In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is the Logos — the word of God — that creates order from chaos, and it is in the image of the Logos that man [“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26)] is created.
Our narratives describe the world as it possesses broad but classifiable implication for motor output — as it signifies. We gather information about the nature of the world, as it signifies for behavior, by watching ourselves and the others who compose our social groups act in the world. We derive conclusions about the fundamental meanings of things by observing how we respond to them. The unknown becomes classifiable, in this manner, because we respond to its manifestation predictably. […] We observe our responses, which are biologically predetermined, and draw the appropriate conclusions.
Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of Meaning (p. 100)
It is here, in the same place as every day, that I sit, looking out the same window, listening to Alexandra Streliski’s INSCAPE. I am wondering how I appear to the outside world. I observe, and the world passes beyond the pane of glass. I am removed, detached. And yet, what I observe changes me. The window into my neighbour’s living room, which is sometimes dark, is most often filled by the images on their large screen TV.
How do they see me? A gaunt face in shadows, expressionless, nearly invisible? I am a film through which the world is interpreted, and which casts or projects its interpretation outward. I am also a presence in the world, whether I act in it or not.
Inaction, too, is a form of action. Inaction is the agency to not act, of taking the action of not acting.
If it is true that as a society and as individuals, we learn how to behave by observing how we act, using words to describe our actions, and then building a narrative so that we may draw conclusions, what are the implications of our social and government response to this “pandemic”?
If the above is true, we can learn how to behave only if we observe our actions correctly and use the correct words to name them so as to draw the correct conclusions. The narrative we develop is how we learn, teach, and perpetuate correct behavior. Worded observation about actions is the core of narrative. Narrative is at the heart of behavior modification or behavior reinforcement. The words we use have the power to shape our actions and our reality.
It is my hope that by describing the world around me and by exploring the words used to describe and instruct, I may contribute to deciphering and inspecting our narratives, that we may better understand our actions and draw true conclusions about how we should act.
How does a word signify and acquire meaning? Other than looking it up in the dictionary (which is an explicitly descriptive rather than prescriptive tool), how do words get their meaning? How do we learn their meaning?
What happens when the words used to describe a situation, and what we understand them to mean, are in conflict with how we understand the situation to be?
Consider the concept of heat. A young child does not know that the burner is hot. It’s an attractive red color, and being curious, the child wants to touch it. You warn not to touch it, saying, No! That’s hot! but for a child who has never encountered “hot” before, this concept is not understood and neither are the consequences.
Once the knowledge is acquired, whether through the direct experience of touching the hot burner or after listening to alarming stories about what could or would happen, the child understands. The word “hot” takes on a behavioural significance: Be careful not to touch hot things. This trickles down (over years, with experience) to a variety of sub-behaviors: keeping an oven mitt nearby, turning handles inward, etc.
What would happen if every once in a while, “hot” were used to describe things that are red but have no heat — a shirt, a flower, a strawberry? It’s true that some things that are red are hot (burner on high) but certainly not most. The narrative crumbles when words are misused. “Be careful not to touch hot things” no longer signifies and loses validity.
The person who believes red = hot and that hot = danger will avoid all manner of objects, believing them to be dangerous.
The person who believes red = hot and that hot can be any temperature at all, has stripped the word hot of its meaning. “Hot” no longer signifies potential danger.
The only sensible thing to do is to recognize that “red” and “hot” are two distinct concepts that may occasionally intersect.
This is not to suggest we eliminate alternate meanings. Within context, these are useful and playful. “That red dress is hot!” is a statement that makes perfect sense — in context. It does not suggest that the red dress poses a danger nor does it erode the meaning of “hot.” It’s simply another definition in a specific context.
Words matter. Words are how we understand and communicate reality. They represent wayfinding markers that help us navigate reality and describe reality to others. As words are tools of significance, they work only if their meaning and use is consistent and specific. Through common terms and definitions, we can share and build up knowledge.
When words lose their meaning, are twisted into meaning something else, or used in unpredictable and inconsistent ways, they become detached from reality and are made useless.
Accurate representation — truth — evaporates. Imagine looking around and everywhere you saw the color red (e.g., a bush of red roses or a basket of strawberries), you perceived danger (hot). What would be the result? For one, you would not be well equipped to avoid getting burned. You might experience a heightened, constant sense of alarm, as the world is full of innocuous red items. You might advocate banning the color red to make the world, and your interaction with it, safer.
Likewise, when a word becomes taboo or changes meaning, or when no word exists to signify a concept, we are left without accurate wayfinding tools. We can’t describe where we are, what is going on, and what we are experiencing because we don’t have the necessary tools (words) or are not permitted to use them.
We may, for a while, struggle with symbols and gestures, approximations and euphemisms; we may circle the issue and hope that enough of the message is communicated that the person can draw some conclusions — we may even take the person’s hand and prevent them from touching the burner, we may say “ouch!” or otherwise act out and perform the warning. But without accurate, meaningful words, we cannot speak directly.
First, comes a sense of cognitive dissonance: the words used do not describe the reality witnessed. Eventually gaslighting takes hold. Over time, gradually, we lose the ability to recognize where we actually are.
We look around us, at a landscape red with poppies or blood or paint, and fearing we will get burned, set about applying the preventions and solutions for heat, for burns. We spray cool water, wrap our bodies in flame retardant or wet rags to protect ourselves before setting out for the journey — or worse, and most likely, don’t set out at all.
Cognitive dissonance, the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in people is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: they reject, explain away, or avoid the new information; persuade themselves that no conflict really exists; reconcile the differences; or resort to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in their conceptions of the world and of themselves. The concept was developed in the 1950s by American psychologist Leon Festinger and became a major point of discussion and research.
Why should words matter?
Why do we need to know where we are?
Why should we care about truth?
When words become divorced from their concepts, we are not only lost, we are without the tools to find our way.
This is (another) post I started and left on hold as a draft. I’ve been working on it in bits and pieces over the last few days. Having caught up on revising the draft, I am now writing in the present: Today, as we head into Easter weekend, Ontario and Quebec face new lockdowns.
The media, politicians and health officials describe what is happening, what is being done, the threats that loom. If only they could utter the right combination of words to scare us all thoroughly into submission. They come at it from a variety of angles — pleading, threatening, coercing, negotiating, insulting, bribing.
Big stick in one hand, small carrot in the other, Premiers, health officials and mayors open a tap here, close one there, fiddling and adjusting levers from their comfortable positions behind curtains of authority — self-declared Wizards of Oz in Emerald Cities of their own delusions.
In Ontario, Ford’s plans are announced early, intentionally — announcements of announcements “expected” to come. He will tell us that we are entering “the third wave” of the pandemic, that “nothing is off the table,” and that he “won’t hesitate” to use the “emergency break” given the models and expert opinions that suggest the situation is “out of control.”
When he finally does tell us, it will be no surprise. We already know, are already resigned, our explosions vented with no effect on Twitter and Facebook. What could otherwise build to a concentrated desire for revolt creates nothing more than mild ripples of grumbling and frustration.
We were told it would happen. And it did. Order. Control. Nothing to do about it.
Ontario is being led down 'very dangerous path' as third wave slams province, ICU doctors say
Courtesy of CTV
We are again at a “critical point” and told that this wave will be worse than the previous two. We are again asked to be patient, to comply, to follow the rules to “stop” the virus. From all sides, we hear pleas to “be very careful” and “stay safe.”
We are held to data benchmarks that constantly change, based on sources, parameters and calculations we don’t have access to and know nothing about. From our largely shuttered and silent hospitals, case numbers materialize, a fantastic rolling ticker tape, the stock exchange for the market of our health, which is being played and controlled by unseen forces. Magically, mysteriously, variants appear and upon detection are instantly declared “more virulent” and “more deadly” than the previous iteration. Nothing else changes but the numbers and the configuration of hoops we must jump through. We see no bodies piling up.
We are told these daily numbers are key to regaining a shred of our lives. We are shown models of what is predicted to happen if we don’t “do better” and what terrible fate awaits us, even if we do. What “doing better” means, what specific actions and changes it would take, is never defined. We’re given the same tired instructions with ever-changing lists of arbitrary restrictions and threatened with increasingly punitive consequences for non-compliance.
Language is hyped to a narrative that doesn’t fit reality by officials steering our society down a treacherous path “for our own safety.” We are told we must do this and that or “thousands will die” and we are told we cannot return to “normal” because it wouldn’t be “safe.” Safe for whom? Based on what definition?
We are told to trust their fearmongering and ignore what our own senses tell us, what common sense and instinct dictate. We must cease living so we won’t die.
Those who question the wisdom of our “leaders,” who point out the coercion and threats, the lies, evasion, and deception, who ask to see proof that this fantasy is true, are labeled “deniers” of this and “anti-” that along with other, more insulting names. We (for I am most assuredly one of them) are reframed as dangerous for spreading “misinformation.” Misinformation, we are told, kills. The world is upside down: Love is harmful. Distance is closeness. Division is unity. Toxins are sanitizing. Fresh air is deadly.
Media outlets proclaim astonishment at the continued presence of “deniers.” They conduct surveys and mine data to better describe and “other” the treacherous enemy. They mock, ridicule and smear. For, indeed, the enemy is no longer the mysterious, invisible virus, but the truth and those who seek it. The debate veers off down the road of what to do with us. None of our concerns and questions are answered.
The ways people have for millennia overcome challenges and suffering in the face of uncertainty and mortality, danger and risk, has been declared unsafe, selfish, and irresponsible — beyond consideration.
And yet, there is no evidence of any real threat. Only empty statements proclaimed with alarming, exaggerated language — language that is meaningless, language that obscures where we truly are and makes it impossible to chart a course forward.
What is illness?
What is health?
What is essential?
What is responsibility?
What is freedom?
What is truth?
Words matter. Speak with precision and courage. Describe, as accurately as you can, your surroundings. Face the threat and cast the light of truth upon it. Then honestly, clearly, faithfully, tell the true story of your experience and your surroundings.
This is our only way forward.
Words & reality
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant! And so profound.
I'm enthralled with your ability to express, with such clarity, the evil scenario surrounding us today. You have a wonderful talent.
Thank you for taking your precious time to write these thoughts.