On Communication and Definitions

In the comments of the post called, "Philosophy of Religion" and "Theology": What's the Difference?, r.j.marvin and I have been having an interesting conversation on communication. A concern was expressed: when individuals engage in dialogue, can they rationally discuss topics where the definitions of major points of contention are unclear? For example, assume that an atheist, a Calvinist, and a Muslim were engaged in a dialogue about God. The atheist remarks that the idea of God is internally contradictory, due to the nature of omnipotence and omni-benevolence. The Calvinist remarks that God has mysteries that cannot be explained, such as the nature of the trinity, but is not internally contradictory. The Muslim remarks that the idea of God is not internally contradictory and, while mysterious, has no apparent contradictions. It seems like all three of these discussants have different definitions of God. Can they, thus, rationally discuss the topic?

First, I will argue why they can. Second, I will defend against reasons why they allegedly could not by addressing the initial quandary.

If it were true that individuals can maintain distinct definitions of words without the possibility of harmonization, definitions would be meaningless and devoid of substance, because they would not have any references. Imagine if I defined "Quarorglewoggle" as "Gltheltic-giborglewoggle". If you asked me to define "Gltheltic-jiborglejiggle", I would continue using nonsense words with no real-world references, and would eventually come back to "Quarorglewoggle". We would thus not be able to have any legitimate knowledge of what is being communicated. In other words, if the skeptical concern is legitimate, we would not have legitimate understanding of the references of others' words. Since we do have legitimate understanding of the references of others' words (given that you are reading this), it is not the case that the skeptical concern is true (and, thus, the skeptical concern is false), at least about some words.

"Some words", however, is very different from "all words" (there's a puzzle for you). Could there exist a word that, through the method I outlined above, can be circularly defined in nonsensical terms? Yes-- consider "quarorglewoggle". Here's my question: we have the word "quarorglewoggle". Is there actually a reference of the word? In other words, we can imagine "quarorglewoggle" (the word); can the speaker imagine quarorglewoggle (the reference of the word)? If not, they are either deceiving their fellow discussant (but we're assuming that they're acting in good faith, so this isn't an issue), or there is actually something that the word refers to. There exist many properties that, as we have already established, are not nonsensical (in that they can be meaningfully defined). Each of these properties either do or do not relate to the definition of the word. For example, if I defined the "best flavor of icecream" as "that particular taste of ice cream that is most pleasing to the taster", the property of being "Cherry-Vanilla" does not relate to the definition of the word-- merely the instantiation (the carrying-out) of the definition.

Back to our initial quandary. If a Calvinist claims that the definition of God, via the Trinity, is mysterious but not contradictory, we should tell him/her that they are mistaken. The Trinity is no more a part of the definition of God than Cherry-Vanilla is part of the definition of the best flavor of ice-cream; it's part of the instantiation. The Muslim's claim is coherent. The Atheist's claim, that the definition of God entails a contradiction (omni-benevolence and omnipotence) sets us up for a great topic that could be discussed, but makes the same mistake as a Calvinist. The Greek gods were certainly not omnibenevolent, nor were they omnipotent, and yet they are still referred to as gods. The Atheist concern is with a specific instantiation of the definition of God, not with the definition of God itself.

In conclusion, we must be careful when we distinguish between definitions and instantiations of definitions. There are no true contradictions in reality (assertion on my part, feel free to challenge it), and thus no definition will be contradictory. Instantiations of definitions, however, may be. The definition of "contradiction" is not contradictory, but all instantiations of "contradictions" are, necessarily, contradictory.

Make sense? Share your thoughts, comments, and arguments below. I look forward to your feedback!

The Log Lady

On a less scholarly note, my favorite television show is Lynch's and Frost's masterpiece, Twin Peaks. There's all sorts of really interesting issues raised in the show, and one enigmatic character-- the "Log Lady"-- has some particularly interesting things to say. Consider, as she notes in Episode 10 (of season 2), "Coma":

"Letters are symbols. They are building blocks of words which form our languages. Languages help us communicate. Even with complicated languages used by intelligent people, misunderstanding is a common occurrence."

"We write things down sometimes - letters, words - hoping they will serve us and those with whom we wish to communicate. Letters and words, calling out for understanding."

She continues exploring this topic in Episode 11, "The Man Behind Glass": "Miscommunication sometimes leads to arguments, and arguments sometimes lead to fights. Anger is usually present in arguments and fights. Anger is an emotion, usually classified as a negative emotion. Negative emotions can cause severe problems in our environment and to the health of our body.

"Happiness, usually classified as a positive emotion, can bring good health to our body, and spread positive vibrations into our environment. Sometimes when we are ill, we are not on our best behavior. By ill, I mean any of the following: physically ill, emotionally ill, mentally ill, and/or spiritually ill."

So, let's consider her argument. I'll enclose her arguments in [brackets] rather than "quotes" because I'll paraphrase some. [Letters are symbols which are the building blocks of words]. So far so good. All words are built from letters (although not necessarily exclusively from letters). What is interesting, she notes, is that [letters are symbols]-- and we all know what the symbols signify; I have not met another English speaker who could express a different idea of the letter "a" from my own. Words are composed of letters (and other characters, but which serve similar functions as symbols). However, even though words are composed purely of universally (in the context of a language) accepted characters, miscommunication occurs; this implies that either individuals really disagree on what letters are references of, or that a word is greater than the sum of its characters.

We explicitly use [letters and words to call out for understanding], and this is their explicit purpose. However, [miscommunication is a common occurrence]. Now, she says, consider: sometimes, [miscommunication leads to arguments] (which seems reasonable to me), and [arguments sometimes lead to fights] (which also seems coherent). Additionally, [in both arguments and fights, anger-- which is usually classified as a negative emotion-- is usually present]. By "negative emotion", the "Log Lady" refers to [that which can cause severe problems in our environment and to the health of our body]. This can be understood as that which is not a "positive emotion", an emotion that [can bring good health to our body, and spread positive vibrations into our environment].

So, then, letters are symbols which, when used in words to communicate, usually (being "a common occurrence") end in miscommunication. Miscommunication tends to end in negative emotions, which [can cause severe problems in our environment and to the health of our body]. There is a definite implication here that letters themselves can actually cause negative emotions. What does she suggest as a resolution,

In Episode 15, "Lonely Souls", she argues, "Balance is the key. Balance is the key to many things. Do we understand balance? The word 'balance' has seven letters. Seven is difficult to balance, but not impossible if we are able to divide. There are, of course, the pros and cons of division."

So, then, it would seem that one can overcome the problems of miscommunication through "balance", but there is the epistemological problem of whether one actually understands it, because such an understanding requires division of the primordial references of experience. If one is willing to take a primordial element-- whether a letter in a word or an experience in a memory-- and cut it apart in order to study it, there are problems. She explores this too, in Episode 22, "Double Play": "A death mask is almost an intrusion on a beautiful memory. And yet, who could throw away the casting of a loved one? Who would not want to study it longingly, as the distant freight train blows its mournful tone?" On the one hand, if one one does not seek balance in communication, one risks miscommunication, which can yield negative emotions with detrimental effects. However, if one seeks balance, one finds situations where balancing requires division, and one must decide whether analytical study-- whether of a word such as "balance" or an experience such as the loss of a loved one-- will merit the end result.

The conclusion? As stated in the final episode, Episode 29, "Beyond Life and Death", one finds at the end of this puzzle "...an ending. Where there was once one, there are now two. Or were there always two? What is a reflection? A chance to see two? When there are chances for reflections, there can always be two - or more. Only when we are everywhere will there be just one."

When one takes a word, an experience, or a television show, one can either approach it holistically and take the chance of miscommunication, or divide that which is not naturally divided. Such a division means that, [where there was once one, there are now two]. However, [where there are chances for reflections, there exist chances for division], and one can only avoid such a division if one's approach is completely consistent in its indivisibility can one avoid absolute division. In essence: either approach a situation holistically, or be prepared to encounter a situation where "There is as much space outside the human, proportionately, as inside" (The Log Lady, Episode 9, "Arbitrary Law").

Sorry, quite a bit of talking there. Whether there is anything of significance-- or even philosophical consideration-- is certainly up for debate. I think there's some really interesting issues raised, though. And you should certainly watch Twin Peaks when you have the chance. Unfortunately, the Pilot Episode is only available on the newest version, the "Definitive Gold Box Edition", due to a licensing issue they had, but I can assure you that it's worth picking up, renting, or finding online if you have the chance.

Humorous v. Serious Language: Can Opposites Attract?

For those of you who were able to attend Dr. Sands’ lecture last Thursday – “Lincoln’s Serious Use of Humor” – I bet you got as much joy out of it as I did. I would here like to qualify, however, what some may have mistakenly taken from his presentation and conclusions – or rather, more preferable to say, complement those arguments.

Political rhetoric is like no other. There exists in all of us some strangely excitable passions that can be played upon and provoked, shaking us awake from our state of dormancy and general malaise, and orators and politicians assuredly know all the best ways to do this. There is, of course, philosophical inquires to be made about how rhetoricians ought to persuade, and the responsibilities entailed by both speaker and audience member, and so on, but those are not the topics right now. Here I’d like to focus on the important Dynamic Duo of humorous and serious language, and their efficacy on the masses.

Comedy has an unquestionably universal prevalence in our society, and especially in politics. Remember back to the popularity of late night talk shows in the 2008 elections, what, with Tina Fey’s impersonations of Sarah Palin, the nightly infotainment of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, and all the other sensational political sources like tabloids and satirical cartoon caricatures. Just look at the ratio of comedies on television as opposed to intellectual shows (whatever those may actually be). Even the unabashedly bawdy two-thousand-year-old political jokes of Aristophanes still get chuckles. This obsession with all political things humorous may not be the very best way to inspire citizens towards betterment, and it certainly poses a severe problem to those earnestly wanting to reform society without a punch line. Do we really want our political leaders to be endlessly amusing, always eager to put a smile our face? Most would agree that we want people of the best sort, with genuine, upstanding moral characters, with eloquence and dignity, and with the citizens’ and the society’s best interests at heart. Not too many comedians are described in this way, for humor can tend to bring out the worst in people, yet the politician-comedian who delights the masses is able to win over the bemused crowd with ease.

You may argue that because humor is so effective a tool, why am I condemning it? It is natural, after all, to like things that make us happy, and humor does that! Let’s look at Lincoln for a response to this. He was a statesman incomparable, and cleverly weaved humor, irony, and satire in his life to the advantage of his political career, and his name is not denounced! Yet as president, when he gave speeches and effectively spoke to all the people of the nation and pervasively to us as well, the humor gave way to a more somber tone, often resembling beautiful, poetic prose rather than humorous or more pleasing language. And it is this, rather than his use of humor, that actually moved people the most and when it counted. Rather than a pursuit of persuading a crowd to vote for him, Lincoln was here calling for a cathartic change in the very souls of the American public, and knew that serious language was the correct way to go.

For those who take the time to listen to the less “exciting” speeches and texts of politics, and who study their arguments and meaning, they will be far more affected and on a much deeper level than by any other way of speech. Audiences can be swayed by satire, humorous exaggerations, or funny anecdotes, but it is far more likely that they will enjoy it, laugh a little, and then forget it. Dramas, after all, and tragedies are not nearly so pleasurable to endure at times as comedies, for the former often aim to show us what’s worst about ourselves, and what needs to change. Audiences more inclined to the comedies, however (and that could very well be argued to mean the majority of Americans today!), would also be far more prone to a paralyzed, lazy mind, and less likely to study the “boring” political arguments that deserve more than a casual glance. It must be held that an appeal to intellect, by politicians or others, calls the audience to think and live at an altogether higher level. Instead of having our orators vie with each other for the most laughs, leaders should want to inspire greatness and a betterment of the citizenry through appeals to the higher faculties of man. Dr. Sands’ (and Lincoln’s) aim was ultimately to praise humor and its effectiveness, but only when tempered by serious language as well. Humor does not get a free ride just because we like it, but it must be used rightly. The best use of language must be a good mixture of both humorous and serious language, so shoot for that mean.

Another Productive Collegiate Network Conference

This past weekend, Tricia Steele and I traveled to Charlotte, NC to take part in yet another Collegiate Network conference. This is the organization that has given the journal a generous printing grant. At this particular event, students from all over the South met to share their experiences concerning the production of independent college publications. The weekend conference consisted of several workshops ranging from "Business Management" to "Ethics." Many tutorials not only offered indispensable advice, but outlined practical ways in which to accomplish the professional goal of publishing independently. To help students visualize this and the potential long-term success that might come about in the discipline of letters, several notable journalistic professionals were enlisted to speak to the student body.

One notable impression was made by Anne Carson Daly who is the Vice President for Academic Affairs from Belmont Abbey College and was a former Director of Policy Communications for Pfizer. Her speech, "What Does it Mean? Why Words Matter," particularly resonated with the philosophically-inclined students in the audience--those who are always eager to engage in discussions regarding the nature of language.

The underlying sentiment of her talk revolved around the activity of language, the concrete meaning that words hold, and the responsibility bestowed upon those who take on the role of distributing knowledge and information. Daly holds that those who choose to do so have a duty to be as transparent as possible as well as being responsible for the ignition of intellectual curiosity.

Working from the Platonic model of the Forms, Daly called her young audience to action: words have meaning behind them that ought to be acknowledged and protected. For her, language is not arbitrary, but vital and rich with meaning. Words point to the best of things and it is with this understanding that we create substance out of this world. As conductors of language we should embrace this role and view our duty as something sacred.

The future of Arete rests upon such philosophical vigor. It is our intention to express the temporal through a philosophical lens. We want people to understand the philosophical workings and implications of all things, no matter how minute they may originally appear. Such a lens gives individuals the tools to work past the immediate trappings of circumstance toward the greater things in life that hold ultimate value. Those are the things that we desire to express and protect. We hope that our ideas are infectious, controversial, and compelling. This aim, coincidentally, could not be possible without the basic understanding of how one word's meaning holds the potential to shape an idea, a movement, a mind, or a soul.