The part of communication that is giving information can be most easily expressed as: Describing and Explaining. We describe and explain whenever we give information, and from this information there is an idea, because communication always, and most basically, works as:
Information ---------> Idea
The information we choose to give affects the idea. We might describe former P.M. Tony Blair as "the right honourable", or we can describe him as "a war criminal." The musician Prince has been described as " a supernatural Martian playing at Euterpe's party" as well as "a paranoid little schizo with a bible in one hand and his cock in the other." And even such a relatively simple scenario as this-
-may be a woodlouse, a butcher boy, or even a 団子虫(dango mushi) or dumpling bug in Japanese. Would you rather have a louse or a dumpling bug in your house?
All people are born with an innate desire to describe and explain. Without it we couldn't learn our native language. Education generally spoils this natural ability by having a deadening culture of the right answer. Things have become worse in the last couple of decades with the increasing emphasis on mulitiple choice tests- http://www.edutopia.org/blog/dark-history-of-multiple-choice-ainissa-ramirez
Here's a quick multiple choice test:
Q: The Sun is best described as:
A: A Star.
B. A god.
C. An organ.
D. A yellow dwarf.
Yes, The Sun is a star. But it is also a god and an organ and a yellow dwarf. A vital aspect of communication is that all information depends on context. In different contexts, the Sun is all these things. Communication problems occur when people are connecting information to different contexts. This is why very basic communication practice involves defining terms.
Here's George Carlin's perfectly sensible view of the sun: Sun God.
Looks like the Japanese were right all along !
Fundamentalists of all kits, as well as despising Bela Lugosi, also dis-like describing and explaining. We are told that: "God moves in mysterious ways" (so don't look for better explanations). We also hear very clear statements that in themselves demand more explanation because the idea that follows information is itself information that naturally leads to another idea. That's the way it works. Don't blame me, blame: god/evolution/explanation of choice.
For example: what could be more worthy of explanation than the reason why the United Kingdom needs nuclear weapons? Clearly, the ancient and wise Great Britain would find someone who would patiently go through all the necessary explanations to show people why they should spend their money on things that are built to do this-
Clearly, it's a tricky choice that ordinary people can't be trusted with. The British democracy entrusts this sacred choice with a member of the educated elite who can guide us through this maze. Do we want children burnt to hell or reading books? Luckily, here's Dave to show us the way- David Cameron: We need a nuclear deterrent more than ever
As reading is now officially something not to be encouraged I'll go through the main points in Dave's explanation-
We need a "nuclear deterrent" because countries like Iran and North Korea are a threat. North Korea is described as "aggressive". Presumably, that's more aggressive than our good friend and invading partner the United States that has invaded many many more countries than North Korea in the last few decades. Of course, nobody asks for Dave's definition of aggression. That would entail better communication and people are educated not to do that.
Also, there is absolutely no explanation why countries like Sweden and Brazil and Switzerland feel that they are fine without any nuclear weapons capability whatsoever. Moreover, there is no effort to explain the benefit any country would gain from attacking Britain with nuclear weapons anyway. If we decommissioned all our nukes tomorrow, would Russia immediately attack? If they wouldn't, then why do we have nuclear weapons ?
How did we get to the point where we accept the feeble explanations of a shiny-faced toff as to why we should turn our ploughshares into swords ?
The current economic system that Britain is a part of demands weak communication. If the power structures that we already have are to survive, they must ensure that people are not interested in asking and checking or demanding better describing and explaining. This system results in an educated elite that are not taught how communication works but know enough about describing and explaining to realise that it serves the interests of those in power if communication is a one-way street.
An excellent example of what can be done with top-down communication is in the BBC documentary The Century of the Self, which profiles "the father of the Public Relations industry" Edward Bernays- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW_rIdd69W8
The Public Relations industry is essentially against better communication because it makes their job more difficult. They like simple describing and explaining that puts a simple idea into people's heads. They prefer very much that Bela Lugosi's coffin lid is nailed tightly shut. Modern politics and culture is broadly the same. With simple explanations you can show people ideas that appeal. All the while obscuring more useful information that would give us a more useful idea. It would have been useful information for many people in 1981 to know that members of Thatcher's cabinet were idly suggesting plans like 'managed decline' for a major city like Liverpool. We only get to hear about it 30 years later. Who is this information being kept secret from? The Russkies? Or us?
The information we give affects the idea. The world now has many more PR people who's job it is to manage information in order to present only certain ideas. Would you prefer ex-nymphs in your garden or sex-crazed homos? Of course, personal preference comes into it, and I don't doubt that some people will be intrigued by the idea of either a garden full of rampant gays, or unemployed goddesses. Or both.
However, my own idea of this information is this-
The cicada or せみ（semi) or, tree-cricket or, that thing that makes enormous racket, lives for years as a Nymph. It used to be considered Homoptera, which means "uniform-wings". Interestingly, this explanation is no longer considered good enough. New information became available and the idea has changed.
You can look at the information of a cicada and get many ideas. You night consider them grotesque or soothing or annoying or interesting. But when a cicada emerges as an adult it has only a couple of weeks to find a mate. So it sings. A lot. Fair enough really isn't it? If you had as little time, you'd want to make some noise too wouldn't you?
By the way, How do we ourselves define " little time."?
Comments
Post a Comment