If you Facebook or participate in any other social sharing medium, you'll likely notice that getting a handful of pithy (oft pictured) quotes in your feed is a pretty common occurrence. In my observation, these short pithy statements are often more fluff than pith, needing clarification, and/or correction. A lot of them just sound good, and that's all the poster was after, sharing "Warm Feel-good Fuzzies". Which is fine; most of us love that stuff - Share Away! However, a lot of things in life are complex and multifaceted, requiring clarification and context ... But, approaching feel good fuzzy ideas this way spoils the punch. We love to punch our pith in other people's faces (FaceBook feeds) and feel thoughtful, wise, and deep. And, we hate it when our punches are blocked or countered in any way. People predominantly prefer to be posters posting pithy posters, and leave it at that.
I've experienced this phenomenon quite a bit. Someone posts a picture with a nice feel good, or deep thought, and that's usually where the activity ends. Lot's of likes, and maybe a few brief affirmative comments, but should you try and dissect it, add clarification, or even pose a question, you usually get no response, and if so, the response is directed to reassure the poster of the "pithy poster". So typically the poster punches their pithy poster and pulls out. Any analytical additions are an avoided affront.
Stupid me, I assume that if someone's sharing deep thoughts, they've actually thought about those thoughts, and might enjoy some discussion on them. Nope! - not typically. This leads me to believe that they probably came across a nice thought that resonated somehow with them and they want to pass on the love or insight. They don't want discussion, analysis, or debate ... and interpret even the slightest of these as a challenge, as a block to their perfect pith punch. Like Cheech and his peach, they just want you to get it, hold it, and admire it.
For me, I like a good block or punch in the face - they teach me to better place my punches, and to move my face. Pith is nice, and indeed as the chatterbox Polonius noted, "brevity is the soul of wit. And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes." (I also like, "sole" as it lends another nuance of interpretation).
It is a very difficult thing, nigh impossible, to capture an idea completely in pith. Most pith needs punching and pushback to flesh it out, adding refinement and correction. This is why I punch the pith, at least I think it's the reason, not to harangue my friends on the Internet, but to interact with them on some meaningful discussion. It's fun for me to banter ideas, light sparring, or even passionate debate, (although I'm cautious to not fall blindly in love with ideas).
The hardest people to share the kool-aid with (the punch) are those who won't even get in the ring, or when they do, aren't even in the same ring (but think they are ... maybe I need to jump rings). It needs be said here, that I'm speaking of the friendly sparring of discourse, not the violent fighting of argument.
Arguing with someone is like pouring Krazy Glue on their opinions. Acetone springs internal.
As evidenced by this entire blog, most of my sparring with ideas is done with myself ... maybe as it should be. Sometimes I think so much (ad nauseam) that I find it best to simply think to myself. Conversing (thinking) deeply with others becomes, to them, tedious and exhausting - it's taxing. It's tiresome to have to think so hard and be on your toes in a conversation, or to hear others
pontificate, or challenge your ideas, or continue playing with an idea when you're ready to move on. Most of us prefer casual over the fence or backyard conversations, with shades and lemonades. You know, the leisurely superficial conversations best enjoyed by the under utilized brains of flabby fatheads (I jest), or enjoyed as a respite from a day of too much thinking. In either case, a whistle blowing, get down and give me twenty, calisthenical conversationalist, or a match of mental gymnastics is unwelcome.
Another tedium of which I'm guilty is my need to include multiple words to express an idea, because I feel doing so better captures the nuance, or better encompasses the wholeness of an idea ... but I know this can seem irksome to people - like you're trying to clarify their "misinterpreted" reading/hearing, or facilitate their poor vocabulary, or insinuating that they have one. All this to them may feel like you assuming their lack of intellect. Wordiness may also be a sign of someone trying to master their language. I'm all in favor of someone plying and wielding a new word in a conversation, no matter what the intent or how overstuffed.
Maybe I'm forced to resort to my own head, or this safe silent blog in the BloatO'Sphere, because I usually have too much to say on a topic or approach it too seriously, attempting to cover all my bases.
People usually eschew ponderous, pontificative, palaver. Besides, answering and covering all the angles and questions is the best way to have a one sided conversation. If you relentlessly try to cover your bases it makes it very difficult for someone to enjoy any level of contribution that feels good, the joy of making a point, to knock one out of the park or steal home plate. Others won't want to play with you if you always catch their balls or tag them out. It's just not fun to never win or advance an idea. Not saying I can play a shutout, but my dogged pursuit of accurate ideas might seem like I'm always trying to "win".
No one likes a know-it-all. Even if you know it all (or think you do), shut up a little and let someone else have the joy of knowing something (or thinking they do). This is conversational grace.
If you are continually giving clarification, correction or advice, even with reflective intent, and even when solicited, you may still look like a negative pontificating prick. Often that pontificated is more for the speaker than for the audience, and is interpreted by the listener as egotistic ostentatious palaver.
If learning is best done by teaching, maybe someone who gives a lot of instruction or advice is simply trying to learn, reinforce, or refine what they know. I realize that which I say, or express to others is first and best said to myself. The observance of a thing is best experienced by the expression of it. If you can't teach it simply than you really don't understand it. But much of life is so intricate, complex, and beautiful, that it becomes a paradox of putting words to the ineffable, a paradox that is still worth pursuit. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then it may take a thousand words to paint a picture. To me, in that sense, words are just another form of artistic expression. To others this act of painting may be a prolix put off.
Most of the crap I spew or pontificate about is extracted from the bowels of my own experience, and is primarily judgment I've digested inwardly for my own benefit ... it's really not about you.
Much of what I say and think are attempts to refine and capture accurately the truth of an idea. I feel that sound ideas make for sound behavior. Maybe that sounding simple is simply sound (and very deep). As for putting it simply, that's fine, but it necessarily misses the nuances of an idea, and fails to represent it completely, becoming prone to being a pithy fluff statement. I like examining an idea from every angle, coming up with connections, examples, metaphors, alternate ways to say it, the nuance held in synonyms that we lump together as meaning the same thing. Like said, I think this over-fascination with shapes and ideas is seen as a tedious surfeit of intellectual activity - thinking too much or too hard. Maybe I'm a babe playing with shapes and seeing how they fit and interact, when the adults in the room have already been there, done that. If so, a pat on the head and an encouraging lilt of approving words is that best given ... also check my pants every so often (I tend to push metaphor to the absurd as well).
With the use of metaphor and big words the message is often missed. Most people get simile, and to some extent irony/sarcasm, but have little attention or ability for nuance, ambiguity, double meaning, degree, or layers. But I hate to "dumb it down" by staying on the surface. I also hate having to spell out what I've said, but it sometimes feels necessary to clarify or communicate the message. Maybe others hate that too. I think metaphor, allegory, simile, etc. help paint a better picture, but can only go as deep as the listener is able. Aesop was wise to put precept to fable.
But Metaphor and its like can also be overdone, losing the main idea. In this sense the use of metaphor and big words only becomes efficient in conversations when used judiciously. It enriches when ramped up with more intelligent people, and becomes inefficient within general conversation, or conversations with dummies (we're all "dummies" on a spectrum). If the message is missed you now have to repeat it; missed messages are ineffectual and inefficient, and as such, counter productive.
I think conversationally that things are best expressed and explored in depth and by trying to cover all the bases. But, maybe I just need to be sure we're both playing at the same game, and behave accordingly; not everyone is a fan of baseball ... ping-pong anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment