When I think, I think more in images, visual metaphors, amorphous feelings, everythingalltogether, with only with a vague notion of how this could be broken down and translated into words. I wait for phrases that could be roughly in the ballpark, to float to the surface. A central packet of information emerges, sometimes in the form of just one word full of implied meaning to me, or a short phrase. Then I spend what seems like a long time working out ways to elaborate it into a full statement with a beginning and an end, and to decorate it with attachments that will make it presentable. Attachments such as 'anyway', 'it's interesting', 'so I was thinking', 'it all comes down to', 'that's why', 'I remember that', 'you know how it', 'well, yes, of course', 'I mean', 'that reminds me', 'it seems', 'what a', 'that sounds'... Ways of justifying its insertion into the context really.
In addition, I rarely have definite, strong, rapid, clearly stateable reactions, opinions or conclusions about anything I hear. That makes me kind of boring and I've had to train myself to amplify anything I might be feeling by about 5 times and then express the amplified reaction in order to sound interesting. (Especially in the US!) I hate it how I always --- I mean, I am uncomfortable with how I often feel like I have to make my meaning much more extreme than it really is, or else why would I even waste your time saying anything.
A valid statement eventually gets articulated and it sounds about right, it could pass for believable, I would expect a person to say something like that. I myself start to believe that this must be what I meant, because my listeners seem to be reacting as if that is really what I meant. I can see that they bought it. So I sometimes end up producing chunks of language that are not meaningful to me, however they match the pace of the interaction and they help move conversation along. But if I have time, for example when writing, I go back and recheck with myself whether these words that have appeared out of me through some associative process actually represent my reality, and whether they sound coherent. And I will often have to conclude that no, I did not communicate my deeper truth, I was filling in the gaps with somebody else's words in order to sound like what I think I am expected to say. With writing I have the luxury of trying words on, like clothes.
Sure I can speak as a social function, just that it will mostly come from prefabricated tapes adapted slightly to the audience's listening preferences. I tolerate making small-talk with strangers at gatherings because I know I'm not having to communicate any deeper content, the purpose is just to give the impression that I'm not hostile and that I'm somewhat intelligent. But I don't particularly enjoy it for its own sake. Reminds me of dogs sniffing each other.
At the same time I'm fascinated by language and communication and spend a lot of time thinking about it. I'm particularly interested in what never gets articulated, partly because it doesn't occur to people that it's possible to speak in that way. For much of my life, my implied assumption was that language is just a behavior that people engage in, a game like passing the ball, consisting of a limited set of possible and fairly predictable responses learned by imitation. It's only recently that I'm starting to clear out channels between actually observed thoughts and feelings, and their potential verbal expression. Articulating things that I can actually stand behind with some integrity. It's fascinating. Anchoring.
So in my ideal world where everybody is like me :) people would not feel pressured to constantly churn out words as a way of reassuring each other that they are comfortable and interested and friendly. Communication would be non-verbal until there was a need for word-content. In meaningful conversation, you would not be expected to instantly respond to statements, just as you would be able to interrupt a silence with a remark, without immediately needing an animated response. It would be a sign of respect to take time to reflect on what a person has told you. People would have “long thoughts”. A silence would not mean that the communication is over. Random observations and comments could be made just as a way of sharing what is on your mind and without necessarily having ANY point, or necessarily requiring any structured response validating or refuting what you said, or offering a solution. You would be encouraged to say what feels true rather than what feels familiar. People would arrive to conclusions by investigating a subject together from all sides, rather than start from given conclusions and then fight about their differences. And even, there would be no need to arrive to any conclusion necessarily. Oh hell, why don't I just quote Swift:
But I was infinitely delighted with the Station of an humble Auditor in such Conversations, where nothing passed but what was useful, expressed in the fewest and most significant Words; where the greatest Decency was observed, without the least Degree of Ceremony; where no Person spoke without being pleased himself, and pleasing his Companions: Where there was no Interruption, Tediousness, Heat, or Difference of Sentiments. They have a Notion, That when People are met together, a short Silence doth much improve Conversation: This I found to be true; for during those little Intermissions of Talk, new Ideas would arise in their Thoughts, which very much enlivened their Discourse. Their Subjects are generally on Friendship and Benevolence, or Order and Oeconomy; sometimes upon the visible Operations of Nature, or ancient Traditions, upon the Bounds and Limits of Virtue, upon the unerring Rules of Reason, or upon some Determinations, to be taken at the next great Assembly; and often upon the various Excellencies of Poetry.
No comments:
Post a Comment