Arguing and Conflicting

From my time spent studying speech communications as an undergraduate, I've developed an opinion about conflict that reflects both the potentially destructive aspects of conflict, and the productive aspects of conflict. For me, when I say "destructive," and "productive" I mean in terms of interpersonal communication, or the relationship aspect of the conflict (as opposed to the task or pragmatic side). Intentionally, I call it "conflict" rather than "argument," because I feel that those two words have fundamentally different meanings.

To argue is to fight. Fight for what? Fight for yourself, your ego, your pride, or your identity. My problem with that is: if I were to fight with someone to negotiate my status, or my identity, etc, that to me, would seem pointless. The socially constructed natures of my "identity" or my "status," or my "achievements" are such that the other is free to perceive those things as they will. I have little control over their perceptual filters and individual biases that cause them to perceive me in a specific way. So, to fight, or argue, with a person is to attempt to assert yourself, or the beliefs you identify with, in such a way that you force yourself on to the other. As stated previously, I see very little value in this.

To be in conflict, however, is to attempt to bring that person into your world in such a way that you invite them into your perspective. It's not a persuasive pursuit per se, but an opportunity for growth, in that, the two (or more) can begin to gain better understanding of one another, recognize common denominators, and begin to build a resolution from that.

Do you see the differences? In short, the difference is this: To argue is to force, and to conflict is to invite. I understand that this might be a unique way of connotatively defining these words, but no matter how you phrase it, it's still an important differentiation to make.

On Peanut Butter

She rummaged through the cupboard looking for what bread I had left and the commercial sized jar of peanut butter that between she and I might last a few weeks. “If you could have an unlimited supply of only one thing, while stranded in the desert, what would it be?” She asked. She smiled but didn't look up from her culinary artwork.

“I don’t know.” I paused for a second, “probably water.” I was far more concerned with how she would answer the same question.

        “What about you?”

“Peanut butter.” She smiled.

“Ohh really.” I rolled my eyes so hard it was probably audible.

“Yes! Think about it; peanut butter is, like, the perfect combination of nutrients. You could live off it forever!”

“Your mouth would get all sticky! What would you drink?” I had to ask.

“What? I’m pretty sure most food is seventy percent water anyway; you wouldn't need to drink anything as long as you had some kind of food.”

“Point duly noted.” I took a bite of her sandwich. “Wha’ a’out shel’er?”

She would definitely have needed water.

“What was that?” She giggled. She knew exactly what I had said, but she need to retaliate against my imposing realism on her fantasy. I smiled with chubby cheeks and swallowed.

“Shelter. You'll need shelter.”

“I can build something out of the empty jars.” She said enthusiastically.

She'd obviously thought this over.  

“Anything you build on sand would have no foundation; it’d blow away.” 

“No, not if I le’e ‘he jar’s ‘alf full.”

“Okay, fine.” It was getting harder not to laugh, but I knew if I laughed first I’d have lost the game. “But really, that wouldn't work.”

“Of course it would, have you ever been stranded in the desert with nothing but peanut butter? Unless you have some alternate life, and I don't think you do, how could you possibly know that?” All of her words came out without a single breath between them. “Besides, the peanut butter would make good protection from the sun.”

Right.

“So, you're plan is to live in a peanut butter jar fortress, slathered in peanut butter to protect you from the sun, and eat nothing but peanut butter?” I paused. “You realize that if you're covered in peanut butter you're probably going to get sand in every single crevice on your body. Last I checked, that’s not really great for ladies. Just sayin’.”

“At least I don’t drink pickle juice.” She said with fake sobriety. 

“That has nothing to do with this!” I laughed, and she swatted for my hands which I had thrown up in defeat.  

Talk about Muted Groups.

A muted group is a group or a culture that has effectively been "muted" by the majority, or the dominate culture. What happens is that the way of speaking or thinking of the minority culture just doesn't "click" with the majority, so, the minority is forced to assimilate the way that they think and speak to that of the majority. This sucks, for everyone. It's essentially the same as losing an entire language. We lose the ways of thinking and expressing thoughts that are unique to the culture or group. When a culture loses their ability to speak, we all lose. Here's why: there are likely systems of thought, or specific ideas that minority cultures or groups have that the majority doesn't. These are things that the majority can learn from. So, when a group is muted everyone gets stupider (OKay, that's a stretch, but I hope you can see my point). Needless to say, when a group is muted, everyone also misses out on the creative insights that that group or culture might have brought to the table. That sucks.



On a side note - muted group theory doesn't just pertain to cultures. It applies to all minority groups that have to cater their voices to that of the majority. The LGBT community is a great example of this; as are most religious groups.



Now, there's a difference between being diverse, and being "open minded." People like to throw that term around a lot. Oh sure, you're open minded, but is that really a good thing? While you're busy being "open minded," you're also creating and perpetuating the idea that there is a central group, or a right way of thinking (naturally you're an integral part of this group). Doing this implies that there is a "right" way to act or think. Fine. You do you. Keep on being "open minded" if that's your jive. When you're ready to make some real progress in accepting others for who they are, and start promoting a world where everyone is free to think their thoughts and be who they are, try to keep in mind the difference between being "open minded" and accepting diversity. By the way, there's also a difference between accepting diversity "at a distance," and really accepting it. To accept diversity at a distance is no different than being "open minded."



So, amen to this guy for giving a voice to his muted group in a language that's authentic to him. And if you listened to anything he had to say, well, then amen to you too.

The Lit. Log: The Mysteries of Pittsburgh

In reading this book I am reminded primarily of another book; Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury. Both books center around a male main character who is “coming of age” during the summer. While the main character in Dandelion Wine is significantly younger the texts do have common themes. For example, in Ray’s work there is a character that creates a “happiness machine” that serves much the same purpose as the “cloud factory” in Mysteries of Pittsburgh. It stands as a symbol of what I call the “fate factor” of life. 

Michael Chabon, relays to his audience a stark reality that the American pursuit-of-happiness often entails. Chabon’s story centers around the lives of three twenty-somethings: Art, Arthur, and Cleveland. Each has an inherent - as Art would say - “will-to-bigness.”

Chabon’s narrative unfolds around the lives of Art, Arthur, and Cleveland. Art, a mob boss’s son, has lived a life shrouded in obscurity. He is at a loss for understanding who he is. He says himself,  “[I] feel nostalgia for a time I never even knew." His life is a tension between desire to actualize his self, and fear that he will be repulsed by what he finds. Arthur is a self proclaimed “free atom.” He recreates himself on a daily basis. When the two meet, Art begins to think that he, like Arthur, doesn't need to be confined by his past. At this point, Art begins breaking ties with his family. That is, until Arthur’s friend Cleveland comes on the scene. Cleveland is “evil incarnate.” He destroys and consumes everything he touches. His destructive nature does not lend itself to a typical forty-hour-a-week job. Thus, Cleveland becomes involved with the Pittsburgh branch of Art’s father’s mob. He starts off in “pick up and delivery,” but wants to work his way into more dangerous jobs.

Each character's will-to-bigness is directly linked to his personality. Art’s will is to be like Arthur - self-created and free of his past. Arthur, though free in appearance, is just as constrained by his past as Art. Arthur’s life is a constant facade to guard the fact that, in reality, he is a reject. Having grown up the son of a poor single mother, jobless, and without a formal education, Arthur’s will to bigness also takes the form of freedom. Cleveland’s will is the will after which the will-to-bigness is named. His desire is to consume, and to become “big.” He has no other means to do this than to destroy anything in his way. Bigness, for Cleveland, does not equate with wealth, fame, freedom, or any particular object of desire. For Cleveland the will to bigness is primal; “bigness is the goal of life."

If anything this book has served to show that what I, and pop culture, call love and freedom exists on a spectrum. In the end Art discovers that what he has pursued is nothing more than a game. The relationships that he formed out of a selfish objective desire to keep his self hidden are like the cloud factory, idealized but mysterious.

Thunder Perfect Mind

Thunder Perfect Mind is a document discovered among the Gnostic manuscripts from Nag Hammadi in 1945. Now, personally, I am not a "Gnostic." Really, I would self-identify as a Christian. Nonetheless, there was something about the text that resonated with me, more than anything I've read for a while. This is one of those "finds" that I can't help but talk about. You can read it here. The text is written in a female voice, which is really interesting give the nature of the document. I will, however, only mention that here, and let it stand as a conversation for another time when I have more fully formed thoughts about it. 

For now, in reflecting on Thunder Perfect Mind I realized that self revelation always takes the form of antithetical propositions. I have realized that whenever I try to proposition something about myself, the part of me that embodies the other resists vehemently. Let’s say I posit about myself that I am a “good” person, or that I am “controlling.” Other parts of me, equally as present, scream out, “You’ve never done anything that wasn't out of self-interest!,” or “Controlling? Psh, you don’t have any more control over the world or over others that you do yourself!” But, in realizing that “I am shame and boldness. I am shameless; I am ashamed. I am strength and I am fear. I am war and peace,” I realize that I was never meant to be any one particular way (and yet I am), and I realize that my understanding of my existence is revealed to me by my oscillation between antithesis. The complex being that I am can only be understood, by myself, in terms of paradoxes. I am limited, I am infinite. Need I say more?

Here's the Dig.

Seeing as this is my first post I fig'r it might be pertinent to give you the scoop on what this blog is, and more importantly, what it isn't.

What this blog is not. 

• A reference. I don't claim to know everything about any topic. Don't treat this blog as a end-all source of facts. I promise you that it's not. If I say something you find interesting, go look into it yourself. That's what I do, and trust me, it's better that way. 
• A claim to greatness. I in no way anticipate this blog ever becoming "popular." It's simply a way for me to publish my thoughts. If you like what I have to say, let me know about it. If you don't, let me know about it. But seriously, this is not all that serious. 
• A copy and paste wasteland. All the thoughts here are going to be original to me. Don't expect to find that my thoughts correlate with an existing body of knowledge. It's likely they won't. This doesn't upset me. My aim, here, isn't to publish scholarly knowledge about necessarily true things about the world. These are just my musings. 

What this blog is.

• A catalogue of my thoughts for the world to see. I'm a big believer in the whole "iron sharpens iron" thing. I find that the thoughts I enjoy thinking most are those that I've presented to the world, in their unadulterated form, and had polished by the currents of others opinions, feelings, and knowledge. 
• Introspection about my experiences, people, books, movies, etc.. In a similar vein as the above point, I find that I get the most out of my thoughts once they've been communicated to others. Not that others necessarily need to respond, but I get a lot out of simply "putting it out there."
• A trade post. I'm really good at finding things I like and I really enjoy sharing those things with others who will appreciate them. I'm a promoter of sorts. Be prepared to barter. 

Some final notes. 

This blog isn't just for me. My existence is intimately united will all the other existences of the world. I take advantage of that. I love that. If you want to, do the same. 

I don't promise much. So, be aware of the following: I reserve the right to amend, exclude, or elaborate any of the things stated above.

Finally, happy reading! And I'm looking forward to your responses!