remarks) can be unproductive, arguments in which language is used to discuss preexisting genuine intensional differences can result in cooperation and progress.
Any thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
"However, if there is an existing clash between the intensional maps of two people, then language and debate can help resolve that through compromise and discussion."
I would just like to comment a bit on eric's statement. As many people have said, it is impossible for two people to have exactly the same intensional map. However, I do believe that everyone's intensional maps overlap in some area. This, in turn, would explain the reason for two main political groups in every election. There is a part in each of those two groups that is similar to a part in the intesnsional maps of most people.
(mary quien)
I feel that what we are all trying to describe is the versitility of language. Just like many things in life, it possesses two sides, one positive and the other negative. Language has the power to destroy us and also build the complex societies that have placed us at the head of the food chain. Is this not esentially what we are all saying (in simplified terms, of course)?
(Samantha Maliha)
P.S. How is possible to stop posting as "laz" and begin to write under our own names?
I agree with you Sam - that is, essentially, what we get down to. Just as we can use language to deliberately antagonize others, it is also language that helps to bring a resolution to those very disputes and disagreements.
However, in "situations in which the usage of language itself results in conflict" (Eric) is there really nothing we can learn from? The bickering participants in such an argument may not seem as capable of learning from their dispute as, say, politicians.. However, assuming that some sort of resolution is reached, do they not learn not to use the same slur or remark again? Do they not realize the futility in arousing such hostility among people?
In some ways, I would believe that people can find a way to turn these seemingly meaningless arguments into a chance at progress. True - the progress that they make is learning the lesson to not hinder true progress (Meaning, they learn not to start fights over insignificant whims).. But it is nonetheless a chance at improvement.
Or maybe I'm being too optimistic?
In answer to your question regarding posting under "Laz", if you log into your Gmail or Blogspot account, you can post comments under your own name. However, when you need to make an actual original post on this blog, you need to go under "Laz."
Hope that helps!
But did Hayakawa not state earlier on in the book that language is what helps us learn from history? How can he speak so optimisticly of language when it is in fact the reason we seem to running in cirlces? Judgements, inferences, and purr-words will never end, because in a sense, that would be a way of deleting the intelligence that has been developing since the beginning of time.
P.S. I have neither a Gmail account nor a Blogpost one, unfortunately.
(Samantha Maliha)
Post a Comment