Big Words For A Little Man

By: Jonathan Seidel

Surface level conversations, DMCs and the preservation of privacy (Fromm, Being, 22-23)

Conversations revolve around the mundane. Rarely piercing the nexus of one’s true nature. The same questions receive the same answers. How was your week? Good. Awkward silence following for a brief moment until a similar question is asked. What have you been up to today? Not much just work. There isn’t much to go by and a sense of responsibility to interact without ever delving deeper. 

There are two sides to every conversation. Dialogue means two speakers as opposed to a monologue found in plays. The encounter between the two is lopsided. It is an attempt to make conversation without really feeling a need to. Whether it is seeing a friend passing by or calling a parent. To some degree the nature of the relationship is irrelevant. Even deep connections may only warrant a bland conversation depending on the situation. A parent and child may have meaningful conversations but those are regulated to the in-person situations. Calling over the phone is merely a way of checking in. Though it has no purpose other than hearing the voice on the other line affirming their existence. The lackadaisical dialogue is more from the demented intent than an inability. Given the connection, a parent and a child can have a moment but that is reserved for its allocated time. Ironically, the call meets its awkward stage because both sides know there is more to say. There is more feeling in the heart but it isn’t the time. The conversation is flushed out or ended abruptly to avoid emotional havoc. 

A similar situation is running into a friend on the way to work. Despite the obligation of arriving at work, the friend takes priority. A sense of urgency tells the employee to stop for a few seconds. The friend deserves a moment of your time. Strong responsibility surges through his veins. It wouldn’t be all that bad to ignore him or wave but a desire to speak overwhelms the employee. He stops and plays it off like he’s not in a rush. There is no destination waiting on him. The friend may be slightly annoyed if the employee brushed him off but letting him know he has to get to work wouldn’t bother him too greatly and yet the employee many a time stops nonetheless. This friend is in my path I must say something to him. This happens generally when the friend calls out to him. If the employee sees the friend from afar he keeps on his merry way but if the friend calls out to him, he feels the need to respond. The friend is acknowledging him, he must reciprocate. So he comes over and yip yaps for some time. Caught up in the conversation, he loses track of time before realising he abruptly apologises and runs off to work. 

The intended conversation is surface level. He may ask some penetrating questions about work and home life but it is just to get the simple things out of the way. There isn’t a deeper layer because there isn’t time for it. Yet a need to speak blandly sufficiently checks off the satisfied discussion list. The same goes for a parent. So the conversation wasn’t extensive or life changing but it was still a conversation. Due diligence of contacting a parent to display concern for them is enough. To an extent that is what people want. They do not care for the substance as long as they are being acknowledged. Children calling their parents showing they care and vice versa. While the friend situation acknowledges their friendship. In both cases one can afford especially in our day to call them back but there is an instinctive obligation to those we know. Walking through city traffic will not strike up a conversation with random pedestrians but running into someone special fills one with an urgency to say something. It is generally reactive. Doing it out of obligation when they make the first move. They’ve acknowledged me now I must be polite and do the same back. 

These surface level conversations mobilise in average discussions amongst guests. Growing up it was sports and girls. Now alcohol and work has been added to the mix. Many times gossip is the strengthening cause to heightening the desire to continue. Talking about who won the ballgame fades quickly but then moving onto players who bad poor performances debating their lack of skill with some teasing elongates a seemingly unimportant and useless conversation. This happens all the time. Gossip laced with conversations only makes them more interesting. It attacks the taboo nature of enjoyment. The desire to escalate to the private mannerisms of the category deepens interest. Though gossip is construed as negative it is the unconfirmed private talk that is the correct definition. There is a certain level of pondering the worst that gathers intrigued listeners. Yet malice need not be the downright conclusion of gossip. It is the juicy news, the potential possibilities that raise interest and social unity. A once bland item spiced up.

There is an urge to socialise. To attract others in an effort to be a part of something bigger. Sometimes that something bigger is just two friends but that still is more than the self. Finding completion in the addition of another. Feeling belonging and acknowledgement. This person likes me and wishes to spend their time with me. The content of events is irrelevant to the events happening. To being involved in the events. Even if the duo loses at the park or has a lacklustre lunch, the experience together is charming. Much of the conversation is bland. Yet the conversation is laced with joy of togetherness. There isn’t a need for a deeper discussion of the origin of the universe or other philosophical quandaries. Such questions involving identity and beliefs open up the heart to another. Yet hanging out together is itself an expression of opening oneself up. There is a power to silence. There is a power to blandness as long as the encounter is enjoyed. As long as their mutual desire to be together. Conversation doesn’t need to exist in forced activity but in periodic insulation.

Surface conversation can be seen as a way of avoiding certain topics. Prioritising extraverted nature to avoid harsher inquiries. Deflecting in order to have fun. In a sense ruling from a problem. Those who have experienced traumatic moments deflect to avoid discussing the hurtful past. In many instances this is done regularly. Not out of spite or fear but out of protection. The protection is more subconscious. Actions are more verifiable but they miss the deeper layer to a person. Playing in the park with someone is a game of enjoyment but there is no sit down dialogue. It is simply business. The same goes for office workers. There is a sense of order that rejects any deeper connection. Formalism is placed and injecting a privatised mode of conversation is off-putting. Privacy is held quite tightly by people. While certain topics are seen as off-limits, even regular questions receive simple answers. Walking into the office and asking how everyone is doing will get short bursts of similar responses. While the asker may not expect more, the replies do reflect a desire to keep the private discreet. Blab but be careful of what you blab. It could be embarrassing. What if it is ignored? What if people react negatively? Why bother informing when others aren’t necessarily interested.

Privacy is private because as much as people are curious they’d rather keep it mysterious. People would rather guess than know for sure. It is more enjoyable to speculate than know the truth. To know enough to entertain the possibility but to be ignorant enough to estimate the possibility. People generally do not want to hear sob stories. They don’t want to get mixed up in private affairs. Yet they will stir their gossiping. If an employee enters the office with a broken arm, many will say feel better, others may ask hoping she’ll just give a one word answer. If the employee says, I fell, good moving on but if the employee goes into a long winded story well that could spell annoyance for everyone. In the former both sides accept the surface level conditions. In the latter, the deeper region is exposed but it may not be acknowledged as highly. It is a risk to open the flood gates. There is a time and place to do so. This doesn’t mean that people do not gossip extensively. It is generally standard procedure in order to get through the interaction and carry on with the day. It depends on the relationship with the co-worker but the divulgence of personal experiences with others must be met with a trustful belonging.

Surface level discussions always begin the interaction. A polite way of introducing the encounter. It is a way to slowly move deeper. Most people will hesitate if you quickly begin asking them the origin of the universe or challenge them on their political leanings. To induce a deeper conversation, trust must be formed. A sense of belonging must be acknowledged. The experience must be mutual and understanding. It takes time. For some, it is a special place for certain people. Private information which generally is the ideological side not only secrets, is selective. To expose oneself is to be honest. Amongst friends is easier than strangers. Say you go on a date, the early awkwardness is mitigated by the breeze of fresh air or by playing to the classic twenty questions. Learning more about the simple things that being job, pets, siblings slowly translates to elaborating on those elements. Such as why did you choose that job, would you ever consider buying your own pet, is your relationship with your siblings amicable. Delving deeper whether by asking why or adding a second element to the question is entering private territory. One’s job, pets or siblings can be found on the internet but how one feels about these aspects is personal. A technique that uses bland questions to gradually find the person’s personal take on the issue. Once they open up personally, other personal questions can be unlocked.

There is a question game designed to develop a more intimate connection. As guessed, they begin bland and gradually become more personal. The intensity rises but the mellow shift of simple conversation veils the intrusive nature of these questions. The encounter is engulfed in this frenzy decreasing the bind around these private manners. The joyride of mutual expression alleviates much of the stress of opening up. Since both are doing it, there is a sense of comfort in the other’s willingness to dilute their own privacy. The goal is to get to know one another and is accomplished by selfless interaction. While dates have this point, it applies everywhere. In order to be comfortable opening up, others must demonstrate their own vulnerability. Since most people cover up their wounds others do the same. A broken arm can’t hide the wound but redirection is an effective tool of voiding the deeper layer. At times, it isn’t so much people do not wish to talk insofar as there is no reciprocation. Opening up requires mutuality. If only one side is vulnerable then why do it. Trust be deep in order for the deplorable to honestly say to others that which he desires to say. Everyone has that someone they go to when the going gets tough because that person has either shared their vulnerability with you or has shown their care and tenderness in the past.   

Society is a lost art of conversation. People level with the rare impactful stuff. Running around in circles about dubious ideas that affect no one. When emotions do breech they are contested. Ideologies place people at odds and cause strife. So tied to the emotional overhaul that the private is solely one’s own. Afraid to share their opinion and be crucified. Surface conversation hides this by compiling a general narrative that fills the void. An escape that everyone uses. A societal shield that allows belonging without division. A sneaky but ingenuous model of acknowledgement. Belonging to the dubious abstract instead of exclusion of opinion. Comfort is more with the impersonal aspects. Most pass other citizens in the street without knowing who they are. The world is bigger and concentration on family and work take us away from building connections. Many friends are those who gossip with. We discuss a third party to deflect from our own insecurities about ourselves. Only for a select few are our insecurities highlighted. We lament earnestly knowing the response will be well received. Whether praise or criticism, the other is honest and trustworthy. He can be DMCed with. Only those who have gained the faith level can be trusted with sensitive information. 

It isn’t that society is at a sad state in its evolution. While locals in the past or even in rural areas may have more knowledge of a situation, it doesn’t mean they are any more trusting with sensitive information. Sometimes more knowledge doesn’t mean deeper knowledge. Though the modern swing and isolation tendencies have concealed even more secrets. Things that weren’t so well known are in the air. Social media forums publicise these scandalous points to discredit. Sometimes it is a big hit and other times it is only reflective of societal concealment. Relatively exploitative to the magnitude societal revelation but considerably negligible to other areas of the world. Though the crux of private divulging is the spirit faith. In a Kierkegaardian sense, it a leap of faith. Yet the leap is mitigated given the consistent nature of reciprocation. If God saves at every turn then faith isn’t so incredible, if anything it would be devilish to not believe. Human trust may begin with a step of hope but it is backed by recognisable mutuality. A desire for unified expression. 

Emotive Response

By: Jonathan Seidel

Orality as lived experience—not declarative 

The power of speech contains emotions  and intention. We talk with tone and rhythm. Speaking does not require signifiers. It is obvious if someone is sad or angry by their tone. People speak methodically to convey their points. Emotive feeling is part of the terminology. Words are laced with feeling. Words are never bland, never robotic. Even dispassionate speech provides emotive access. The disinterested remark coneys spite and coyness to the other.

Speech is a holistic exercise that gives the self to the other. It is the self proclaiming himself to the other. The verbal exchange places context to the situation. All the variables are present. Speech is an all inclusive expression. It involves the mutuality of the self and the the other. The other is the intentioned subject concentrated. Speech is situational and complex. Speech is historicised and eternal. Its paradoxical nature is marked by its phonology. Clarity to the listener is beyond the words. The intention of the speaker. Words mean certain things but it is what is beyond them that is important. 

Speech requires another. It is formidable in its connective ability. It binds people by comprehension and cohesion. Words are necessarily implanted to gain but also to bond. It links people in an experiential presence. Stares are only surface complexions. They prey on our social sensibilities. We perceive stereotypical and shallow influences. A true experience can only be explored post speech or with sufficient concentration. An encounter without speech is surface level communication. Words need not project interest but body language limits experience. Reduced knowledge reduces intimacy reducing experience.  

Speech entices the other into a frame game.  The game is directional and concentrated. The frame fixates the speaker and listener in dichotomous positions. The speaker is the initiator and the listener the respondent. There is reactionary reversals but that follows the speaker’s words. The frame establishes “ground rules”. A listener can only respond to what he has heard. He may interject but he can only reply to a statement. Each has a part and plays it to perfection. Communication is an exercise in connection. Reacting to one another is enclosed to the game’s boundaries. An overhearer may interrupt with a comment but they lack the experiential centrality. The lack of the speaker’s directed intent devolves the comment. Yet the overhearer’s speech becomes experiential if internalised by the listener. 

The other is engulfed in the words of the other. Speech is a hypnosis galvanising engagement. Speech draws in interest. It is the listener’s participation encouraging the storytelling. It is a narration in unbridled territory. Words culminate in a mutual factory. The presence is heightened by considerable impassioned commitment. Words are linked succinctly as an experiential pattern encompassing the listener. The duo are placed on a higher plane with a secret code. The words may be mundane but the flow of information is “metaphysical”. It is sacred transmission of knowledge binding the speaker and listener. The speaker has disarmed himself by eluding to privy knowledge while the listener graciously accepts. The listener grows from an ignoramus to intelligent. 

Speech unburdens oneself and tearing down the walls. It is a release of self defence. It allows the self to open up to others. An internal expression breathing with sounds. Feelings are uncategorised uncompiled unstated hyper thoughts with no direction. They are bouncing off the walls. Speech provides structure to those words. They are expressed openly and internalised in the speaker’s mind. The sounds are aligned in sentence syntax. Words form language rules. It is the chess options of language that visits the frame. It enables flowing thoughts coherently. Bottled-up feelings are exploited in framed comprehension. Feelings are intimate and do not generally see the light of day. Speech is the vehicle to exploit the internal sceptic. Confidently opening up to others is a measure of maturity. Words formulate the pleasure to communicate the dark innards to the world. 

Shy people carefully conceal their speech. A foreigner thinks deeply before articulating. Fluency garners confidence. The message to convey needs to be precise in word and tone. It is not simply the sounds but their melody. It is less about contribution and more about embarrassment. Speech is a public expression. It is scary to the rarity. Those who do not frequently talk are shellshocked. Too frozen to act. A guy who sees a pretty girl at the other side of the room stop in his tracks. Startled with emotions swelling he forgets to breathe. His ability to talk clearly turns into gibberish muttering. Heart racing hoping to impress he is stuck in his head instead of his words. Fearful of his response before she even replies. Stop thinking stop worrying and start talking. It is not an easy task. Emotions influence his actions. The curse of embarrassment will pass, regret may never. Let the emotions to flow and concentrate o speech. Let your emotions fall to waste side as he opens his opens himself up to her. 

Overthinking is the antithesis of speech. It collects the mumbo jumbo of the near future. What will happen next? Pondering endless possibilities. Mitigating the worrisome willy collaborates the divergent potentialities in selected boxes. Overthinking does mix with speech. Yet at least spoken out-loud either diffuses the ridiculous scenarios and places the others in realistic opportunities. It is an external reminder to the self. The step forward is placing the thought in context. The internal idea is a floating hub of cynicism. It is the word manifesting the uncensored. The abstract becomes concrete; the ideal becomes tangible. Realistic investigations nauseate the impending multiplicity. Action is primary. Yip yapping may come off sly and dry but it is the intention to impress and influence that demands coherence. Giddy movements stalled by composure comprehensively evince linearity.        

Linearity is mustered courage. It is straight arrow phonetics. Syntax and semantics surge in the face of emotional discombobulation. Providing rationalised elucidation to the unstable uncertainty. A calming version of the abstracted ideal. Sentences can be riddled with emotional overhaul. Feelings leaked out immobilise the perfect intent. The vision is marred by the mental state. Immeasurable consequences result from diverted target. Distress messes with focused aim but it also allows those to come out. Emotional response may be the intentioned mode. Anger and sadness are mental reactions that blur speech but they are purposeful replies. The mental state overwhelms the verbal fluidity with rhythmic overtones. It alters the pitch and duration of the speaker in ways unimagined. Goals are subverted by mental strain. The brain sensing trouble transmits anxiety stifling a clear response. Anxiety is a state of panic obscuring the main focus to speak.  

Emotive response is not a lonely wallowing. The listener is affected by the speaker’s sorrows. His reply is a verbal acknowledgement of the sensation. His reaction is mutually inclusive. He cannot feel the speaker’s physical pain but he can feel it in his tone. The physical cannot be transferred but the emotional can. It cuts deeps and brings about physiological manifestations. The brain’s anxiety sends messages to the body to act in a certain way. Emotional impression can be gestural or speechless. Facial expression “speaks” to the onlooker. The onlooker is a listener even if he has not heard. Facial expression can articulate guesswork, only words can verify it. Speech is the precise utterance of internal feelings. The onlooker becomes a listener when he responds. He isn’t technically a listener when he asks what is wrong. There is no speaker here, only an actor. The listener uniquely comprehends concisely the speaker’s motive.

The listener is in a unique situation. Unlike the onlooker, the listener internalises the intimacy. It is not a plea but a request. A directed individual is contacted for deep connection. The speaker is placing their problem in the other’s hands. He is giving over himself, his own privacy is now privately transferred to the other. Unlike an internet browser, this knowledge is encrypted. Though it is possible that given surveillance and potential bystanders, the information could be public but for the most part this is dark web-like messaging. The password protected program is conversationally confidential. The message is for the intended ears only. Even onlookers who may hear did not listen. They were directed and thus missed cues. Language is contextual: missing the full conversation, the tone or remedy will result in a miscommunication. Dozing off will do the same. It is a concentrated exclusivist club. Only the speaker and listener are aware of the info and feelings about the info. A secret handshake with a sacred code. 

Dialogue is a mutual agreement. The speaker entrusts his privacy to the listener. The rules monitor loyalty and the parameters of the social contract. Selfishness brews distrust and isolation. Unpopularity is the key consequence for terrible secret-keeping. Even if unintentional is betrayal. What is said in confidence remains in confidence. The inexperienced will to mistake the sacred from the profane. Tweeting secrets against the speaker’s will. No knowledge shall be passed to another without the speaker’s intent. Even if unspecified without consent, it is betrayal. The full range of the transferred info provides the key to permission. Ideally the third party has no stake nor credibility to hear the information. Going to a third party is sacrilege. The experiential dialogue does more than exhibit information, it is the measure of that information. The intent shines in the emotive magnitude. The listener internalises the clarifying message. Without the storyteller present the message is featherless. 

Overhearing a message is inevitable. Our ears pick up sound frequencies unconsciously. We make out parcels of the communication but not enough to fully comprehend the message. We may attempt to eavesdrop on the conversation. Our greedy desire to know compels us to interfere. Yet that which isn’t directed can easily be misconstrued. The totality of dialogue is a powerful message to the receiver. The listener can be an overhearer. A backgrounder, a prying busybody. Yet he is not the aim. The receiver is the speaker’s target not the extra listeners on the periphery. The listener could be an eavesdropper but the listener is really a hearer. The difference being the hearer makes out sounds but does not internalise the message. He cannot since he is not the intended target. He wishes to pry but only makes out noise. It’s a commotion of babel that misses the key aspects surrounding the verbalism.        

Sometimes there are no listeners. At least no people present. Many may see talking to yourself as weird or mentally troubling but it is indeed an empowering exercise. Though caution, speaking aloud in public, stares with peculiar expressions will frequent. The meditative spirit of reflective unison. The introspective origin is the profound analysation of the self. The speaker and the listener are the same person. The self is refracted as an external entity. A hologram reflected with A.I. technology. The self is evaluated and speaks internally. The self is its own game of solo table tennis. The backside is bent up vertically and a volley proceeds. Self-talk is an exercise to remind oneself and ponder possibilities. Prayer is at times designed as a memory game. Reminding oneself of what is important. It is a codified valuational daily lesson. A few moments of introspection bewilders the expansive extensiveness of the self. The self is exposed to a depth analysis. 

Self-talk is a targeted reaction to the self.  The self is filled with the totality of the self as it perceives from its own external perception. Simultaneously speaking and listening is a twofold job. It requires honest evaluation of the self. The entirely of the self is responsive to the steel-manned self. The speaker is filled with biases yet experientially he must distance himself from himself. the speaker must disassociate from the self. Rational argumentation devoid of emotional static provides unbiased conclusions. It is not entirely unavoidable and the emotional elements is necessary but not as the self’s feelings. The response cannot eliminate yet can mitigate. Talking aloud forces the internal communication to becomes an external conversation. Talking in the concrete world. It is not internal commotion but syllogistic analysation. Once the dialogue exceeds the self’s mainframe to the real world, it becomes a dialogue with the other over sensible feelings. The thought transforms into a speech. Speech not only standardises the discussion but also conceptualises the realistic consequences. Speech is fluid but codified. It is not an afterthought, a lucid dismissive idea. Instead the dialogue is constructive and debated in the open. 

Otherness is a looking past the selfish motivation. Speech is directed even towards self being. It is directed content in verbal mastery. The words cut deeper in an enduring dialectical debate. Verbalism even to the self accords some sort of “objectivity” to the relational dialogue. Intent is necessarily imperative. The speaker and listener are bound by the experience. The experience is the absolution of the speech internalised by the reader. The overview of this communicative force brings the other’s force In the mini-universe created in dialogue. A reality is created words are cemented in the sphere. The mentioning is embedded in the face of cognitive reliance. The speaker and listener are intertwined in a temporary conversation that ceases momentarily but lasts forever. The long time memory holds onto this conversation, forever engraved in man’s soul. It lacks the forefront memory but is eternally manifested. The world onto itself constructed in the chess-like language game has accepted parameters. It follows the engaged beings in a profound measure of resilient formidability.

Wordless Wonder

By: Jonathan Seidel

Speech is the mechanism to communicate but is the exoteric expression for the deeper esoteric experience. Speech is that veil that aids the experience. It supercharges mutuality while voiding the true nature of the mutual experience. Speech is regulated and absolved of its deeper purpose. 

The a priori encounter is the experience. It is the sublime sensation latching onto man. The loss of wonder and fascination necessitates speech as that medium. Speech is the second level. It is necessary but not for experience. A genuine encounter is silent respect. Dignity to the other in joy. Smiling to one another without a care in the world. No words no comments. Just being present with one another. The tranquility of presence unities the mutual effort. A comforting tone to the mood.     

 

The presence is assured in beseeching camaraderie to the encounter. The unity in relational acknowledgement furthers the experience. It is the moment of realisation. A recognition of the other in the spatial proximity. Communication reaches new heights in the primal realm. A realm so long ignored and rummaged through. People move straight to talking before even marking the primacy. The experience is the moment of encounter but it quickly muddles into conversation. Conversation breaks the experience with jargon. The encounter isn’t at its peak of connection. Dialogue takes away from the linkage between the two sides. 

Speech is a distraction from the genuine encounter. Yet it may also do the opposite. Speech brings two closer through deep questions. It may bring about the deepest intimacy but there is a special experiential primacy. The level of a priori experience is not on the intimate level but it is on the connecting phase. The formal invite is through acknowledgement. The experience is the silent reflection of the mutuality. The spark of connection is relishing in each other’s presence. The surface level presence is not shallow but personal dignity. Speech overtakes this dignity and pushes through to the logos. To speak to overcome the dreaded silence. To make noise in a voided atmosphere. 

There is a difference between the intimacy felt after conversation. The knowledge attained churns into an emotive closeness but this misses the experiential marker. The point is facing the other on neutral ground. A lack of closeness does persist without further knowledge. It is not the goal of every encounter. The technological advancement has placed knowledge consumption at the forefront of requirements. To sit silently comforted by the presence of the other. With no compulsion to break the stillness. A moment of serenity, temporary but beautiful. A meditative focus on the other in its elevated ethos. Knowledge is secondary to the experience. It is the concentrated effort to fully acknowledge the other. 

It is an a priori ethical basis to being. The other is across the table. The genuine experience is the wondrous encounter with the other. The awe of this moment encourages the gathering of knowledge. Yet the experience alters the trajectory of knowledge attainment. It is to have a good time, to enjoy the encounter. The experience heightens the fascination with meeting others. It transcends the limitations of the other for a serene measure of concentration. Emotional standing is empowered by this meditative silence. the point of connection is the experiential link. It is not just finding similar hobbies but the emotive spirit linking the two conversationalists. The moral accord perceives the equal being in tandem. 

The experience is even greater in post-knowledge encounters. After the intimacy is sparked the experience is not over. Knowledge leads to a feeling but it is lacking in the absoluteness. The experience recognises the other separated from and  with the knowledge. Knowledge parts the significance of the experiential encounter. It creates biases and categories for others. It places people in boxes. Knowledge is a quasi-enemy to knowledge. There is though an elevated experience with an advanced feeling for the other. The silence succeeding intimate exchange bolsters the encounter. The experience is heightened by a preconceived knowledge that need time to reflect. The presence with the other is particularly powerful in the moment of emotional connection. 

Knowledge is not always a hinderance. The logos is measurable to the experiential focus. It adds to the relationship between the two but it is not the primal figure of connection. Speech takes over as a necessary method. Speech need not become a one-man-band. There is a time to talk and a time to hush. Silent during the encounter reverberating the experience. The experience can only manifest with intentional feasibility. The duration of speech overtakes silent internalisation. It is an endless motor. A boxing match jab for jab. The depth encounter is a result of quiet connection. A bold stillness and focus externally. Talk to connect not to mumble.  

Silent Treatment

By: Jonathan Seidel

We speak to communicate and become engrossed in a singular experiential method. The sole way of connection is through the words. This all too wrong. We can experience by mere conversation. It is the sounds spoken that spark experience. 

Communication is more than speech. Speech is verbal annunciation but a medium through connection. It is mode of informative transmission but is surface level communication. Conversation imbues agendas and manipulation. Whether in good faith or not, words are a form of delegation. They promote meaning through interpretation. Speech is a marker of lacking experience. Speech steals that experience through sound making. The focus is on the words we say not on the experience we feel. We lose sight of the encounter in the dialogical flow. We talk and discuss all the while looking past each other. 

We speak but do not listen. We are too eager to reply that we end up speaking past one another. The irony is the dialogue is two monologues. Asides with audience participation. A student interrupting the teacher’s lesson. It is not a moment of equals but of imbalance. Trying to dominate the other with words. Choosing the genre and filing precious opinions on the others. It is not mutual consent but a barraging mirage. Even in a mutual space, the desire to respond and feeling to interject overpowers the other. The speaker is overwhelmed by an aggressive interrupter. The listener’s points need to be made and he takes charge. With this interjection the speaker loses his train of thought moving to a divergent strand in the conversation. This rupture is manifested by egoism. 

The dialogical rupture is a moment of arrogance. The rupture signifies one’s feeling of self-importance. My points are more important at this moment. It is not an offensive intention but it becomes an egregious act. It forbids the conversation from heading in one direction and moves it to another track. The original destination is voided to oblivion. The rupture continues smoothly but it is off course. The new path has a new destiny, one unintentional from the conversational origin. Man’s greed and pride intercepts the conversational flow. The speaker’s fluidity is halted and moved back into place. It is a encounter by the listener’s fervent language. The listener responds to the speaker’s words but he stuns the speaker in his tracks. The speaker must regroup but this offence strikes discord in the experiential moulding. 

The experience is welded with silence. Internalising each and every word coherently. Not just hearing the speaker but listening carefully. Actively partaking in the experience. Verbal response is unnecessary. Activity does not require sounds, it requires engagement. Body language and emotional intent is firmly reasonable. Though these latter factors may affect the speaker’s flow, it is a sharper less rupturing idea. It is a less blunt rejection of the speaker. Listening is a silent manifestation of interest. Disinterest is permitted but make it clear. Passive intent is disheartening and demoting. The engaged listener stares into the cold eyes of the speaker. Focused and intrigued by the speaker’s voice. His words are filled with prowess and zeal. Words carry emotion and meaning. To listen fully is to attain the full capacity of the rhetoric. In a sense internalising the meta-level. 

The listener can only achieve this feet in silence. Speech is a commodity but a central facet of human life. Silence is but a temporary measure in the life of man. It is a time of meditation and introspection. Yet these moments of reflection are guided by growth intentions. Speech focuses on the external while silence focuses on the internal. Silence does mean utter void. It means the nullification of sounds in the air. Speech is never ceased. Silence is to speak to the self. To talk to one’s body and ponder about personal development. Reflection needs internal speech. Communication is completed through voice but it done calmly and slowly. Silence is self-concentration and existential expression. The listener is silent but he speaks to himself about the information transmitted. Speech is never turned off, it is manifested internally to focus externally. 

The brain is always working and responding internally to the speaker. The moment of reception energises the mind to manufacture a proper response. It is not extensive pondering but a quick rationalisation. The external is mitigated for the internal to operate efficiently. The speaker is preoccupied talking. His speech lacks internal dialogue. He must stop to speak internally. Gathering his thoughts is a moment of internal conversation. External speech does not contain conscious internal speech. A pause is the only merit to re-energising the internal discussion. The flow of conversation is instinctive. It does not relay the condensed deductive version. It is spitballing. A careless method of speech. Pauses reinvigorate a cyclical dialogue to coherently express the ideas. Self-awareness better empowers speech fluidity. 

The speaker’s external indulgence leaves the experience. The experience is for the silent. The emotive factors only heighten for the silent. The speaker is manifesting the experience onto others unable to feel himself. He is bringing others into his domain but does not sense the power of his words. His words are only captivated in the listener’s response. The other’s interest and fascination pulls the speaker into the experience. The words affect the listener while the body language affects the speaker. The speaker preaches while the listener indulges. Mutuality springs in the encounter. Gazing at one another and focused. It is beyond words. They are medium but are not the purpose. The mechanism not the moment. Speech charges interest while listening inspires pride. A partnership of a deep experience washed by routine expression. 

Danger of Speech

By: Jonathan Seidel

Speech is but the greatest tool in man’s arsenal. A power greater than nuclear weapons. The word of man can build or destroy in the blink of an eye. Even past the elitist autocrats, speech remains the most delicate aspect of the human anatomy. 

Man spends much time speaking. How much of that time is wasted on nonsense. Spitting sounds to convey jargon. Beyond the hateful words, the use of basic formulas to say nothing is a normative experience. Speech is our model of communication. We do not watch our speech. So open with our communication. We take it for granted. It rolls off our tongue with such grace and simplicity. It is a true marvel that is ignored for its pragmatism. It does its job and we move on. Communication is completed through the vibrations of sounds without a care. 

The use for detrimental matters is distasteful. We have a gift and we sully it with negativity and hate. Man possesses such power and it is laid to waste for inferior motives. To hurt others and demonstrate superiority. Speech is a method of portraying difference and distance. Weaponised to further divide. To convey the absurd to the other. Emotional angst prompts the negativity. Instead of keeping it inside, it is blurted out with fervour. The falsity of our honest is brutality. We forcefully insist on notifying our feelings publicly. To put down others is not necessary with physicality but with spirit. 

The term hate speech though improperly defined as such terminology is not physically harmful. One does not bleed but it surely hurtful. Breaking another’s spirit could be worse. Emotional damage sinks much deeper than physical pain. Wounds heal but stress does not as quickly, if not ever. Trauma is eternally pressing on the mind. Reminding the offended of their inadequacies. Hurtful words become a reoccurring attack, one that does not require spatial proximity. A curse of sorts on the future mind. A curse that cannot be undone by the attacker nor easily by the victim. Emotional damage requires time, sometimes even therapy to overcome. Emotional pain sinks deep needing external aid to push through. A curse worse than a firing squad. A torture like no other. 

Living with pain supersedes easy death. Sticks and stones break bones but words harm like daily stones breaking the mind. It is a cancer with no chemo capability. Ignorance is the sole antibiotic but at times insufficient to assist the sensitive. Man is delicate. His mind is weak. Pounding him with negativity affects him greatly. Only those reflective and high self-esteem have a chance. Teasing only breaks man faster. Unable to handle he begins to believe he is what he is called. He transforms into the negativity. The devalued specimen. The change haunts him. He is tension from his older self. His happy go lucky personality is ruined by a darkness. Stuck in an enduring nightmare of name-calling and depression. He has become a different person marked by the words of another. 

Words are violence in their right. They are light as feathers, harmless to the body but crippling to the mind. They are realised and cannot be taken back. Once it is out there there is no rewind. What is said is the eclipse of future consequences. The sounds vertebrate into oblivion. That which is heard is transmitted. It is captured and stored away for good. The violence to the other with terminological horror is harassment. It belittles his being and dismisses his dignity. The offended can only cover his ears and hope to god he does not make them out. The aural internalisation is the cancerous penetration. It is a poisonous bacteria infecting the subject. Tortured by the force of the worlds and how he feels about their message. The words are posed to the other in charismatic confidence and involuntary received. 

Speech has a recipient. Interpretation is a direct response to the speaker. Like telephone, there is no certainty the words will be understood as intentioned. Speech must be careful as it can be misconstrued. Precision is critical. The receiver’s understanding is essential. Speech is one part of the encounter. Speech needs a listener. That listener may hear incorrectly or interpret divergently. Repeat and contextualise terminology. The interpreter is sucked into the speech experience. His attendance is auditorial. He internalises and decides to persist the experience or walk away. A sacred union of communication muddled with routine and limitless capacity. The interpreter must act in good faith. It is not on the speaker to reflect his speech. It is on the interpreter to question to ensure he comprehended correctly. 

Was violence intended or a misunderstanding? Speech is a tricky art. Interpretation is vast and maybe even infinite. The respondent must inquire precision for a proper account. If misconstrued or taken out of context, violence may be done to the speaker. How the resonant replies has its own set of consequences. He must qualify the speaker’s words and regard him in good faith. The only way for possible reconciliation is through benefit of the doubt. If the resonant heard something negative, he must ensure he conceived accurately. Internalisation may fit certain agendas or preconceived notions. An unbiased a priori accepting notion. Good faith is the primal reaction. Dignify before rationalisation. The first act is questioning the self. If understood coherently. If certain respond. In the negative it is best to proceed with caution.

The violence of speech is the curse it places on man in his long life of struggle. The perpetuated torment from simple words is haunting. It is more powerful than we are are of. We say we are only joking but words cut deep. They awaken insecurities and fears buried beneath the surface. Knowledge we’d rather be left under the mat. Facts we are not ready to deal with just yet and wish to ignore. Another stealing that freedom from down under is an invasion of privacy and a confiscation of what is most dear. It is an unwarranted terroristic attack on the self. At the same time, the interpreter must not intentionally or not abuse his power. He is at the speaker’s mercy. He cannot take back his words but the interpreter can conjure them as he pleases. Once it is out there it is an expression with power to help or harm. The speaker utters freely and the respondent channels those sounds into a creation. A monster perhaps to prey on the speaker. The union of the speaker and interpreter is magical and necessarily holy in their experiential depth. The encounter is driven by communication. Violence can be asserted on both sides. The danger is real so tread carefully.