Youthful optimism & the eradication of order as defensive boundary maker. Maybe?

It is very rare for a statement, however general, to apply to all humanity. Any attempt to do so is usually met with harsh criticism, a quick rebuttal or an irrefutable objection. Despite the vast difficulties, philosophers have struggled for centuries to discern those undeniable truths applicable to all. Many intellectuals have proposed a universal truth of love, of justice, of beauty, but are quickly confronted with the subjectivity of their claims. Consequently, philosophy has acquired an air of whimsical futility from critics of this relativism. An inarguable truth, however, is often ignored; that is the truth of classification, or the inherent desire of humanity to classify.

Human beings are, by nature, social creatures. They are born into and shaped by communities dependent upon communication. As John Durham Peters describes in Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication, “To understand communication is to understand much more. An apparent answer to the painful divisions between self and other, private and public, and inner thought and outer word... it is a sink into which most of our hopes and fears seem to be poured.” (1) Peters argues understanding communication provides us a unique window into which humanity may be examined. If one’s “hopes and fears” are understood, a person’s unique perspective is discernible. The way one processes information and classifies objects becomes apparent through their communication, which Peters contends is the fundamental avenue to understand human beings. Communication also provides a valuable means to understand our collective longing for structure and order. What happens, though, when these self-imposed boundaries dissolve? 

When presented with a blurring of the lines, where is one to proceed? As history demonstrates, uncertainty leads easily to fear. This, in turn, leads to violence and the propagation of difference as a decisive boundary-maker. Typically, this comes at the expense of the less-powerful group, often with disastrous consequences. Perhaps with a greater awareness of each other’s communicative means, these boundaries need not be erected and need not propagate violence. But then again, maybe this is just wishful thinking. 

References

(1) John Durham Peters, Speaking into the Air: a History of the Idea of Communication, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 2. 

The beginning of a prolonged diatribe on order & chaos

To speak generally, this class has evoked many responses from its participants. Some have been eager to challenge their inclination towards structure--the most basic aspect of their worldview--while others have been a bit hesitant. I'm not here to say that either choice (or any perspective on the continuum in between) is correct or incorrect--that's not my job. I am here, however, to reflect a little on my own progress throughout this course. 

I've changed, to say the least, and this is my attempt to begin to capture some of that change. I intend to do this over several consecutive posts (which I will generate in a so-far uncharacteristic regularity), but before I do so, allow me to briefly explain what could be considered my only real frustration with this course. 

I'm a fairly easy-going person, in general. When it comes to anything academic, however, I'd prefer to have a grasp of the material before making my opinions public. I suppose it's an intense need for some sort of conceptual grasp, backed by extensive textual evidence, to support my position. 

You may be saying: "Wait, Kevin, stop one second. This course wasn't designed to memorize material. It was meant to unravel a thought train, to illustrate an inherently biased perspective " Yes, I understand, and that is the primary impetus for my blogging delay. 

I entered this class knowing that I would change. I expected the way that I process sensory information to change. I expected the way I perceive events to change. I expected the way I understand my surroundings to change. That it did, that it did.

So what is the grand purpose of this short narrative? Basically, I intend to say as follows: I didn't want to blog, I didn't want to espouse my views, until I felt that I had experienced enough of a perspective change to voice them. I wanted to say something truly of substance, something that I knew would be a worthy contribution. Personally, this is the research-based style that I prefer to operate in. It works for me. Sometimes I wish it weren't that way, but it is, and I have to embrace it. And now that I have this newfound perspective, I feel that I am capable of speaking and of being heard. 

I didn't want to talk into the wind, I wanted to talk with it. This is my attempt to do so.