Monday, November 21, 2005

Words vs Actions (Part I)


I had a falling out with words recently. We got into a big argument where I told him I couldn’t trust him anymore but he told me it didn’t matter because I was dependent upon him and would never leave him. I knew he was right, so I just went into my room and cried for a week. We’re on better terms now as we have renegotiated our relationship based on minimalism. I will only play with him as I see fit and he will do his best to regain my trust. I think it’ll work out just fine, but after he told me the secrets about all his brothers and sisters and his extended family, I don’t think I’ll ever be friends with anyone else’s words.

You see, unless a word is used to specifically and accurately describe something that exists, it is a lie, or at least untrue. Because it doesn’t exist. All words, thoughts, and ideas are not real because they do not exist. If they do not exist, how can they be true?

Since this immediately throws up some red flags I will give you a few examples. Love, for instance, is abstract, right? If someone says they love you then you have to just believe them and trust them right? To a certain extent yes. But if there is nothing to show for that love, meaning there is no action to supplicate the statement, then I would question the extent of that persons love. If someone truly loves someone else, their actions show it and there is evidence to back it up. In that case, it agrees with my hypothesis that saying “I love you” to someone is only describing what is already evident by real events. Words are supplicating actions.

Similarly, if the government of a country claims it is democratic, it should be determined whether or not the signs of democracy exist, specifically a rule by the people. President Bush has repeatedly claimed that Venezuela and Iran, for instance, are not democratic because the leaders oppose the United States. However, the leaders in both countries won by wide margins in elections which would seem to pass the test for a democratic country. It seems that Bush’s definition of democracy has more to do with unquestioned allegiance to the US rather than its true meaning. Furthermore, the Bush administration’s repeated and insistent claim that anyone who opposes the war is unpatriotic demonstrates the elements of a tyranny, not a democracy.

I’m sure you’ve seen one of those emails which talk about “what he says and what he really means” like “Can I call you sometime? = I'd eventually like to have sex with you.” I’m not sure if you are familiar with the concept of double think coined by Orwell but it’s basically holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting them. According to Orwell it is: “to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies.” This is why words are inherintly untrustworthy. This is why it is necessary to take the “guilty until proven innocent” approach rather than the other way around.

I know this is a harsh judgment to make and I know I’m being unusually critical, but I challenge you to pay attention for one day to see what people actually talk about and you’ll see there is some merit to my words. Words can be an incredible vehicle and tool. I had grown to admire them for their utility in expressing ideas formed in our mind which are forged from our souls. But lately, I have been really paying attention to what people talk about most of the time and it is usually projections, opinions, theories, proclamations and predictions. These are useless! I don’t know about the psychological benefits of such empty talk, maybe it boosts their self-esteem, but I can’t help but to think it would be infinitely better if they didn’t say anything and just did whatever it is they keep talking about. Don’t tell me what books you’re going to read, tell me what books you’ve read. Don’t tell me what you’re going to do with your life, tell me what you’ve done so far. Don’t tell me how you’re going to do something, tell me what you’re doing right now to accomplish it. After all, what shows love more: saying I love you? Or a kiss?

2 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

hoo ra

12:16 PM  
Blogger -R said...

Raskolnikov, I’m so happy you brought up these issues. I agree with most of what you said, except for one crucial point. I’ll address these points here but I just want to say that there is a reason why I put “part I” after the title. Yes, there is a “part II” on the way (and maybe more?) which will provide a much needed explanation and essential step forward. After all, I hope you realized that I only said actions are more of an honest indicator than words, and not absolute in themselves. I don’t want to give away what part II will be but it will basically differentiate between different types of words and actions.

I will agree with you on these points:
1. Actions are not firm in themselves to be automatically trustworthy and honest. I’ll admit, a handshake can be just as misleading as a spoken lie.
2. Words in other languages may carry more meaning, however, I think this might be a cultural issue rather than a linguistic one.
3. “empty talk” or “small talk” and even “projections, opinions, theories, proclamations and predictions” are not useless. I will admit it, I was wrong in categorically denouncing them. They serve their purpose.

I will disagree with you on this point:
1. “A word is clear enough to establish trust.” No. And this is why: even if the word is from someone who you trust and could be accurate in the future, unless it is specifically describing something that currently is, the word is unreal and therefore untrue. To me, truth can only be derived from things that exist. I agree that actions can be just as unreal even though they exist, but at least they exist which is more than what you can say for words which is why I put more stock in actions although I don’t think they are absolute in and of themselves.

I’ll admit, I attacked words maybe harder than I should have. But I stand by my assertion that actions are a more honest indicator of reality than words simply because there is at least evidence to show for it. However, I will stop short of condoning either one as an absolute indicator. And I’ll tell you why in part II.

8:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker