------------ begin quotation
Tina
Kipling,
I've been reading posts to you by people who seem to be
upset because you speak in such 'formal' terms. For me, it really
does take away some of the 'relatedness' when you speak in highly
polished sentences.
------->
Me
Yes.
------->
Tina
I know you are a smart man. It shows. I think what people
are asking of you is to speak in a conversational manner, more like
you were writing a letter to someone than a thesis paper.
------->
Me
I'm trying to talk about what is true under the widest set of
circumstances, for the most people, and possibly for some time to
come. This is ambitious, true. But it is no more ambitious than
what any social (or natural) scientist tries to do. I don't know
how to do that as a casual conversation, and a dialogue without
this scope does not immediately help me in my thinking about the
things which are most important to me in my work. Perhaps some of
the difficulty lay in the fact that people come to the net for
different things. Some come to exchange information, some for
casual conversation, I come to think. I don't believe these goals
are mutually exclusive. As far as I can see people are free to
make use of any information provided, to engage in casual
conversation, or to think about theoretical matters if they choose.
What about the now popular term "diversity"? Does it not apply
here? Why does one group feel excluded because another chooses to
engage in a certain kind of talk? Is it best for those people who
thus feel excluded to continue feeling that way, or should they
reconsider their reasons for feeling as they do? Can such issues
be explored constructively in this medium, or is that a futile
hope?
------->
Tina
I think why they ask this of you is to get to know you better. Even
they may not understand that.
------->
Me
Do most people really want to get to know me, or do many want me to
be the kind of person they can easily know (or know already, as
someone from the past)? I have said some things about who I am;
not many have accepted that.
------->
I work in the news, and I HAVE to write in a conversational manner
that everyone can understand. It is my responsibility to try and
communicate in a manner that gets facts across in the fewest words
possible. In the end I am not responsible for how they understood
what I said, but for how I say it. If not very many people
understand my news writing, then I have done a poor job
communicating.
-------->
Me
Yes, and it is good that people can understand your news writing.
But you are providing everyday information, news, (unless I'm
mistaken) facts and events. That is much easier to communicate.
You have objectivity and distance already built into your work.
That is not said to detract from your skills, since occasionally
one runs across a news item which is poorly written and does not
convey the facts.
--------->
Tina
Yes, people are asking you to change your 'core' writing
style, which really is an art form in itself. When I read your
posts I get the feeling I'm looking at a scientific study. Is this
the impression you want to give?
--------->
Me
Yes.
--------->
It seems impersonal to me.
--------->
Me.
Yes, it is.
--------->
Tina
Of course, this is speaking from someone who has to write every
night in a way so that the viewers will invite me into their homes
again the next night. Perhaps it doesn't bother you that some
people won't read your posts?
--------->
Me.
Journalists, for the most part, have to be personable. Scientists
and artists don't. That's why scientists are misunderstood and
artists are mostly poor. It is a choice, perhaps not always wise.
No one likes being misunderstood, and few people revel in poverty.
Nevertheless, some people continue to make that choice. As a
result we often have good science and good art. Is it worth it?
Ask the scientists who have been excommunicated or otherwise
rejected by the Church; ask Vincent van Gogh who cut off his ear to
give to a woman; ask the celebrated Mozart who performed before
crowned heads of Europe as a child, who died young and was buried
in a *pauper's grave*. We often shake our heads and wonder how
they could have been so foolish. I wonder this myself. I am not
happy that some people won't read my posts, but I accept that not
everyone is interested in things which interest me. The reason
some people don't read my posts may go beyond simple lack of
interest. These reasons may be important, both to them and to me.
Perhaps those reasons will become clearer with time, and their
importance, to me or to others, more easily determined.
--------->
Tina
I admire that you are willing to ask so many questions of
others. This shows an openness somewhere in you to learn about the
world.
--------->
Me.
It is a considerable consolation to me that you say this. Thank
you.
--------->
Tina
I'm confused at your style though. When you write a scientific
thesis it seems that being 'objective' is an essential element in
the entire paper. The reader doesn't want to see what the author of
the article is feeling. All the reader wants to know about are
facts.
--------->
Me
Yes.
--------->
Tina
On this newsgroup though, we are individuals sharing our
personal thoughts and feelings.
--------->
Me.
Some people on this newsgroup share their personal thoughts and
feelings. Some do not. I should hope that if people want to share
their personal thoughts and feelings here they would be allowed to
do so, and that others might benefit from their having done so.
That is a choice people make. Or are you saying that this *should*
(and *must*) be the kind of newsgroup where individuals share their
personal thoughts and feelings? That is a big leap to make. ------
--->
Tina
When I read your posts, it seems to me that your feelings and
thoughts are buried somewhere in all your words. It's often hard
for me to find them!
--------->
Me
I don't doubt this, since I never intended for my personal feelings
to be on the surface of my writings.
--------->
Tina
Is this what you want? Do you want the real you to stay hidden? ---
------>
Me.
Tina, for years I spent eight hours per day, five days per week
being utterly transparent to other people, using myself, as plainly
visible as I could make it, to help guide their lives. I was doing
psychotherapy. Beyond that, I have been disclosing myself in art
for almost as long as I can remember. Now there's a vast unknown
electronic community out there, where messages may be forwarded to
the ends of the Earth with just a few keystrokes, and you and
others expect me (and others) to be largely transparent to them
(that electronic community) also. I feel I've earned my privacy,
Tina. I'm sorry if that makes me seem cold and heartless, but you
don't know what I've already been through as a clinical
psychologist and artist. You had no way of knowing, and I'm too
private a person to have told you without there being a great need
to do so. Besides, concepts of privacy differ. Some of it is
cultural (this is something I meant to bring up later).
As a child in Jamaica I was not even allowed to call out a
friend's name across a playground; I had to make some other
culturally prescribed sound (can't reproduce it here) or clap my
hands, in order to attract that person's attention. It was
considered extremely impolite to do otherwise; a violation of that
person's privacy. Not even at home was I allowed to call out
someone's name across an open space--not even the names of family
members, siblings and peers! It was considered rowdy and uncouth.
Similarly, no one was allowed to call me by name in such a public
manner either. In fact, I wouldn't dare tell you how I was usually
addressed--even by adults; even by my own parents! Not everyone in
Jamaica adhered to those norms, but some people did. It's a
cultural matter; the world is a large place. Do I cling to that
now? No. Have I shed it completely? No. Does it have drawbacks?
Yes. Are there advantages? Yes. Are the advantages greater than
the disadvantages? That probably depends on the context. In
academics the advantages are certainly greater than the
disadvantages. This forum is not solely academic true, but if I
abandon here those traits needed to sustain me as a minority in
academia, then what have I done, and would it have been worth it?
I would ask other minority persons in academia not to judge this
statement too quickly; my field is philosophy, where minorities
comprise less than 1% and where the struggle is particularly
fierce.
Beyond this there is a question of just what you, I, and
others would consider the "real" me. Aside from the fact that the
word "real" is always open to question, there is the further
problem that for a philosopher, and especially for a
phenomenological one (yes, I know that term may be unfamiliar), the
self is not so easily defined. According to the philosophy in
which I specialize (G. W. F. Hegel's), the distinction between
subject and object, between self and Other, is always only
provisional, and is to be overcome. Within that philosophy the
self is not something so discrete as to allow the kind of
description of it people usually seek. And, again, as in art, the
philosophical self is not something created in the classroom or the
library and regularly left there, to be revisited periodically;
rather, it is *a way of life*.
---------->
I'm not trying to put you down. I think your style has an
appropriate time and place. I am frustrated with trying to
understand who you are as a person though, and don't read your
posts anymore because they're too confusing.
---------->
I am truly sorry to hear that you don't read my posts anymore. But
are you saying you have to understand me as a person in order to
understand my posts? If you are saying this, and it is generally
true, then something is occurring which needs to be better
understood, or which should at least be explored further. My style
is meant to make it possible for people to understand me *without*
knowing me as a person. That is the chief aim of scientific
writing. Perhaps it depends on what in my writing people are
trying to understand. Social psychologists (science again) have
said that people cannot evaluate information without evaluating its
source. Perhaps that's one reason scholars generally provide
references, etc., and write in the style I use, and which has
caused so many problems here. Those conventions (the writing
style, the references, etc.) are meant to establish a kind of
"personal" (note quotation marks) credibility which allows the
reader to take information on faith where that is necessary.
And it is often necessary to take scholarly writings on faith.
No one can constantly stand behind the researcher in the laboratory
to make sure that person does not *adjust* the data so that the
next project is more easily funded, the work published, honors are
awarded, etc. People take it on *faith* that this person is
working honestly; it is part of the scientific and scholarly ethic
and value system. One researcher who consciously *adjusts* the
data to fit his or her personal needs can cause considerable
damage, since other researchers will then immediately attempt to
replicate (i.e. reproduce) the experiment or study, and what may be
its "unusual" or novel findings. Months, and possibly years of
work and money may be poured into such efforts, practically "moving
mountains," because the word of that person has been taken on
faith, and because people believe the results announced are capable
of being achieved. At the very least, the scientific and scholarly
community may be obliged to show, in the face of such "adjusted"
data, that the declared results are impossible and, therefore,
untrue. Such an "adjuster" of data would not find life easy or
pleasant after such an episode. Fortunately, it does not happen
very often, and people continue to accept scholarly results "on
faith," dutifully trying to duplicate them until the community is
certain they can be relied upon to a reasonable degree.
Now, perhaps some (or many) people on the net are not used to
relying on scholarly conventions in order to judge the credibility
of the person presenting information, and some other kind of
"evidence" of personal credibility is being sought. In what does
that evidence consist? Speech *from the heart*? And if the heart
is not immediately visible (assuming it can be reliably discerned
in most cases) are there no other forms of acceptable evidence for
the credibility and good will of the speaker? Are those employing
mainstream scholarly conventions to be distrusted "on sight," so to
speak? Is this wise, fair, or even reasonable? Perhaps in some
minority contexts it is. Perhaps minority experiences with the
mainstream have been so destructive in the past that it is self-
protective and prudent to distrust all those who are clothed in its
conventions. Is this such a context, and who is responsible for
dismantling that distrust? If the researcher abandons mainstream
conventions has he or she thereby become a better person? And is
that improvement greater than that which may occur if the minority
person temporarily suspends disbelief and distrust? Which act is
more beneficial to the doer, and which more dangerous?
I sincerely do not believe that one has to understand the
scientist in order to understand the science. And, similarly, I do
not believe that one has to understand the artist in order to
appreciate the art. Nor does one have to understand the
philosopher to understand the philosophy. These products, the ones
produced by such persons, may well be self-authenticating if one
looks closely enough. In fact, it is distinctly, and sometimes
profoundly misleading to interpret the art, the philosophy, or the
science in terms of the person behind them. I can live with the
possibility that people may misunderstand me as a person; the
possibility that they will misunderstand my art, philosophy, or
science is something I deeply wish to avoid.
----------->
Tina
I think I've suggested this before, but I would love it if
you would pretend that you are writing a letter to your dearest
friend when you post something. This is how we do things where I
work.
---------->
Me.
I usually don't have to explain so many things when writing to my
friends. Nor do I take the risks with them I take when writing
something here. And if you doubt I take risks by writing here read
some of what has been written to and about me. But perhaps many
will say I brought that upon myself--and who knows, they may be
right. Still, I can't help but think I was not entirely to blame.
I do not believe that I am driving these discussions. I believe
that I am merely responding to criticisms. On the positive side,
while many may initially believe discussions such as these are of
little value, I would point out that they are not occurring in many
other places. I have not made an exhaustive survey of electronic
discussion groups, but I doubt whether many are taking the time to
talk about how communication in this medium really works. This
group may, therefore, be making a considerable contribution to its
members in this way. Nor does it have to be the case that we just
discuss "communication *per se*," since it is possible to discuss
communication in this medium between people of widely different
cultures, thereby making the discussion relevant to minority
issues. It is entirely possible that such discussions would still
not satisfy some minority concerns, since there are many other
aspects of minority life which could be looked at, i.e. political,
archeological and historical, or folkloric. However, I believe
that even such discussions would eventually benefit from people
becoming more aware of how such contents are communicated here.
----------->
Tina
I have talked with you one-on-one before, so I know you're
not so scientific then. I don't understand the need to be on the
net.
---------->
Me.
And I hope if we talk in the future one-to-one you will also find
me more personable than you find me on the net. When we meet on
the net we are meeting in public, and that constrains our
interaction, at least from my side.
---------->
Heart Care,
Tina
---------->
Me
Thank you for a kind letter, Tina. I'm afraid my response was not
as warm as your letter, and for this I am sorry. However, your
very sincere remarks provided an opportunity for me to answer
honestly, and perhaps you have done the community a service. I
know I am grateful.
Sincerely,
Kipling