some bullshit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sobriety_checkpoint

I heard about this shit on the radio yesterday.  This is what I would call an unreasonable search/seizure.  Drunk driving is a danger, yes, but... safety at the cost of all other things?  You can't just randomly stop cars on the highway and test the operators' bodies for certain chemicals.  Or, actually, you can.  While this can, by some argument, be justified as a reasonable policy, what is next?  Cars drawing and testing people's blood before they can start a car?  FUCK this.  I may just be in a bad mood but I've pretty much had it with the attitudes that allow this type of policy to be legal.

Responsibility cannot be forced upon people.  No matter how hard the government tries to force people into making "good" decisions it will never succeed.  There are ways around any human-imposed law or rule.

I mean, if they need someone to clean all the shit off of the Constitution, I will be happy to do so.  They should just ask.

a legitimate concern

Mostly, in this blog, I've tried to be impersonal and only let things about me come through by conjecture and inference.  Today I'm going to throw that aside and talk about something that I think about and that has been an impediment to me in, well, following my dreams I suppose.  Some of my best friends know about this concern but I want to share it more generally.

There's this song.  It's called "Baby Please Don't Go".  It's a blues tune that was written and recorded in 1935 (by Big Joe Williams) but has been done again by literally dozens of notable artists.  The first version I heard of it, and the one that was stuck in my mind, was done by Van Morrison.  It's a groovy song.  Download it.

Anyway, the reason I bring up the song is that many white bands/recording artists, namely in rock, have made lots of money ripping off songs by unrecognized blues musicians from the depression.  These songs were an expression of the misery that accompanied living in such a hard time, and specifically, living in that time as a black man in the south.  This is a feeling that no white person, then or now, could really understand or relate to.  While it's American music, distinctly American, it seems (to me) quite presumptuous and egotistical for privileged white men living in the 1960s (a time of significant gains in social freedom and an economically successful time) to use these songs for their own profit and pleasure.  There seems something terribly false about singing such a song in front of a crowd of screaming fans, having an uproariously good time, and making no mention of where the song came from.

Of course, covering songs is a ubiquitous practice.  And there's nothing wrong with it, I suppose.  Well, maybe there is, but that's not what I'm talking about here.  It only seems unjust that legitimate artists, expressing the deepest and most painful of emotions, should live and die in poverty while years later others live on the high hog by riding their creativity.

Now, as a fan of rock and roll, I must here recognize that if this practice never happened, there would probably be no rock and roll.  That would be a shame.  I guess what's really sticking in my craw is the fact that people (myself included) know the much later covers of these classic, standard songs, and don't know where or who they actually came from.  I remember hearing Rolling Stones Let it Bleed for the first time and being really into the song "Love in Vain", thinking Jagger and Richards were brilliant, and so on - it was some time before I discovered the song was actually written by Robert Johnson.  As I mentioned earlier, it seems to me that it should be the current artists' responsibility, having the people's ear, to educate as to the roots of their craft.  Of course, these artists pay lip service to the pioneers when asked their opinion, but they don't make it their business to give credit where it is due.

One thing I love most about hip-hop is the fact that in a given song, you can and will hear pieces literally taken right out of other songs.  This seems to be a very self-conscious recognition that hip-hop is a building process and every new composition relies on and is influenced by everything prior.  However, the same sort of thing tends to happen where stuff is taken without really any credit being given, so that new fans don't know where they beats they like so much actually come from.  This is not the fans' fault, of course, but it still seems wrong somehow, in a way that is deeply unsettling to me.  [Particularly heinous examples of this can be found, where a large piece of an old 70s groove or something young people don't know is taken and is pretty much used straight up as the beat for a song.  I have a certain person in mind but I will continue to suppress my anger on this subject.]

So yeah, stealing other people's songs, blah blah blah.  This certainly is not the legitimate concern I am talking about, I am just building a case.  I am getting to my actual concern now.

I am a young white man.  I have lived a life of privilege, and, if I'm truly honest with myself, luxury.  I have worked to earn some of these benefits, but mostly, they were bestowed upon me by fact of my birth.  I am very lucky.  Extremely lucky, to have grown up and lived in the place time and skin that I have lived.  While people who know me know that I am truly troubled and have seen legitimate depths of depression and mental sickness, I have been given everything a person could reasonably ask for.  I am Ivy League educated.  I am from an extremely safe and clean suburb in New England.  My parents have been extremely kind and supportive to me my entire life.  I have never known abuse or exploitation.  I have (very) rarely been looked down upon and treated as an inferior person, and I have only because I have rubbed elbows with the absolute elite of this country and of the world, really.

I love hip-hop, and when I say that I mean that the music moves me in a way that no other music ever has and I have love for all the people who have worked so hard to build it into what it is today.  I have used the music so many times to cheer me up when I felt bad, to make me think when I was uninspired, to make me feel strong and tough when I felt weak and vulnerable.  Ever since I started to really listen to it, to shake off rock and roll to a certain degree and start to pursue it as, truly, an obsession, I have wanted to be a part of the music and the community.  Guys like KRS-One, MF Doom, Big L, Ice Cube, Del, B.I.G., Mos Def to name a few, they are my heroes.  I idolize them.  But, one of the things I enjoy so much about them is not just, or not so much, their technical and vocal abilities but their ability to speak darkly and sincerely about their own experience and be striking at society from an oppressed position.  Coming from difficult circumstances and emerging successful, intelligent, insightful, and eloquent, it's awe-inspiring.  I will NEVER EVER be able to accomplish what they have.  

That said, I want to be an MC.  I have a knack for language, some affinity for music, and can hold down a stage.  I am already in a hole in the sense that I've only really been into the music for less than 5 years and have been trying to write raps for even less than that.  The giants, the guys who are really good, have been knee deep in it, or neck deep, since they were kids.  I think that I have meaningful things to express, but meaningful to whom?  When you MC, you're not part of a band.  You are literally putting yourself, or your character I guess, out there for everyone to see and judge and being judged is one of the scariest things in the world to me - BECAUSE AS A WHITE MAN I HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED THE CONSEQUENCES OF BEING JUDGED.  

Whoo.  Sorry.

So anyway, if you're going to MC, you'd better have something to say.  Every time I write something, I second-guess myself.  I can't tell you how much material I've thrown away because I decided either right away or later that it was self-indulgent or ignorant.  I have always been my own harshest critic but I feel like when it comes to something this important, grown man business, it is necessary.  Do I deserve to even hold the microphone?  I don't know.  

One thing that people I've spoken to about this have told me is that as long as you're honest and love the music it's hard for people to hate you.  I'm not sure, but that's fine.  I most especially don't want to end up hating myself for my expression or what it could become.

OK.  That's it for now.

1st step, get on the horse. Next step, stay on the horse.

Now that I'm not working at my job anymore, let me talk about my job without breaching my confidentiality agreement.  I am specifically not going into the detail I could, as most or all of my readers are looking for an introduction into the subject, and the less I say the less chance there is that I will incur legal penalties for my writing.

DCF (department of children and families), formerly known as DSS (department of social services), provides custodial care for children from abusive or otherwise dangerous families.  I will hereon refer to DCF as "the agency".

The above mentioned custodial placements are, to provide an incomplete summary: foster homes, group homes, and residential treatment programs.  The agency also solicits adoption for their advocated children.

Residential treatment programs, used for the children with mental health problems and behavioral concerns can be either for those who are repeatedly unable to socialize in a foster/group home environment or who have specifically been brought up on some criminal charges.  Those convicted of crimes are sometimes sent to DYS, the "juvenile justice agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" (prison), in other cases they are sent to secured residential treatment facilities.  Those awaiting trail on a crime for which they have been indicted are most often placed in these secured treatment centers as they cannot (really) yet be committed to DYS and the agency, while retaining custody of them, will not newly submit them for foster care.

Residential treatment programs or, to the kids and direct care workers, simply "programs" provide a structured, scheduled daily lifestyle with therapy services and incentives for good behavior/investment in treatment.  Long term placements also contain schools, where the teachers cater to the various levels of education the residents have achieved.  While the classrooms are small, the teachers are run ragged attempting to address all the different academic issues of the residents.

Being in a residential treatment program means, for the adolescent, twenty-four hour supervision by direct care workers.  These individuals maintain the daily schedule, correct problem behaviors with specific program instituted consequences, assist with the day to day needs of residents, provide feedback, and ensure the safety of residents through searches and sometimes, physical management.

I was fortunate to work in a setting, which I will obviously not name here, that had a long-standing and comprehensively structured discipline system.  All communication was very clear, professional, and when necessary conforming to a powerful and directive language.  Residents that have been moved through multiple programs are usually experienced with physical management, either in observation or through personal experience.  

Every attempt is made to convince residents, and literally put them in a good place, to make good, healthy decisions that will foster their progress through the program and not compromise the safety of themselves, other residents, or staff.  However, for kids who have never known a disciplined, structured environment and who have often been brought up on charges involving the harm of others they sometimes see no other option than to physically act out.  

While physical management is by no means the main job of direct care workers at a program, it is the job on the minds of all staff at all times.  In these settings, the safety of clients is the number one priority, and when a resident becomes a danger to himself or others, it becomes necessary to physically restrain him.

I would like to speak about the tactics and practices involved in management but I believe that doing so would violate my agreement.  I am fairly sure that I can say it is done in such a way as to cause as little harm as humanly possible to the client.  

Moving on.

Treatment programs often have specialties, working with clients who fall into a certain category of mental health issue or criminal offense.  For example, there are programs who will specifically deal with psychotic patients, others who will specialize in dealing with, say, sex offenders.

Working with criminal populations, generally, a main goal is to help the clients/residents develop empathy.  This is an ability that is generally developed during childhood, but, for children who have had to literally fend for themselves, in terms of getting the necessities of survival, other concerns overwhelm this socially necessary development.  Of course, the development of empathy does not prevent criminal behavior, as empathy is just a recognition of the feelings/perceptions of others.  Allowing this recognition to affect one's decisions and actions is what prevents criminality.  So, a final step would be helping the kids become less ego-centric.

With juveniles, especially juvenile delinquents, especially male juvenile delinquents, often anger is the only emotion individuals are comfortable expressing.  Obviously, this is a huge impediment to therapy, and understanding that anger is only a surface sort of symptom of other emotions is crucial to self-awareness, something that many residents almost completely lack.

In my time at work I interacted with individuals who committed some horrendous crimes.  The thing that always struck me about my work was how easy it is to relate to these people even if you are somewhat disgusted by their actions.  It is a reminder of one's humanity and of the instincts that ultimately drive all of us.  I found myself asking at times, was I really that different from this when I was 14?  Different enough to justify these people living in custody and me wandering free?  What more experienced professionals have reminded me is while the feelings and motivations are sometimes the same, the difference is that socialized people have the coping skills and the "conscience", to use a non-industry term, to not act on the occasional destructive urges all people have.

OK.  I'll be back to this.  I've just lost my train of thought is all.

Filing (here goes)

"Times getting tough, gotta sign for unemployment"

-Hieroglyphics

Brackets for pure meta-commentary.  Parenthesis for examples or diversions within the subject.

I tried to file using the teleclaim center last week, but the wait on the phone was more than a half hour and they directed me to call again. The center opens at 8:30 AM, I am attempting to be one of the first who calls.  I figure while I'm waiting on the line I'll put something here.  You know I'm unemployed for real when I'm coming back to writing in this internet journal thing.  Plus I had a request to write more and my weakness to flattery is obscene.

I intend to write about love; its targeting, its application.

When you tell someone you love them, what exactly is it you are saying you love? [I just tried calling again, still not open]

When you tell someone you love them, do you mean that you love every part of them?  Do you mean you love their mind as a whole?  Their body as a whole?  What is it that is the most essential part of an individual that draws feelings (and other things I will attempt to explore) from others?

Let me first explore the idea that when you love someone you love every part of them.  I have an immediate problem with this idea.  If you love every bit of a person, from their eyelashes to their fingers to their toes, does this love become fractured if a part of them changes or disappears?  In the most benign example, say you fall in love with someone and shortly thereafter they cut their hair.  Do you love them less?  Is your love compromised because part of the person you fell in love with is now (albeit temporarily) gone?  What if they had a facial piercing and they took it out?  To cite a more serious example, what if a loved one is in a traumatic accident and loses, say, their legs?  Is a fraction of your love, that was your love for their legs, now gone?

I will allude to a future issue by asking what if they merely lose the use of their legs?  Do you love their legs less because they no longer respond to the person's mental commands?

Anyway.  Due to the questions noted above, I find this way of looking at love to be problematic.  [I am making a lot of typos along the way that I am missing.  I am out of practice.] I am willing to believe that some people view love this way, and it is certainly a recognized phenomenon that relationships sometimes break up because of, say, the loss of a limb in one of the partners.  However, I doubt it is true that these breakups occur because the relevant person loved the leg and their love is diminished, rather, the implications of living with a missing leg on day to day routines and concerns makes the relationship difficult and less desirable.  [No dice, by 8:33 AM, the wait to talk to a representative is over 1/2 hour.  Like calling a radio show when they're conducting a giveaway.]  This is interesting.  Perhaps when you say you love someone, you mean you love them for what they bring to the relationship.  First, let me dispose with this first idea completely.

If you love every bit of someone, you are not going to love them less if they, say, clip their toenails or lose a single hair off of their head.  At least, I think enough of us would not that it is fair to dismiss that extreme view.  However, I don't think it's so far from the way that a good chunk of people deal with love (or at least view it in an idealistic sort of way) that it is a ridiculous proposition.  To be more general, if you make a commitment of any kind to a person, I don't think it is fair to suggest that part of your vow or commitment is directed towards all of their fingers and toes, their hair and their skin.  Skin cells are coming off of us constantly.  Anyway.  Moving on.

I'm going to work on a more cynical and scientific idea.  Say you are willing to grant and cope with changes in the individual's body, but, what you love about them is still purely physical and mechanical.  You love their "body" in the sense that you love their physical appearance (the way light bounces off their form to create an image), the way their brain produces neurotransmitters in order to produce what you experience as their personality, the way their voice sounds (or the way their larynx is constructed to produce a sound), the way they smell, the way their skin feels, the way they taste.  This is a bit complex, but, the idea is that you love how their physical body works with the world to produce all the sensory manifestations you can experience by interacting with them.  I suppose, well, I know, that this view could extend to loving the way they make decisions, their motivation, the way they emotionally respond to events.  As a (mostly) scientifically minded individual, I have difficulty poking holes in this idea.  Let me start by saying that perhaps if you love a person in this way, you are neglecting the fact that what you love is the way that you perceive all the sensory information you are receiving from their body.  In other words, you don't love their smell, you "love" the way their smell affects your sensory organs and changes your affective state.  You don't love them at all, nor do you love the physical methods of communication that allow you to experience them.  If you take this view you must grant that what you are enjoying is the experience, not the other person at all.  Perhaps only the object of love can produce the combination of stimuli that you believe produces "love" in you, and perhaps you are willing to sacrifice yourself to preserve them so that this combination is not compromised.  This is becoming difficult so let me use an example in an attempt to deal a death-blow to this idea.

Say your loved one wants to go to an italian restaurant for dinner, and you want to go to a japanese restaurant.  If you insist on going to the japanese restaurant, the consequence may be that you perceive "dissatisfaction" or "anger" from them over the course of the night, that they may restrict your access to their sensory information.  This is displeasing because you enjoy the sensory experience they give you more than you enjoy the sensory experience your sushi produces.  You may even regret not going to the italian restaurant so as to have avoided these consequences.  In this case, though, does the other person's experience of the event affect you at all?  Does it matter to you that they are emotionally affected (negatively) by the facts: 1) they aren't eating something they like or 2) you were not willing to compromise your own desire to please them?  Since you love only the productions of their body, it is unlikely that their experience of these feelings would bother you.  

An alternate view of this would be that you "love" their emotional state because it is generated by their body and you want that state to be positive and pleasing to them rather than negative and displeasing.  But - what are you (am I) referring to with the word "them"?  Their consciousness (which is arguably an entirely biological production)?  

OK, this is getting really hard, especially considering that there is really no satisfying definition of consciousness.  I am going to go to the dictionary, one of the few external sources I use in the blog, for this.

Of course there are several definitions.

1. awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people

3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life

4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge

5. concern, interest, or acute awareness

6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes

7. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.

I've tied a fucking knot for myself here, but, I am an Eagle Scout, I am excellent at tying knots.

So.  The scientist espousing this view of love "loves" the other person's consciousness, their thoughts, emotions, and....ah, fuck.  Anyone who takes this view of interpersonal relations probably would never use the word love.  Empathy for another person involves having another person's emotions affect your emotions, your thoughts, your decision making.  I don't understand how, if you "love" the biochemical construction of a person's brain, you could even be conscious of the substance of their emotional state.  Someone espousing this view certainly couldn't claim to know what the other person's emotional experience might be like.  Maybe my limited understanding of science is impeding me here, but I'm tired of dealing with this ridiculous viewpoint.  Fuck.  I can't knock it down.  

Alright.  Struck out.  Trying again.

Say you understood neuroscience, biology, chemistry, physics, whatever, so completely that you could scientifically rationalize and explain the interactions between your consciousness and another's and think (or feel, or make decisions appropriate to the belief) that a specific interaction you undertake can be accurately labeled as love.  

I don't understand this point of view, especially considering that the definition of love is far more complex than that of consciousness.  What I want to know is, for a person who is in this position, who has scientifically proved their love for another to themselves, could they grant that a person with a less developed understanding can experience love?  If the person they "love" does not have such a developed understanding, could they grant that the other is capable of loving them?

[I am fucking sick of this, and it is the reason I stopped writing before.  I throw out all these ideas and they are so god damned complex that I can't come to a thesis or testable statement based on a synthesis of them.  I can't imagine that anyone will get anything out of this blog post other than a profound confusion, or at best fascination, with the operation of my psychology.  It must be clear that I have difficulty believing in anything.  And yet, I do have beliefs.  That is what this is about, challenging these beliefs and then seeing afterwards if I still hold them.  Let me just go ahead and say what I believe love is without having completely logically justified my belief.  I can't expect to dismiss science and postulate a rationally viable option in its place, at least not in the span of a single blog post.  Before I jump into this, let me say that while I didn't list the definitions of love, I did look it up and several of the definitions claim it is purely sexual interaction and that I cannot stand for this kind of definition.]

I believe that love is a desire beyond all other desires.  It is an exception to the term desire that proves the continuity of all other experiences called desire.  Whatever well-being means, it is a wish for the well-being of all conscious entities.  It is not entirely selfless, as it must include at least some desire for one's own well being as a conscious entity.  To have this desire, one must recognize and place a large value on the subjective experience of all others.  

I think this kind of "desire" is different enough from, say, the desire for a candy bar that it deserves a separate category in language.  

I suppose the question is, can one love and at the same time particularly wish for the well being of a specific individual or group of individuals?  If you love, does telling an individual person that you love them even mean anything?  This is what I struggle with and all the rational arguments are just ramblings that attempt to logically justify something that is unjustifiable for a human being.  Our genes are non-living compounds that hold the design for a living being whose "purpose" is to promote and ensure the continuance of the genes.  If such a being acts merely to promote the existence and prosperity of others while doing nothing to reproduce itself, is it a genetic failure?  It has to be.  And yet it is not a failure in the minds of all other beings.  Which is it more important to serve - our genes, or all conscious beings?  

Love is service.  Love is denial and acceptance.  Love is conflict.  Love is sacrifice.  Love only means something to others inasmuch as it promotes volitional practice.  Love must be chosen and it must be chosen over instinct.

If you can help me complete any of my ideas or add to this please do.  I need help.  I apologize for providing such a flawed account and for not tying up all the ends I left hanging.  I am exhausted, and I have only been awake for two and a half hours today.

weeding out the casual

This post is for readers.

What can be communicated?

This question has been hanging over my head for more than a month, still, I find it confounding.  I feel that my knowledge has been significantly increased over this time, my perspective feels more satisfying.  I still think the answer to this is beyond my abilities and my resources.  Having posed it is almost enough for me.  I have to try anyway.

It's always best to start at the surface and dig deeper when confronted with a difficult question.  In fact, this may be the only approach.  So, what is the most superficial way in which humans communicate?  Damn, that's a doozy too.  Does this mean the most transparent attempts at communication or the most functionally insignificant?  

Let's say functionally insignificant.

Talking about the weather or about topical, universally known facts or concerns.

"Damn, it's been hot the last few days."

"Seriously.  I've had to spend all day indoors with the air conditioning on!"

"That'll jack up the ol' electric bill."

"Yeah, tell me about it.  And I definitely don't have the money to spare, either."

"Amen to that, brother."

Apparently, no information has been exchanged here.  Both parties are talking about obvious issues that everyone in the climatic (is that an acceptable use of that word?) area knows about.  Also referenced are the general scarcity of money and the difficulties associated.  Another obvious issue that most people deal with daily and are intimately familiar with.

But what else?

Discomfort associated with the heat and financial hardship imposed through an attempt to deal with this discomfort are wide ranging concerns.  However, presumably, not EVERYONE in the area is troubled or annoyed by them.  For example, some people might prefer the high heat to spring-like temperatures.  Others might not be the least bit concerned about the additional cost of air conditioning.  So, in this exchange, it is confirmed that both individuals are indeed concerned about these current problems.  On a certain level, both parties end this exchange knowing that they share some common ground and their minds are, at least to some degree, on the same issues.

This is important.  Knowing that another's mind is similarly engaged is, I find, calming.  Sometimes people can become isolated in their own minds, feel that they have unique problems that no one else faces, that they are up against impossible odds.  The recognition that others are engaged in the same struggles is heartening, even if this is irrational.  I would say that talking about local sports falls into this category, even if these concerns are a bit more abstract and artistic in nature.  Something like gas prices affects a wider group of people than any weather front, but I believe the principle is the same.

So much for that.

I'm going to try to distinguish this form of communication from that which discusses a Specific topic that is known only to the two people discussing it, or perhaps, a small group.  I don't feel it necessary to work all the way down the continuum of less and less universally acknowledged problems.  Still, I wonder whether this example will be too big of a jump from the last.

Discussing a friend.

"I'm really concerned about (name).  (Pronoun) seems to be isolating (Pn)self a lot lately and isn't coming out with us the way (Pn) used to.  I wonder if (Pn) still hasn't gotten over that big breakup?"

"Oh, I know what you mean.  (Pn) really hasn't been the same since that.  Maybe we should throw (Pn) a party or something.  Or just get the whole crew together.  Let (Pn) know that we're all behind (Pn)."

"Good idea."

The first thing I notice about this example, contrasted with the first, is that the problem being discussed is one that the two individuals feel they can do something to correct or resolve.  They are not merely commiserating on the unfortunate effects of the problem, they are planning to attack it.  Indeed, this is a big jump.  Take a half step back.  Perhaps an intermediate stage would be a problem that no direct action could be taken towards but to which potential solutions could be posed.  (nothing can be done to change the weather)

"If the two parties could just work together maybe we could get some real health care legislation passed that would benefit everyone."

Half step back forward.  Deep breath.

I can feel my logic, as it is, slipping away.  I must attempt to continue.

The example at hand is an exchange between two people.  It doesn't involve a lot of communication because there is no tension or disagreement - both agree as to the best course of action.  However, that is the key, the conversation is a prelude to action as opposed to pure commentary.  It is goal-directed.  It focuses the attention of both parties on the problem and gets them thinking on the details of how the plan should be carried out.  It forces an allocation of resources, in a sense.  It carries an obvious functional purpose (as the general speculation about potential solutions for problems out of reach does not).

I'm going to endure internal argument and self-criticism over this, but, I believe that the communication of emotions is somehow more significant, or, at least, requires the transmission of more information than talking about the external environment whether it be comment or problem solving.  I'm not saying that emotions are more important, merely, that communicating them is more difficult and therefore stretches communication further, deeper.  I will try to demonstrate this with an example.

Fuck.

As I'm trying to write out an example, I realize that emotion is the most universal concern/experience.  Everyone is trying to feel happy, good.  Everyone knows what it is like to feel angry or sad.  While we can't (at least easily) convey the richness and nuance of our emotional experience, people can empathize with us if we say "I am so sad" or "I am so happy".  While their experience is probably not just like ours, they can easily relate.

I've been beaten by this question, but, I did make a forceful and somewhat effective attack.

This isn't over, communication.  I'll whoop you yet.

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.