---

Greetings to the reader (s)

It is an honor to be among such illustrious company. I would readily confess that I have taken the liberty of assuming that this is one of those forums in which people discuss the problems of Society. I should like to list here, if I may, some of those manifest problems that I have personally identified as the cardinal enemies of Effective Communication :

1. Semantics

2. Prejudice

3. Egocentricism

4. Insecurity (Fear)

5. Bigotry

6. Greed

7. Apathy

I'll run with these seven for the time being. Sometimes one would think that one would understand what the other is saying whilst they lean on their preconceived images and impressions associated in one's mind with the words the said other would use in an idealistic effort to communicate with the said other.

When we think, we do not so much as "think" in the literal imagery of the letters of the words as we actually think in images and impressions associated with these symbols. Through the conditioning of these associations with the symbology of text, we learn that the internalized impressions and images within our minds also become our personal (however symbolic) expressions of our internalized verbal imagery. We think only in what these images and impressions convey within our hearts and our minds. Consequently we might equally discover that our personal sense of understanding is always prejudiced by our experiences of said images and impressions, or biases.

We might easily and erroneously assume unconsciously that our communication partner also shares images and impressions conveyed in their minds by the very same word that are identical to our own. While to some general extent the case might well be true, it is also prudent to bear in mind that no two people's images or impressions associated with any word are truly identical in all respects. This is one of the major challenges with what we have come to call "semantics". Many of these images and impressions that we have learned to associate with the various groupings of symbology that we call "words" have personal prejudices attached to them in our minds and in the minds of the said "others".

Words are likened to empty baskets conveniently bearing unique labels that boast mystical concepts and contents that every individual is only able to provide themself. The challenge with this particular metaphor is that the label on the outside of the basket is generally (and unconsciously) expected by the reader, communicator, listener, to represent the contents of the basket according to their own unconscious prejudice. Alas, one man's plum is often another man's tomato. Fruit is apples and oranges...Tomatoes and bananas also. Once more we face a problem with semantics: words are expected to represent a true definition of those images that they "produce" in our minds as we interpret them. Yet for all this, humanity still struggles in the throes of inneuendo and semantics bearing many false-fruits in an untimely season and rendering the fruit of our knowledge corrupt.

Tone is also a great factor in verbal (not necessarily oral) communication and it is often challenging to convey tone in text. Whereas the advantage of text gives us the luxury of defining our meaning, or intent, within the context of these symbols (called "words") that we predominantly resort to for communication, it is evident that tone, without sound, is rendered considerably impotent with respect to effective verbage in comparison to oral communication. Notwithstanding we do have some liberty in the usage of text which grants us certain privilege to correct our terminology to further define or to re-define our message to the "other" more articulately �?alas, tone is still considerably limited within the context and construct of our "writ" of communication; although something is invariably lost, some small advantage in the letter is also gained.

It has been my personal experience in communication verbatim that because of so many prejudices unconsciously associated with the meanings and definitions of words, I am amazed that we even understand one another at all. Fortunately, for the most part, it is possible, I believe, for people to attain to what is called a "general understanding" in our resort to text as a means of communicating ideas. Nonetheless it is also this sort of over-simplification and generalization that all too frequently renders much of our sincere effort to communicate ideas ineffectual. I concur that this can be most frustrating at times for some (to say the least) and I have regularly observed manifest displays of breakdowns in communication, usually on the parts of all communicators involved, as a result of failing to attain to specific and definitive expression. It would seem that words will ever fail us.

For the less patient, a common folly in communication is to appeal to the ego of the self and/or to the egos of others. All too often this rather immature approach to self-expression will culminate in a communicational nightmare, each attempting to cater to the other's ego, or, even worse, personal attacks and various devices that are wrongfully employed for the glorification and justification of either a misinterpretation or, some connotative interpretation of such expressions, once again, the ego. Such appeals incorporating ad hominems, insults, condescension, and one-up-manship tactics, while perhaps useful to the short-lived inflation of the ego, are otherwise powerless to grant anyone any advantage in the application of effective communication whereby all parties involved might actually benefit in truth. I might suggest that such immature displays of egocentricism are typically too frequent (although I do not completely exempt myself from such exploits) and that they are consistently damaging with respect to further exploits of reason or understanding. "Arguing for the sake of argument" will not produce many positive results in this respect, if the desired goal is for both parties to arrive at a mutual understanding.

Much of this false-fruit is the produce of fear-based insecurity usually stemming back to the various idiosyncrasies of our own delicate egos. As humans, we strive to make our meaning and intent clear to others as it is generally our natural desire to be understood. This is heard in an infant's cry to it's mother. This is effective communication in it's most primal, or basic capacity. People often, without being consciously aware of it, commonly exemplify this behavior in their communcation toward others: the egocentric mind "needs" to be understood. This desparate process is somehow measured by the level at which others are inclined to agree with the communicator in numerous appeals for approval and by what is often misinterpreted as "reason" based on the agreement of the majority. Hence we often witness much appeal to the egos of others readily catered and pandered to in the employment of creative tactics and perks to arrive at what some might consider effectual communication. However one might well ask the question with equal gravity whether we are truly communicating effectively, or whether we are merely stroking one another's egos.

Some of the other false fruit that appears in the medium of verbal communication is shrouded in the dogma of voluntary bigotry. The fear-based insecurities of the individual seem to be closely associated with ego-gratification born of bigotry and are often manifest in the subjugation of very closed and very narrow minds. One is likely to quickly discover that if the understanding of that particular individual is remotely challenged in any way, or if it is even perceived as a challenge, the whistles and the alarms go off immediately. Again, the process is typified by derogatory remarks and some or all of those devices I mentioned previously. The individual loves their delusion and is ready to defend it in every way possible, branding all opposition heretics, immoral, or by any negative label that they perceive to be justifiable to their own prejudice and bias. The various dogmas involved in voluntary bigotry are too commonly without end and generally profitless in debate as in most cases, neither party is willing to understand the other's point of view, but merely desires that the other "sees it" the same way they do and that they see it identically so. This is virtually impossible as none of us thinks identically.

The reason I mention the word "greed" on my little list of seven is because most people likely do not know that greed is actually another fear-based attitude found in the nature of human beings and it is also conceived in insecurity. If permitted to remain unchecked, such greed will lead to general apathy and it is this apathy that I find is the greatest of all threats to effective communication. Hungry egos, hungry hearts, hungry minds and hungry souls, can in fact become voracious even to the extent of plaguerism, predation, vamparism, and intellectual cannibalism:

Communication implodes, virtually "feeding on itself" until there is unpractically nothing left and nobody cares anymore. Apathy kills effective communication dead in it's tracks. Methinks the Roman Catholic Church should have declared it one of the seven deadly sins for all the damage it does. Today, the love of many is waxing cold (as the proverb once declared), and people just don't care or have the time. They are too busy trying to survive in a highly competitive mainframe and it is often upon the shoulders of the internet clerisy to express certain concerns about our ever-changing Society or, to remain silent (like "good men") and do nothing.

Because the remainder of the "masses" are too busy trying to make a living and are often ensnared in the fruitless pursuit of those things that television and the media keep "telling" them will make them happy, give them purpose, or fulfill their lives, we witness increasing problems in effective communication. Even the internet is overwhelmed with volumes of advertising and mass media exposure ending in a multitude of empty promises, technical failures, and utter discouragement. People are vast becoming desensitized as a matter of survival �?as opposed to freedom of choice. The "only me" generation has now become the worker bee generation in an inescapable hive of consciousness that can only describe the robotic behaviour of social insects. Men are become mere drones, the women are processed for workers, and most of our children are likewise processed for the same future within the mainframe of social consciousness that I have recently come to refer to as "The Media-trix".

Few of us ever rise to the noble call and ranks of effective communcation within Society in the prudent and precious knowledge that whosoever would control language would also controls thought; and that whosoever would control thought, would also control Society. It would seem that despite the admonishings of our great authors (Huxley, Orwell, Thoreau, Bacon, etc.) we still continue to pay our tribute and even pay with our life's blood for our beloved Social Engineers, Big Brother Bush, and of course, the Queen Bee of English Orthodoxy. I trust that the reader won't find this narrative too "high-browed".  

God bless

CC

http://www.geocities.com/seths_seed