(Something) -----------> Which-finder Specific vs. General Whatkindof.

       “he met with the Devill, and cheated him of his Booke, wherein were written all the Witches names in England, and if he looks on any Witch, he can tell by her countenance what she is.”
― Matthew Hopkins, The Discovery of Witches and Witchcraft: The Writings of the Witchfinders

        

The Whichfinder specific: MACA*

      
     Matthew Hopkins the famous hunter of witches in 17th century England was, like all of his kind, very sure of his own ideas. He knew what he was looking for and had the necessary methods to achieve his goal. In his own specific way, he was doing what any of us do generally. For, at the most basic level, we must all deal with information to arrive at our ideas.
    The most basic way our brains organise  information  is like this**  (Whether ye be Matthew Hopkins, Mary Hopkin, or a Hopi.):
             

The capstone of Bela Lugosi's pyramid is also its foundation...**

         So, once you know what something is, the information will basically then be further sorted by two paths: The question: Which (thing)? and the question What kind of (thing)?
{Where (thing) has been defined by the first question: What is (it)?}       All of this is more difficult to describe and explain than to actually do. In fact, native speakers tend to sort this information automatically, which is one reason why it is not formally taught to people. It is, however, the foundation upon which all other information rests, so it is a good idea to let people know what is going on in terms of the sorting of the most basic information. Thus we should take note of The Whichfinder Specific and General Whatkindof.

General Whatkindov. Is he big or small? Russian or Prussian? Does he have a pickelhaube? A Mitre? Does he have a fake moustache or a real one? Can his name really be Helmuth?

.

           Even if you operate in the straight-forward world of gibbets, giblets and gore, your mission will benefit from extra information. Which (witch)? and What kind of (witch)? {for one may be wasting one's time on a low-level witch when the Queen of witches is using her broomstick to make a clean getaway.+}
For those of us not dealing with the simple minded world of stakes, faggots and ducking-stools, we have to employ these basic questions to have a better idea of what we are talking about.

    For example:               (something) -------------> (a hat)


                                     Which (hat)? -------------> (this hat)

                             What kind of (hat)? ------> (a big hat)
                                                                               or
                                                                         (a cloth hat)
                                                                              or
                                                                           (a mitre)
                                                                             or
                                                                         (a cap)***

                          

     On an important note (especially for Tesol in Japan), any idea of Which....? or What kind of....? is itself, most basically, something. Thus, like articles, information such as: my, your, her or this, that or big, cloth, are part of the information or idea of something, and not separate from it.
Why then, do text-books neither present language like this, nor bother to explain that this is how it most basically works?
Unless I'm wrong and all of this is a rubbish idea?

        If we know what something is, we then want to know which (thing) or what kind of (thing) it is.
                    Remarkably, our brains do this automatically without our paying that much attention to the process. Consider the following information:

                                       The dog saw the cat.

              and                   The gee saw the gaw
                                  
  Naturally, we would pause and ask: "What is a gee?" "What is a gaw?"

                The point is that we do the same with the first sentence without noticing we are doing it. Within our brain, we ask "what is a dog"? and because we can connect it to other ideas/information we can understand it. In fact, understanding anything, involves a web of connections that we have simpistically reduced to the concept of "meaning". It might be illustrated like this:

No wonder communication can be difficult...#

           Most basically, if we can attach information to an idea then that is the basic step of understanding. If we can not attach information to idea then we don't understand, and then, if we want to improve the communication we must ask questions.

               As a language student is bound to be faced with information that they can not attach to an idea, it is remarkable that there is generally no basic training in Tesol in particular, and education in general, in those questions that constitute Bela Lugosi's pyramid. It's almost as though people are being trained not to understand things...
               

               It is, I think, a better idea to acknowledge that the Wachowski's after all were right: we live in the matrix. Although happily, this one doesn't necessarily involve existing in a womb of artificial amniotic fluid with a tube in the back of your neck.++ This one consists of information, which is basically the only thing there is. We cut our way through the forest of information by putting things, everything, into the basic categories suggested by questions and from all of this follow ideas.

              Questions, then, are vital to understanding above a basic animal level, necessary to plot our way through the matrix.
            Which is exactly why questions (asking and checking) play so little part in traditional education as it makes it easier to control people. Consequently, in Tesol specifically, the importance of the most basic of questions is not recognised (Quite apart from the fact that, in Japan, the idea of which....? amongst both students and teachers is like this:
                                 Information------------------------------------> Idea

                                  Which...?    ----------------------------------> A or B

                     What this entails is that students can only connect a which question with the idea of a choice between two things. So that people are stuck in a pit of gloom dealing with some bourgeois zombie asking only: Which do you prefer, tea or coffee? when they could be climbing their own mountain of enlightenment, and the sights you can see from there. For we live our entire lives in the double embrace of the Which-finder Specific and General Whatkindov. It may be a good idea to acknowledge it.

                   And in relation to education generally, and its very specific idea of how things work, consider the reverence in which the competitive spelling bee is held. An event which basically encourages young minds to remember words that they will almost never use or hear or read.  Odd when you think about it, isn't it? Especially when there are no D+E bees or Bela Lugosi bees.
                   But there it is, general education ignores the basic structure of communication and concentrates only on the warts, so specifically, Tesol follows too. Grinning and giggling as it helps to tie the victim to the stake. No questions asked.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







* Making ambivalence clear(er) again (and always.)

**  ...(also looks like a witches hat...). Startlingly enough, the English textbook for beginners that I have mentioned before contains the following dialogue:
                                     
                                                  Ken: "Is that a hat?"
                                                 Mary: "No, it isn't. It is a cap."

   Let's be clear, within the context of head gear, A cap IS a hat. Also, I doubt very much that this conversation has ever taken place between two human beings, which makes it somewhat less than ideal for an example for beginners, I think. Moreover, as a cap (キャップ) is a hat (帽子)　in Japanese also, then the reason for using this bizarre exchange as an example becomes even more obscure.

*** A cap! A kind of hat!                                                    
+Aythangyew


++ Or does it?
# By the way, does this look like iron filings on paper over a magnet to you? If communication is, basically, the only thing that ever happens, then it is reasonable to presume that, on a most basic level, things will resemble other things. Communication might be thought of as a Vector Field, or as Schrodinger's Hat, where the idea hangs indeterminately until we decide what it is.##
##From this, we can observe that first of all, communication requires agreement with oneself, and then agreement with others. Overall, agreement with the universe will be generally helpful: I am Superman, watch me jump off this building. I'm cold, boiling water will make me warmer. The basic history and success of the United States, built on the ideas of the Enlightenment and science, strongly suggests that Donald Trump will continue that fine tradition.

Ideas of TESOL (1)------> (something) ------> An elaborately embroidered eastern orthodox mitre?

Is that a hat?            

                                
   I teach English at various schools and colleges in Japan. In one of these places, there is a text-book for beginners that offers the following example:


                  Ken: Is that a hat?
                  Mary:  No, it isn't. It is a scarf.


    My question is: How useful is this example? Does any normal human being often use this question? Or is it the kind of question that is only used in very rare circumstances- maybe if you are The Earl of Carnarvon exploring Tutenkhamen's tomb, or possibly Chief O'Hara, entrusted with protection of a priceless collection of Etruscan snoods.
    To consider  some comparisons with examples in other subjects:

 

          Geography: An example of a country is: The Republic of Upper Volta.

          History:      An example of an English Monarch is  Sweyn Forkbeard.

         Biology:      An example of a mammal is a Gilbert's Poteroo.


         Maths:        An example of addition is a farthing + a potato

   　　 Physics:     An example of Physics is that In this box there is a cat both alive and dead.

  What's wrong with these examples? They are, after all, correct, just like: "Is that a hat?" is a correct example of a question in English. The problem is that all these examples are not basic examples, and therefore don't explain well enough for people to understand.  Is that a hat? is an example of a sentence that is hardly ever used, so it can be considered to be a bad example. Magnificently though, it is also, at the same time a good example, so it might be fairly referred to as: Schrodinger's hat .*
   The reason why it is both a terrible example and a perfectly adequate example is because of the most basic way that everything works which is:


                                Information -------------------------------> Idea

    If you are teaching anything, then the most basic goal is (or should be) to help people to understand how it works. Because, if people understand how something works then they can do it themselves. Note that we are talking about people. If you do not wish people to understand how things work, if you want them to just be confused and trained to take orders, don't worry and congratulations, it means that you are doing well and, to strengthen your un-just position in society you necessarily have to keep other people down. In fact, it is most helpful to you if you train people to just act as dogs.
 
    Anyway, if you are teaching language, then it is important to teach how it works. And it is here that things are often rendered unnecessarily opaque due to:

    1. Traditional education having a strong urge to treat people as dogs. Or possibly Morlocks.   
    2. People not being dogs, and the difference being in the difference of ability to communicate.
    3. The most widely-used definition of communication (transfer of information)  being one that               derived from machine processes.
    4. Humans are not machines, the difference lying in the way people deal with information. (One      can send the information of "7" to a machine and it receives it as "7". If you send the information of "7" to a human they will immediately try to connect it with an idea.

               
Information -------------------------------------------------->     Idea
       7                                                                                     7 what ?
                                                                                                  or
                                                                                             lucky number...erm...

                                                                                                   tears?
                                                                                                        or
                                                                                                  these guys?
                                                                                                        or
                                                                                                  these guys?

                                                                                                        or
                                                                              You Lot! What? Don't stop!
                                                                                                        or
                                                                                                        8
                                                                                                        or
     (written)                                                                                     L?
                                                                                                        or
                                                                                                        a leg?
                                                                                                        or
                                                                                                   better live
                                                                      
                                                                                                       etc

          5. Ideas of the structure of language that are akin to describing the basic structure of the human body in terms of body parts only (the human body is a head, torso and arms and legs) without pointing out the existence of the skeleton.
                                                                                             

      To try and explain:     As all communication works as information ---------> Idea, so language works. Consequently, it is better to teach how language works in terms of this model than in terms of,say…
SVO.
                               

  Calm down super-hero man! Try not to react so emotionally. I'll give you some examples:


The most basic parcels of information can be stated as:

Something, someone, somewhere, sometime, someone's, some reason, somethings and somehow.
As well as: does something, doing something, did something and done something.These are the most basic building blocks of information. We think in these terms and language reflects that. It is important to note, however, that language is not taught according to these most basic of foundations.

Using the information---------> Idea model, we can understand the following basic relationship-

          Information ----------------------------------------------------------------------------> Idea

           Something                                                                                                    a  chair

  
     Now, in Japan, this relationship is almost never taught, so that Japanese students quite naturally use the relationship that they know from Japanese:

            Nantoka  ----------------------------------------------> isu
which comes out as:
        
            something -----------------------------------------------> chair

consequently, articles in English remain much more of a mystery than they necessarily have to be, simply because they are not taught according to the way they most basically work, that is to say, articles are part of, not seperate from the idea of something.
 

          At base, to understand how things are connected, and to understand how to connect things ourselves is a reasonable goal for education, isn't it? To my mind, one simple reason why Japanese students are not taught simple connections is because people, that is to say, native speakers, don't know how they do it. It is not generally understand how it works. And even if you don't know how something works, you can still assign it a name,( that thing in the sky is Ra, the basic physiological system of humans is: blood, yellow or black bile, and pleghm.) In time an entire menagerie of fantastic beasts can be stocked, fed and watered just like kings have always done, and the plebs can marvel at the romantic articles and the fussy gerunds and thrill to the cry of the fabulous collocation.

Yet people consistently learn their own language without one single visit to the linguistic zoo.

         

There's really no point crying.

  If you were to ask Lionel Messi exactly how he puts an opponent on the floor before precisely chipping in to score,  it is unlikely that you would receive a satisfactory explanation. In the same way, native speakers of a language don't really understand how they do it. 

So how do they** do it?

 People's brains are set up to think in terms of basic information. Consequently, the first piece of basic information we always have to deal with is: something.
 Observation of young infants suggests that they are constantly addressing what can be termed the something problem.*** All babies# are born into a forest of information, and their brains immediately attempt to sort things out. On the most basic level, even before language, there is a constant on-going effort to categorise things in terms of what is it?
  At this point it is useful to note that, as adjectives are basically something, so the the question what is it? can produce ideas of good/bad, safe/scary, and delicious/not delicious as well as my mum/hunger, being held/ alone, food/not food.
  From this, it follows that we structure our thoughts in the most basic way as:

                          (something)  is (something)+

  This is the way we think about things at the most basic level, even before language, and it is on this skeleton that the muscle of language fits. Nobody, at the most natural level, thinks in terms of SVO or articles or adjectives, and it is because of this that we can learn our native language without ever once worrying about the need to wrestle an Indo-european diphthong.

And so, the question is: Is this the way it works?++
I am going to answer: Yes. So that Tesol should, fundamentally be about basic information. Basic information that leads to basic ideas.
 Which will then bring us, as unavoidable as is the sulphorous stench upon Lucifer's slags , to......


                                           

  

                 Join us+++ next time, for: Ideas in Tesol (2): The Whichfinder Specific !!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Although, you probably shouldn't. But by putting it to one side, it is also still here.

** By they I mean us.

*** But probably shouldn't.

# Including the other animals.

+ It is interesting to note that, because communication is basically always: Info ----> Idea, we must necessarily make sentences basically as follows:
                           1. Information  -------------------------------------------------------> 2. Idea
                                                    3, Description/explanation of connection

   For example:  1. This            --------------------------------------------------------> 2. a chair
                                                     3. is

Again, to emphasise the point. nobody thinks in terms of SVO. So why is it taught that way?



++ And if it isn't, then how does it work, would you say?

+++ Obviously, I'm saying this for my three regular readers, only one of whom is fictional.++++

++++ And none of whom are directly involved with Tesol. You see, one fascinating thing I have discovered about trying to discuss these things is that, generally,  people outside Tesol, and more broadly, outside education are more likely to be willing to discuss these ideas.

      Here are some genuine reactions from people involved with education/Tesol:

(School manager to me (angrily) : "I don't have to explain anything to you!"

(University Tesol teacher to me (in a personal e-mail) : "I will never read your blog!"

(Manager at the largest provider of private education in the world, on being asked by myself as to what is their definition of education): "Who the fuck has a definition of education?"

(More than one person on being asked to consider the most basic way communication works):
"I think if we understood how communication works we would lose the magic"

(Ofsted - UK Office of standards in education, on being asked, by e-mail, for their definition of education): "Ofsted does not have a definition of education."

(University lecturer in Communication on being asked, on his blog, if Info--->Idea might be a better way of looking at things): "..........." (no response)

(Ofsted - UK Office of standards in education, on being asked, by e-mail, how they manage to measure standards in education when they have no clear idea about what it is): "........" (no response).

(Manager of private company that has the task of finding volunteers from the local community to help children to read on being asked by myself, by e-mail, why they they refused my mum's application simply because she hadn't been to university (I assured them that she had taught me to read and reads very well, herself)): "........." (no response).

(Japanese Publisher of text-books when responding to my pitch of a basic text-book explaining how communication basically works with the title being: コミュニケーション道　(The way of Communication): "I don't want communication in the title".
Me: "Why not"
Pub. "It's too vague."
Me:" But the point of the book is to make it clearer."
Pub. "....." (No response.)

(TED representative on being asked to explain why "communication is basically the only thing we ever do"* is not an idea worth sharing): "....." (no reponse).

etc,etc.

* I think it is an idea worth sharing, but I have often been frustrated in my efforts to do so. My own idea from this information is that I should try harder.

    

"The task is not to see what has never been seen before, but to think what has never been thought before about what you see everyday."

Erwin Schrodinger

A whale is a tree; obviously.

When I was young enough to be sat in school within glancing distance of a small library space that was dominated by a Miffy Wendy house# and contained, in my opinion, far too many Miffy books, yet just old enough to be offended that people would think that I would want to read about Miffy; the cover of one book spoke louder than all of those that surrounded it and thoroughly intrigued me.
    The title of this book was: Jonah and the Whale.
    Of course, this title referred to the famous Bible story, but at that age (maybe I was five or six) I don't think I knew of it. What I did know was what a whale was: a massive fish*, and that Jonah was someone's name, probably because of Ken Reid's comic character: Jonah.

Jonah-not the Biblical one

    So, the book's cover was something that drew my interest because, I wondered, why did the cover show an illustration of a man sitting under a tree? It was similar to this:

Jonah...and...something.

       Why didn't it show a man and a whale?
     

For me, and I think the majority of publishers and illustrators, as well as any six year olds who might give it a moment's thought, it is an odd choice to not put a whale on the cover of a book that promises a whale as a main character. So much so, that my young mind couldn't accept the possibility that anyone would do this and automatically assumed that the tree in the picture must be the whale. I mean, why, on the cover of a book called Jonah and the Whale, would you not put a picture of Jonah and the Whale ?

    So, therefore, it was obvious that the whale of the title was the tree the man was sitting under. What other logical conclusion could there be?

    It was only many years later that I discovered that the tree in question does have an important role to play in the story of Jonah, as God first provides its shelter for Jonah from the blazing sun and then God takes it away in order to prove to Jonah a point about mercy (this is typical of the educational methods of The 2nd God). The plant in question is a Kikayon, so the story might well have been titled Jonah and the Kikayon. Except it wasn't, because what everybody remembers of the story of Jonah is that he get swallowed by a big fish. A fish as big as a whale****.
And so, my young self was presented with information and naturally produced an idea:

                          Information ----------------------> Idea

    This is the way communication most basically works. What is important to understand is that all infomation depends on context, so that if we are missing context, then it will follow that our idea will be different. If I had known that the story of Jonah and the Whale was better described as The Story of Jonah and God, then a man sitting under a tree would not have come as that much of a surprise, as it would be relatively easy to step to ideas of Lord and mercy, protection and sustenance with the clear image of the tree. To take the step from a tree to a whale might well be described as Madness:

                                          All aboard the nutty train.

               Indeed, it is the basic and traditional definition of madness that the idea does not follow from the information. For example, if you were to suggest that  next door's dog was telling you to kill people, you can expect people to have a certain idea about that **
               To see that the idea follows smoothly from the information is the basic 
setting of all brains, all autonomic nervous systems; from jellyfish to djeli.
 It' s fair to say, I think, that this is the way that everything most basically works, that this is most basic function of existence.
                
           The most basic and important distinction between ourselves and the other animals is our increased capacity for communication.  Our wizardry with the most basic skills of: asking/checking/describing/explaining has allowed us to, first of all, to give that biggest shining light in the night sky a name, then to ponder on its characteristics: goddess? Airless rock? Artificial construct? After that, we spin stories about going there and then we clamber up these webs made from dreams that are eventually strong enough to support the heavy lifting carried out by science, our better conversation with the universe. ( And when we reached the moon, what was the first thing we did?)

               Once you start climbing Olympus you just carried on going, voyaging further into idea-space, and generally building dwellings amongst the gods and kings as they begin to slide down the scree of our efforts. But when you get that high off the ground there is always the temptation to shut your eyes and pretend it isn't happening. Information must be dealt with and new information can often be frightening.
               For as much as human beings have this increased capacity to communicate, we also have the ability to ignore it and embrace the simple comforts of our most basic animal self, a dog that tries to shut out the voices in its head, unwilling and most often encouraged to ignore the stranger tapping at the window of its soul. The stranger who looks exactly like us.
               And so it is that we can choose to ignore information to ensure the survival of the idea that makes us happy.
               Although as a long-term survival policy, the flaws should be obvious, but then you would have to be interested in asking and checking in order to get more information, and culture, especially through education, has a strong tendency to inhibit communication rather than encourage it. All of this is a necessary survival strategy for the ruling powers, of course, and as we live in a culture that prizes  blind consumption above all, it should not be that great a surprise that the information of President of the United States, whereas it used to give the idea of a statesman who might at least be prepared to describe and explain his own ideas it now dissolves into the nebulous realm of a snake-oil salesman who'll say anything to get you to buy his product. And once the idea of a President Trump becomes normalised then this itself becomes information that much more easily leads to the idea of a President West.

                    A whale is a tree; obviously.

      
        Ignoring information, and the general lack of practice of asking and checking ensures that events can be easily spun  by those with power towards any idea needed. Consequently:

                  Information        ---------------------->                 Idea
   
             Terrorist atrocity                                           Let's invade Iraq.
             carried out by
             15 Saudi Arabians,
               2 UAE, 1 Egyptian,
               1 Lebanese.

        If you have encouraged a society where people's most natural communicative tendancies have been firmly inhibited then this kind of thing is possible. Because in order to understand any information better you necessarily have to seek out connections. Of course you may have someone explain the connections to you, but the only way you are ever going to do this above dog-level is by asking and checking. And asking and checking as basic skills are largely anathema*** to standard education.
        One very important reason for society to inhibit asking and checking is that the current massive industry of Marketing, and its business clients, depend on it. Oh yes, they are careful not to appear that way:  Marketing is defined by the American Marketing Association as "the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large."  But it should be understood that for marketing "communicating" is one way woof-level stuff, where information is only there to engage with emotion, where slogans are drafted to appeal to our most basic ideas.

                      Information  ---------------------------> Idea

               Make America Great                                   Ooh, sounds good.
                         Again

     
    No questions are asked in order to ascertain precisely when and how and why America was great before. Questions that are necessary to better understand the idea.
    It should also be noted that the Fourth Estate never made the slightest concerted effort to ask or check this idea. A fourth estate overwhelmingly consisting of the well-educated.


   Anyway, in the spirit of all information depending on context, it is instructive to consider the following:

                   

  Reagan Campaign button 1980

What ideas can come from this? That Reagan didn't do a good job? That there is nothing new under the sun? Or that dropping the "let's" and striking a more imperitave form indicates that Trump is simply intent on ordering people about?

         Or maybe the idea of making America great again would be to network decent allies and productive partners, the kind we used to have:

                          
President Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East Donald Rumsfeld is reminded of a friendly client.


Rumsfeld would later serve as Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration, he played a major role in the invasion of Iraq.

                              Information ---------------> Idea
                                
                     Invasion of Iraq (2003)            "Mission accomplished"
                                                                               - President Bush
                                                                              or

                                                                  "In a September 2007 interview
                                                                      with The Daily Telegraph, General                                                           Mike Jackson, the head of the British army                           during the invasion, criticized Rumsfeld's plans for the invasion of     Iraq as "intellectually bankrupt," adding that Rumsfeld is "one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq," and that he felt that "the US approach to combating global terrorism is 'inadequate' and too focused on military might rather than nation building and diplomacy."^[70]   



The idea that the invasion of Iraq would lead to chaos was barely discussed in the rush for loot, yet it was grimly predictable. Clearly, to get people to focus on vague ideas that appeal to the most basic of emotions takes standard marketing techniques. Get people to support something and then don't think too much about it ever again.

Information  -----------------------------------------> Idea
     Iraq, Christmas 2018                                                 It's better now,
                                                                                     right?
                     

Christmas 2018. Mosul, Iraq.

      
          

                In Iraq, the city of Mosul in the north of the country suffered first the American invasion and then increasing sectarian violence and an exodus of professional people until the inevitable rise of the hardest gang of bastards to fill the political vaccuum resulted in a government of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
              The Islamic State are, let's be clear, the most fundamental of fundamentalists. A gang whose activities even Al-Qaeda described as madness. Their reign of terror in Mosul was defeated in 2017 by Iraqi forces along with American, French and Kurdish forces.

      Facing Mosul on the opposite bank of the Tigris, lies the ancient city of Nineveh. It was this city that Jonah was travelling to when he unexpectedly had to stay a few nights in his Cetacean Motel. It was here that God offered him the shade of the Kikayon tree.
    It is said that the tomb of the prophet Jonah is also situated here. The tomb was a popular pilgrimage site^[75] and a symbol of unity to Jews, Christians, and Muslims across the Middle East.^[75] On July 24, 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) destroyed the mosque containing the tomb as part of a campaign to destroy religious sanctuaries it deemed to be idolatrous.

                           Information ------------------------->  Idea
                         What is correct?                         Our idea not yours.

                      Can I ask something?                            No.

                      Can I check your idea?                          No.

        
      In the idea of the bible, Jonah sat outside Nineveh, in the shade of the Kikayon tree, awaiting its detruction. In another, he could have stepped outside his tomb and witnessed it.
      Nineveh and its people have suffered greatly since the US+ invasion. Haliburton and its people have done very nicely from it. The prophet came to understand God's mercy. The profit showed none.
   
         

          Jonah was swallowed by a whale. A preposterous story. But then; don't ask, don't check, and you can swallow anything.  

          A whale is a tree; obviously.
   
                              


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# I am pleased to discover that it is called a Wendy house precisely because of its association with the character of Peter Pan. An association I had considered, but never knew to be true.+++
* It would be a few more years before, with some amazement, I discovered it was a mammal.
** It might also be predicted that they will think that you are deliberately trying to give them that idea.
***The word anathema has an interesting history.
**** The Hebrew text uses dag gadol which just means big fish++   
+ Of course, it wasn't just America.
++ And, as has been often stated, a whale isn't a fish:

 





+++ It only took me forty five years to check that.                                                                                   

The Jack of Tars and The King of Eggs: Luke's Cool Hand.

Something from Nothing

           The 1967 movie Cool Hand Luke tells the story of a man sent to prison for drunkenly decapitating parking meters. The main character, played by Paul Newman, is a decorated military veteran who, much to the amazement of the prison Captain, came out of the army the same rank he went in as: buck private.
             The governer, this man in authority and pillar of society, wonders what to make of this cheek to the natural order, this flagrant...


  The natural order, like any information, can be connected to any number of ideas. If you have done well in one particular system it is only natural for your internal dialogue to result in the scaffolding of one's ego: I have earned my place rightfully and truly, I deserve my rewards.  The uncomfortable nature of an alternative reality where men might follow other gods must be kept safely outside the walls of one's own mental Spandau.*

  The prisons we choose to live inside, to use Doris Lessing's great phrase, are designed to keep other ideas and information out whilst the regimented inmates that are our own thoughts are fed and watered and kept just happy enough to stay in line.
   Among the chickens of Luke's jail, The cock of the inmates is a big old rooster called, most suitably, Dragline; as his position within the system serves to keep that same system on a flat, nonthreatening plane:
Dragline: You don't listen much, do you boy?
Luke:     Ain't heard much worth listening to, a lot of guys laying down a lot of rules and regulations.
  The dumbfounded reaction of the other inmates to this bare-faced explanation of their reality expounded bare-faced to their immediate authority captures the ever-present fear of better communication that must be fostered to ensure that mental walls stay solid.

             New Inmate:    "How'd you get that scar?"

           Veteran Inmate:"What scar?"     

       During the day the prisoners must work. Watching over them is the man with no eyes who can see everything. He has the power of life and death yet denies those under him the possibility of human communication. He is known as Boss Godfrey.

      Inmate: "Don't he ever talk?"
    
     (Boss Godfrey shoots down a bird.)

      Luke:   "I think he just did."

     At the same time, there is the usual self-imposed hierarchy that people often feel is necessary to construct in an institution. When a new inmate is tricked into purchasing a better job for a dollar, a job which doesn't exist, complaining to a guard causes him to spend a night in the box; the tiny solitary confinement cell.
      As usual, people taking advantage of an unjust hierarchy must talk themselves into accepting the status quo*:

      Dragline: "They got their rules-ain't got nothing to do with that....he gotta  learn                    the rules."

     Luke:      "Yeah, them poor old bosses need all the help they can get."



    Another day on the job and the inmates are blessed with the visitation of an angel. A young woman washes her car, caressing hose and soaping the body in such a fashion as to pleasantly torture the men. Luke observes that, as she's fully aware of her effect, this angel is the Devil.
     Dragline, obsessed with his fantasy of the girl is annoyed when Luke brings him out of it and back to the grab-ass reality of the prison. He can not allow another's reality to interfere with the carefully constructed walls of his own mental compound and so responds with the basic animal communication that all humans are programmed with:

                          Direct, easy to understand, communication.  
  
         Dragline gets his anger out. One punch and Luke is down. The other inmates are pleased and reassured to see the old order reassert itself. Luke, however, looks up at Dragline- all powerful with a sun-halo and sees his tormentor. He sees the shadow of the shackles. He refuses to stay down and keeps getting up and getting punished until even Dragline realises he shouldn't be punishing him anymore. 
    The Bosses are unnerved by this show of defiance. Boss Godfrey, cradling his cane like a shepherd's crook sees an awful vision of his charges losing their sense of place.

    Game play has always provided freedom from the mundane, and the inmates turn to the poker table for some not-so-cheap thrills. Luke produces a rabbit from a hat and earns the respect of Dragline:


      
   Whereas a man might have a cross around his neck, Luke wears a bottle opener. Not trusting in a man who was tortured to death long ago, Luke's charm is a symbol of practical, personal, salvation.

        "Sometimes I wish people was like dogs, Luke. Comes a day...the bitch don't recognise the pups no more. She don't have no hopes or love to give her pain."   
   Here, Luke's mother expresses the human dilemma. Beyond the other animals, our imagination allows us to see the possibility of something different, of something better. Locked into this system, a certain amount of sadness and sorrow is inevitable. We are, of course, much better off not creating unnecessary sadness and sorrow, but as dogs in human bodies while largely being unaware of it we look for the safe kennel and the regard of our master; and calmly piss on the hopes of others; hardly noticing or caring.
      It's no surprise that dogs*** have no gods, but we do. They are an inevitable, and necessary, part of the conversation:

                         
             
                  "He wasn't much for stickin' around- but he made me laugh."

      Humour, like anything, is most basically communication. A novel idea triggers something inside us, it stimulates our pleasure centres. A new idea born suddenly and without warning is its own reward.
       Funny is both peculiar and ha-ha. It has to be.

       One day, presented with the task of tarring a long stretch of road in baking heat, Luke produces the novel idea of completing the task as quickly as possible. "(The Boss) wants it-let's give it to him!"
    This playful subversion gives the men a sense of triumph in adversity, the idea of personal power over the system. The inmates end the day laughing as the Bosses are forced to truck them early back to the prison.
      Boss Godfrey is not laughing.

      Luke's creativity provides the prisoners with more joy when he offers to eat 50 hard-boiled eggs in an hour. An impossible task it seems, so much so that Dragline can make a killing on bets as even the chef and the floor-walker are drawn into the magic. Everybody is convinced that nobody can eat 50 eggs. Luke does so and thereby provides the inmates with a miracle: the idea of magic.
      This act of creativity, like any act of creativity, is a function of communication, and better communication gives better creativity. But the better communication Luke wishes for most is walled in by the resistance of Boss Godfrey to simple human interaction and the resistance of God to engage with an eager Luke. As Lightning threatens him in a storm, Luke implores:"Kill me, just let me know you're up there!" There is no answer from God, so Luke acknowledges that he is "Just standing in the rain, talking to myself."

    The desire for better communication with God is paralleled by the worse communication that the humans are carrying out. When Luke's mother dies he is denied the chance to attend her funeral and, to make sure he doesn't think of escaping in order to say his last goodbyes, he is granted only a night in the box.
     The boss who puts him in there whitewashes his own compound walls with: "Sorry Luke, Just doing my job." In answer to which Luke points out that abrogation of personal responsibility is no get out of jail free card: "Calling it your job don't make it right." 


     Pushed beyond what he is prepared to take, he runs. And the hounds are sent after him. In an interesting example of the gerrymandering of cause and effect that protects the boundaries of our ideas, the dog handler who is mourning his hound who has died of exhaustion exclaims: "Look what he done to Blue!"
    

　　　When the escaped prisoner is returned, we are allowed to see the most basic blueprint of the prison. The shackles, indeed all punishment, is applied for own's own good. Humour, one of the most useful tools of those who wish to express different ideas, must also wear leg-irons:
      

   
     

    Unjust power stuctures must necessarily inhibit communication to survive, even while they are expressing how important communication is. A feat of misdirection that relies on the audiences inability to understand how things really work.

     When Luke runs again he is free for months and sends the inmates a magazine that shows a photo of himself and two showgirls. Eventually he is returned to jail badly beaten but, even before he has stopped bleeding, the men demand more details of the girls. Their fantasy comes crashing down when Luke tells them it was all a fake.
     Fantasy can sustain a human being even as our lives are being hung drawn and quartered by those who are telling us we are suffering from an excess of innards. The prisoners hate the reality of Luke being battered into submission by the bosses. Instead of sympathy there is dismissal and anger, as a happy illusion is beaten into dust.

     With Luke subservient, Boss Godfrey finally deigns to speak: "Go fetch it Luke." The man has been reduced to a dog.

     It is only with one last human creative surge that Luke makes his final bid for freedom, inspiring Dragline to scale his own mental walls and come along.
    Entering a church alone Luke attempts another dialogue with God:
                "You made me like I am, where am I supposed to fit in?"

   Once again there is no response, and Luke arrives at the most basic idea that comes from  the silence of God: "I guess I gotta find my own way."

              At which point, the tempter arrives in the shape of Dragline, who has negotiated with the bosses who are waiting outside the church. They have promised that Luke won't be hurt. Dragline offers the comfort that lies in denying ourselves and submitting to the will of others, available for the usual price:
                                    "All you gotta do is give up."

         To give up on better communication is, however to deny the way the universe works.

           Ideas inevitably follow information. No information has only one idea.

           A bullet to the head is both excellent communication and terrible communication.

           It is up to us to decide which idea is better.



           Finally. Dragline, once a man kept low by rules and regulations acknowledges the effect that Luke had upon him: "A real world-shaker."
           Where once there was just the drag of the line, a whole lotta nothin', there is now the permanent smiling idea of something better.

           And ideas are bullet proof.           

 

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Or, if you prefer, one's own mental Spandau Ballet.+

** Certainly, some find it more difficult  than others.

*** I have sometimes been accused of putting dogs down (that is to say, criticising them, rather than euthanising them ) by making this kind of comparison. So, if you are a dog, and you're reading this thinking: "Rubbish! Dog-kind has a rich tapestry of religious cultures that are unknown to humans!" Then please write and let me know.++

+ Which, if true, could possibly be better expressed as: one's own mental mental Spandau Ballet.

++Or possibly you may wish to keep Dog culture a secret so you can continue to do this kind of thing when our backs are turned: