fighting self

I'm going to consider this a post-script and use it to inform my next post.  I'm not ready to dive into the next topic in question, yet, but I want to at least write it down as a reminder and as motivation to get on it at a more reasonable time.

Communication.  What an absurdly wide field of examination.  So much information, so many signals, in so many different forms, are exchanged constantly.  The idea of trying to pinpoint the foremost "innovation" in communication is just silly.  Human communication may be, for my purposes, the ultimate form, but since communication of one kind or another has occurred for so very, very, long, attempting to name the most important point in the unfolding of its history is a naive and foolish pursuit.  Verbal/written language is but a grain of sand on a beach.

That said, I'd like to move onto the question of what can be communicated other than information.

Again, this might just be testing the limits of the English language.  But I'd like to work that out for myself when it's not so late and I'm not so sleepy.

Sometimes you just wake up with an idea.  Most of the time, it's best to go back to sleep.

Read quotation marks at your discretion.

meaning less

As I continue to push my arguments and instincts to their breaking points here my limitations become more clear to me.  I don't find this troubling, rather the opposite, I relish the opportunity to patch up holes where they appear to be.

Now, to the question.

This seems to be a fairly arbitrary point in human development to fully celebrate communication...I'm not certain as of the beginning of this first sentence why the construction "question" is a more significant attempt at, or tool for, communication than making eye contact with another, or pointing at something, or a statement, or the e-mail.  Heh.

What does a question do?  It prompts, and arguably, demands a discrete response.  It points... well, why not just go to the dictionary and get as much out of it as possible?

"a sentence, in interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in a reply."

That's basically the definition I was thinking of.  there are several - this one is also relevant, I think, so I'll include it.

"a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation."

This has been a theme underlying everything I've covered, so with my examples, I'm going to stick with very simple survival and proliferation-based subject matter.  I'll start with what is the opposite of a question in this context, and another contender for most important innovation in communication, the statement.

"There is food over by the lake."

This conveys important or at least potentially important information to whoever may hear it and understand it.  However, there is also the possibility that it could be completely useless.  If it were an appropriate response to a question its value becomes less impeachable.

"Is there any food around here?"

"There is food over by the lake."

Another example:

"I would like to be your mate."

Higher stakes, not only potentially irrelevant but potentially offensive as well.  Combined with a question it becomes the consummation of a very significant interaction.

"Would you like to be my mate?"

"I would like to be your mate."

A question not only begs information, it lends meaning to whatever statement follows it.  It modifies and enhances.  More so than non-verbal communication it promotes continued interaction.  It seems also to allow more complicated exchanges of information.  As it developed it allowed the discussion of more abstract concepts, things that could not be referenced (by pointing or looking at) in the external environment.  Example.

"How do you feel today?"

Getting information about another's feelings colors communication and gives a frame of reference by which certain topics can be deemed appropriate or inappropriate.  I am only scratching the surface as usual.

Socrates, as I infer from his behavior, believed that the question was the gateway to all knowledge and that asking questions was a sign of wisdom.  When speaking to someone, it is best to assume nothing about what they think or what they believe.  A question is the original way to discern this information.  It provides access to the internal world, it is a gateway to the mind of another.  I emphasized in my post-post-conversation last time how important I think the community element is to the development and definition of science.  Questions and answers are a predicate to community - determining the needs of each and agreeing to work together to meet those needs.  

I have a major qualm with the original dictionary definition I've posted.  A question is not always addressed to someone.  Everyone knows the cliched action of screaming out "WHYYYY????!!!!".  Asking why, in general, is a dramatic and perhaps profound action.  A question is a means by which to speak without necessarily revealing anything about one's own beliefs.  It is also a means of getting at causes, which, as I also mentioned last time is crucial to science.  A question is the beginning of the scientific method as we know it- a hypothesis is a statement, a guess, but also implies a question to be asked and answered.

I think I've gotten to the heart of the question's value, though I haven't completely convinced myself of it's superiority.  This is a subject I will have to continue working on.  Moreover, the idea of seeking knowledge is beautiful, and the question is a fundamental expression of this desire.  I constantly wonder how communication will change and improve (?) but I am troubled by how impersonal communication is becoming.  Eye contact is so valuable, I almost detest not being able to look at someone when I am conversing with them.  

I love asking and being asked questions.  There are so many to be posed.

one march post, or, it's raining again.

At points in my life I've felt like I've said everything I ever needed to say.  Nothing is worse for a writer than forcing out ideas or phrases that seem to be contrived or regurgitations of things one has heard or, abysmally, said.

  

This is a block.

I'm going to, at least directly, leave society alone on this one.

Instead, I will discuss our potential (possible) status as divine creatures.

I have been reminded in recent days that science is the devil.  As much as I find this idea ridiculous, and thus appealing, I have a hard time offering it any sort of treatment.  I'll do it anyway.

Way before there were scientists, there were mathematicians, attempting to put a universal abstract logical language to the workings of the physical world.  This toil was largely without a rigorous method of practical testing and derived more credibility from the intuitive and internal sense it made rather than what it could accomplish.  It was lifting theoretical loads, not actual ones. (this reminds me of the South Park episode where the boys create a homoerotic video featuring Butters and earn 10 million theoretical dollars for the people of Canada.)

Of course, this is not strictly true.  Geometry has been essential to construction for centuries and thus achieved practical relevance.  Clearly (?) the Egyptians used mathematics to do what they did in terms of building monuments of living death for their human gods.  I point to the late 18th and early 19th century in Western Europe as a time where math led to discoveries about the elements that make up our environment and to mechanical achievements that set off an industrial revolution which is finally catching up with us in terms of consequences.

If I don't try to get back on topic now, I never will.

Our understanding of the universe is pitiful.  We can explain and name the details of the things that are currently happening but we can't answer any fundamental questions.  In terms of knowing the history of an action, we can only scrape the most recent surface.  Origins elude us.  Deductive reasoning is an achievement that we give great respect to because so rarely do we accomplish it in a grand or meaningful way.  

I can think of one time, one individual who did it well, and his piece of reasoning provides the most powerful challenge to our conceit that we are divine and special and above all else earthly and natural.

Charles Darwin provided a completely reasonable explanation for how human beings could have come about, starting from a simple life form, after a whole lot of time.  This is why many have cursed his name and many others have praised it.  He spent his last years with his family breeding pigeons and isolating himself from the scientific community.  It must have taken some kind of guts to release his theory knowing what it would do to all who read it.

Are our genes really the most significant part of us, or even, more significant than us as whole organisms or a society of organisms?  Are they the entirety of what drives us to do the things that we do?  

The question that has been posed strongly in the past is: does the end justify the means?  I think a better way to phrase that question is, are the means required to achieve an end more significant than the end?  It has been postulated that the journey is more significant than either its origin or its final destination.  This is appealing to me and might pose an answer to my new question.

Last night, I saw a concert at an art installation exploring the war in Iraq.  It was, I would say, a rock band consisting of a drummer, a cello player, and a guitar player/vocalist who was a young Iraqi woman.  She was beautiful, as were her words, which were inspired by Persian poetry of all stripes.  This poetry was rooted in the earth - the most visceral experiences of being alive.  Intoxication:  both on drugs and on love for others.  A celebration of the phenomenon of waking up every day and celebrating the rhythms that are instilled in our perceptions.  The constant rising and setting of the sun.  The beating of the heart.  Finally the transiency of each of us and the possibility that we are not finished when our current consciousness closes.  Love as a binding force that is more mysterious than any other and whose implications will be understood only after we understand all that our five senses detect.

A friend of mine from the past nicknamed me "Mr. Science" because of my constant preoccupation with facts and logic and my skepticism, or even contempt, for things apparently inexplicable or imperceptible at the time.  This contempt and skepticism no longer seems to me appropriate.

Non-human animals can communicate.  But it seems as though their communications are all related to the collection of food, warnings of predators, or mating.  I suppose this is a way of sharing perceptions and consciousness but I think it is different and less complex than our own.  We ask each other questions, not related to these immediate and important concerns, but purely for the purpose of sharing experiences.  I think there is a desire to connect that is entirely divorced from the compulsion to mate or survive.  This is close to godliness.

I can't think anymore.  I have worn myself out.  However, I feel that I have achieved my continual goal of digging deeper into our shared experience and forcing myself to think about things that make me uncomfortable.  

To ensure that I post again soon, in an attempt to justify my claim, I put forward the idea that the most important innovation human beings have ever achieved is the question.