Philosophy is Real

In this blog, I will indicate why abstract, philosophical action is especially appropriate as it pertains to domestic situations.

If a computer is given a set of files and folders it can’t find, it let’s you know. It does this with an error, or used to just shut down. My Dad’s Apple IIc would making a grinding sound akin to pulling tantamount quantities of air into your lungs through your nose and a straw.

To a human, with relativity to a large abstract concept called: life–these files and folders are meant to be inserted as input; instructions on how to translate the incoming data into a course of action. (Rand)

What is this action? Living. What is living? Rand says it’s the process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. I say that it is the reactive system & environment between individual and often collective action that passes through moments, space and time. Something like that.

In any case, if life consists of moments, there are qualities and quantities to these moments, ups and downs, input and output. When there is an inappropriate file in another folder, we often make things up to cover it up. I did. For years. But since ethics does not exist in reality and can only exist through the thoughtful reasoned, full integration of consciousness–my fundamental principles remain absolute.  Link here.

A full integration of consciousness on a literal level is not possible without technology. However, I  do think that a conscious philosophy is not only necessary, but essential to resolving lived situations and ‘advancing in life.’ This is the same thing as saying “Think top-down,” since philosophy is a top-down system. It has to be, the amount of information it has to deal with is too broad to be examined in terms of anything else. Concepts as Peikoff says, are the Algebra of cognition.

Like a book entailing how to run a computer ‘program’ like Drupal or write code like PHP, style in CSS, etc–we have a choice to read bottom up or top down. (Source on top-down-bottom-up thinking in this example: Author of “SVN” by OReilly)

When you read top-down, you are trying to get an over view, and this often sounds very superfluous to us. It did to me for many years without that concept, and as a result, like the absence of any idea, it results in large errors.

The analogy of the The Maze and the Revolving Orb comes to mind. These analogies are my own.

The Maze is all the situations we live in that we must pass through since we must walk forward. If we go back, in ‘philosophical space,’ we die which in reality means stagnancy and its inevitable end result: death.

The Revolving Orb is what’s directly in front of us, obscuring (very Platonic and sort of New-Agey I know) our vision from what’s in front of us.

Can we stop? No. Can we look to the sides? Yes, you can only see in your peripheral though and its often very blurry but can also be sharp if you look closely. The Orb never stops turning, but relays on its revolving, undulating surface, that which is in front of you and also, the maze itself, invconveniently located as an overlay, a metling transparecny of the entire Maze.

So let me complete the analogy: Philosophy is the Orb. Life is what’s in the maze itself along with its walls. The more we learn about philosophy, the clearer what is front of us becomes as the Orb merely CAN relay (say in pixels) what is in front of us, but does not necessarily relay the right thing at all even.

So say you have an angry head. What’s in front of you will be distorted or made of characters that aren’t really there. If you take your anger and reason it, what’s in front of you might become clear. But there’s no indication that what is on the Orb is true other than your ability to navigate the Maze and find your way out.

Most people are using peripheral sight in place of the Orb. Literal fragmented vision in place of a birds eye: Philosophy, a conscious, maintained fully actualized way of life.

We live in a world to whom philosophy is invisible. Why has it remained invisible?

Philosophy began as a way to explain things, nothing more and it keeps its roots because of one of its branches: metaphysics. Metaphysics deals not merely with reality itself, but with absolute reality. In the universe, this is literally that which is permanent to it.

Think about that.

Stars might be one literal thing. Planets maybe. Solar systems. Okay, but what about the things we can’t see and often can’t even feel? What permanent things are there that we can’t see? Is Freedom something we can touch and see? Sure it is, we are free to go outside and smell the air and the flowers.

But this isn’t freedom, is it?

Freedom is the ability to have options. Options are granted via a law that protects us from other people infringing on us. In our society. Why is this? Because the alternative as Rand says, is a gun and everything that comes with that.

So what happens when people say “I don’t need privacy, the law takes care of that.” Yeah. Well, this is the same way I feel when talking and dealing with people who care not to have a conscious philosophy.

It’s very much like the scene in Scarface with Toni Montana talking to the Banker in his own home. In this scene, Toni has a complete misconception of banking, banking systems and is uneducated so knows very little about money or Economics. As the result of this he wishes to hold all his money in cash in his house or go with another bank. The Banker tells him not to be a Schmuck and that he’s paying the extra taxes he’s balking on,  for security. Rather than actually reason or look into this, he tells the guy to leave. He merely smiles and tells him to say Hi to his wife for him. Toni has believed something abstract about his situation, it’s not that he hasn’t. He understands that Bankers are people that need to make money and that this banker could be cheating him. Cared he to articulate it, and that’s exactly my point. Toni even with his own limited information could still ask the question: “What is my knowledge based on in this instance?” Upon seeing not too much in front of him from the recall done to files and folders in his mind, he brings up that he doesn’t really have very much. As the result of this, a normal person would conclude that they need more input.

And in terms of philosophy (the conceptual bird’s eye in relation to the concept life and how we live it along with what reality as a whole is) this is virtually anybody I meet since I live in U.S. Or really anywhere, but especially in my country.

The Orb to someone who does not have a conscious philosophy, is highly distorted at best.

So what about the argument that contends that we don’t need philosophy in practical reality?

My first answer to this is: “You’re right.” My second is: “For You.”

In reality this is the same thing as saying “I don’t really need to know my wife’s motivations, I just need to love her.” Or: “I don’t need to study up to know that women are generally weaker than men.”

How about: “Black people are inferior.” Still convinced you don’t need philosophy?

But science does that, you might say. And yet Science even in method now, is the historical evolution of philosophy itself.

The Real Reason: I hear about how philosophy couldn’t mean less, often in situations where it could make a difference, the most.

Watching TV shows is oddly a good source to learn about all of philosophies in action. I recommend Six Feet Under for an honest view and Rome or the movie Gladiator for an exaggerated but keen eye into the importance of personal politics and philosophy.

There’s one thing missing though…

What in the Maze analogy is moving us again? Aside from ultimate death and ongoing prolonged torture or whatever else, why do we need to move forward? There is even a good amount of scientific evidence to suggest that without exercise, the body atrophies. So does the mind. And so does philosophy, contained, by the way, by means of the mind. So if we must move forward in life, how fast? What sets its speed?

My answer for now is this: Adjust the speed for yourself, but don’t let the speed distort what you see in front of you. What do you see in front you?

Philosophy.

***

Advertisements

Aphoristic Futurist Thoughts: Asynchronous Messages to & from the Self

“Sat Night Live, SNL, reminds us that there is a center left in the world, with centralized cultural attitudes. Ex. Humor acts to curtail nonsense.”

– Diary Aug 2010

"You got a family!? Well I eat cottage fuckin' cheese for dinner every night mothafucka!"
- VESPER HELIOTROPIC BOOK I. CRYSTAL TURBINES

“Looking at the fountains, she witnessed the possibility of not returning to an identical pattern. The water could not be predicted in specifics, only in general waves of where all the different drops would fall.”

– VESPER HELIOTROPIC BOOK I. CRYSTAL TURBINES

“You really underplay how much Spatial recognition capabilities play into cognition – until I have an under hallucinatory experience.”

“The opinion today is that what’s really going on, the directly observed, as opposed to someone imagining it for you–innately has more authenticity to an relative ’empiric value.’ (Relative to our methods of data collection, today)

But as the result of what is really the evolution of the progressive sophistication of media and hence, storytelling, the stories will get realer and realer until they are no longer even slghtly inaccurate, because their content: people, will be nothing but reflexively obedient.

If we’re not conscious of this in an every day popularized way, this could create a cultural monster. And then the possibility of systematization of all this, when it’s packaged, bought and sold on the open market.

And so, there will come a point, a day where the layman’s ability to experiment with this reflection, to poke his finger not at, but into the mirror, then he will have superceded the former tools of science. And thus, a new scientific method will be bornm based off and inspearable from its technology, which are one in every reflexive sense.

– Diary Sept 2009

“The logic goes, that if you observe something in real life, it an has authenticity that writer’s and their media can’t allegedly convey in whatever medium.”

– Diary Sept 2009

If I were to tell you to listen, this would not work, so I must remove your latent inhibition by changing visual cu/lues.

NEAL CORMIER VESPER HELIOTROPIC BOOK SIGNING

NEAL CORMIER VESPER HELIOTROPIC BOOK SIGNING

And so began yet another day at the Fed’s Munich, PS District 5: Fairview High, The Heliotropes. – NOVEL: VESPER HELIOTROPIC Random Sample

“UNAFIX, wants you to see what you are made of…” whispered a deep male voice relayed at an NMR-Frequency that only females could hear. The girls did generally enter buildings slower than males, as the Declassified Overseer data always came back with.

Rachael knew the drill. She tore and cleaved her way to the front of the left-most part of the crowd of mainly girls, and joined the heel clicking lines to then go on to the school’s early morning Detectors. Of the twenty-six doors lining this side of the snaking edifice, Rachael was aiming for #16.

There must be a fountain downstairs mass-producing kids.

She thought this virtually every morning, looking at the tops of heads bob up and down on the other side of the dusty square windows of the watery line of doors…Keep Reading…

***

– Vesper Heliotropic is a general teen/adult sci-fi ebook, paperback and hardcover, and is a Steampunk(ish) serial novel. The first written publication is OUT NOW VIA LULU.com on PAPERBACK and SPECIAL-JACKETED HARDCOVER, and is available for THE AMAZON KINDLE as well as BARNES AND NOBLES NOOK EBOOKS. VESPER HELIOTROPIC, THE CRYSTAL TURBINES SERIES GRAPHIC NOVEL IS ALSO OUT NOW ON FULL COLOR GLOSSY PAPERBACK! 46 Pages Full Color Interior and Exterior – ONLY $19.99! –

www.VesperHelioTropic.com

Creative Commons License
Vesper Heliotropic Book I. CRYSTAL TURBINES by Neal Aaron Cormier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License
Vesper Heliotropic Book I. CRYSTAL TURBINES © Copyright 2011 Neal Cormier All Rights Reserved
Visit the Author’s Website – Neal Cormier Art

– Copyright © Neal Cormier 2011 All Rights Reserved –

Neal Cormier is an artist and writer originally from the Washington D.C. area.
– www.NealCormier.com – His concentration is visual art–especially oil painting and graphic novel illustration.

He is also an up and coming fiction writer, of which Vesper Heliotropic is his first full length novel publication with Amazon, Barnes and Nobles (eBooks) and Lulu Inc. (for paperback & hardcover) Neal recently had a showing at National Airport in Arlington, VA (March 11 – June 25 in Terminal A). He also, and even more recently, had a first book signing for Vesper Heliotropic at The Midtown Scholar, a local hipster style bookstore in downtown Harrisburg, PA.

Neal has sold a variety of pieces to clients from around the world. His artwork has been shown in cafés, bars and galleries in New York City, Washington D.C., Paris and Alençon, France.

After high school, Neal attended the School of Visual Arts in New York City and spent four years living in both Brooklyn and Manhattan. He moved to France after this, and spent roughly about the same length of time in the region of Basse-Normandie, northern France. As a result, he speaks French and has a (tall) 9 year old daughter, Lili. He now resides back home in Crystal City, Virginia with his fiancé, Kristin.

List of Art & Media By Neal Cormier

Art & Blog

www.NealCormier.com

Web Design/Development Services

www.NealCormierWeb.com

The Novel’s Website

www.VesperHelioTropic.com

New Sci-Fi Short Story: ‘Springfield’ -Part 2-

–This is the (continuation of the) first chapter sample of my all-new VH short story! The only place you’re gonna find it: ‘Springfield’ here only now, and exclusively on WordPress!–

Springfield

i. Camille’s Providence (cont.)

…Is that Jenny’s Dad?

Gazing out the window, she’d noticed a boot. Four of them. And a man, two men, there across the street. Camille came closer to one of the large window panes and put the heel of a hand on its sill almost pressing her face to its dirty surface. Indeed they were CAMBIAN Officers. This was not unfrequent. Not in those days.

It looked like one of them was telling the other something, like Bible sales men standing at the sidewalk pondering a next kill. 

Black, white and blue, dark blue. Their uniforms, cut angles with their unbending posture, as if pinched back at the shoulders.

One of them looked erect enough even…

 …He’s holding a gun. 

She couldn’t see their faces. They’d been waiting, indeed. The flailing pink of a mother’s robe came partially into view, the rest of her, blotted out by window mist Camille was swathing away at furiously. She’d been thrown out to the curb almost. The lady. And began to regain her stance to have an Officer steady her quickly. All black uniform, and that’s all Camille saw, not more than an articulately moving shadow through that dirt and of course, more condensation from her face. Neau heat settings. Yet. 

He was holding her back. And again, they repeated a loop, and again, seemed to be waiting. 

The husband. It must be. 

A white face was beaten and bloodied. A man. From out of the house, finally. They were auctioning him off. Or maybe giving him a warning.

“Stand up sir,” stand straight up.

“You’re doing this, here, here!?”

“Yes indeed, we have reports of suspicious activity coming right from this location. Data Field says here you are in domestic violation.”

“What’s the violation?” cried Adele Simpson, his wife.

“Shut up Rose.”

“Sir, as an individual, you will refrain from speaking to your wife.” His voice clattered a bit through the VocalDisruptor. Sounded like someone trying to gargle glass.

There was a surge in her chest. I’ll go out, go out and…

Rachael ran out of her bedroom, stammered down the curving staircase onto the cold smooth floorboards of the foyer and peered out one of the front door’s little side windows. It wasn’t two men, but three, two PD Officers and one CAMBIAN Infantry. 

Something was being arranged. The husband was being put into the center of the yard, of all places. The wife’s mouth was muffled by the black clad glove of the CAMBIAN Private. 

“Rachael.” A steady, even voice.

She whipped around.

“What, not now, Una!”

“This is not for your eyes.” said Una.

What do you mean?

Camille didn’t know if she’d be right to say anything back to Una, being that, she has noticed a variety of behavior from her, despite being ‘invisible.’ It had been a good while since she’d beheaded the canary and proved Una could not ‘see’ her enough to be able to make a report, but who knew, better to be on the safe side, she thought.

Balking for a moment, Camille then simply rewet her lips and went back upstairs, however much she still fiend to know what was going on across the street.

She didn’t know what to do. Sit there and wait? 

“I’ll go to the Mall.”

The Mall.

***

The wood of the bench kind of pinched her butt-cheeks when itty-bitty parts of her rear got caught between the slats. She was waiting for Blo-T, the next Transport out of Main-Line and into the gray area of now, Off-Line toward Springfield-Springfield. This was as opposed to the Oakland Community Springfield.

…Stay Tuned For More of ‘Springfield’ Tomorrow!

– ‘Springfield’ is an All-New “VESPER HELIOTROPIC CRYSTAL TURBINES SERIES” Short Story. –

– Vesper Heliotropic is a general teen/adult sci-fi ebook, paperback and hardcover, and is a Steampunk(ish) serial novel. The first written publication is OUT NOW VIA LULU.com on PAPERBACK and SPECIAL-JACKETED HARDCOVER, and is available for THE AMAZON KINDLE as well as BARNES AND NOBLES NOOK EBOOKS. VESPER HELIOTROPIC, THE CRYSTAL TURBINES SERIES GRAPHIC NOVEL IS ALSO OUT NOW ON FULL COLOR GLOSSY PAPERBACK! 46 Pages Full Color Interior and Exterior – ONLY $19.99! –

www.VesperHelioTropic.com

Creative Commons License
Vesper Heliotropic Book I. CRYSTAL TURBINES by Neal Aaron Cormier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License
Vesper Heliotropic Book I. CRYSTAL TURBINES © Copyright 2011 Neal Cormier All Rights Reserved
Visit the Author’s Website – Neal Cormier Art

Listening

What is listening?

What does it mean when someone actually listens to another person?

How often does this actually happen?

In order to answer the last two questions, obviously you have answer the first one, first.

So what is listening?

“You know why I come here?

“Why?”

“Cause when people think your dying man, they really, really listen to you.”

“Instead—“

“—Instead of waiting for their turn to speak.”

–Flight Club

Why does this have to be the case and what is meant in this instance about what listening is?

Imagine if you said something about your day that was really important to you, had an impact such as getting a promotion or making some new advance or innovation in what you do.

Wouldn’t you rather someone understand how and why it happened, as opposed to just that it happened?

And let’s say you then brought it up to someone equally important, like a friend or spouse, and in response they said something like: ‘Wow, yeah, that’s great!’ And left it at that.

And what if that’s pretty much the extent of all they said for anything that was important to you at all, whatsoever.

It amazes me how often I actually see just that between people who get away with doing it, and ‘leaving it at that.’

In this way relationships are less like relationships and more like two ships passing in the night.

Is that what a real relationship consists of?

Simultaneously, I see people give long-winded advice, stories, situations, etc., I see the other person sitting and ‘listening’ to them, and the one whose telling the story just keeps going while the other says things like…

“Right”

“Exactly”

“I get you”

“No, I know exactly what you mean.”

“Uh huh”

“Continue…”

“Sure”

Beware of these, if a conversation or any verbal interaction of any length consists exclusively of these, and there is a theme resembling this in how someone interacts with you, odds are, they are humoring you more than they are listening.

Now contrast these with phrases like:

“What do you mean?”

“Can you give me an example?”

“What exactly does that imply?”

“Are you sure?”

“That doesn’t sound too healthy.”

“Because…”

“Then, that must be why.”

“That’s how that works.”

Then I wonder: How much of what people ‘hear,’ are they actually getting?

Now imagine if someone said in response to your accomplishment on your good day:

‘Wow, that’s really awesome, it’s going to enable you to do more work, and if you keep using the technique you’ve been trying, it will grow exponentially.

Isn’t that a bit better? Why?

Because: It is FEEDBACK.

The dictionary will tell you that feedback is…

‘the modification or control of a process or system by its results or effects’

I would say this means feedback is modifying what is said (the system or process) by means of how you react, whereas, in a conversation without feedback, no modification takes place.

Another part that seems vital to it is also the translation of an idea into another form as synthesized through another piece or set of data, ending in a new deduction, which in turn, furthers more and more feedback.

In other words, someone listens to you, and gives their opinion about it, and the original opinion, yours, has been transformed in some way that adds onto it. You then react to how they reacted.

I am astounded at how many people actually regard listening as merely being the recipient to information. The reason that I regard this as basically and often completely superfluous, is due to the fact that when I actually go back and see what the person retained from what I’m saying, I get either one of two responses:

Either, A, they can’t repeat anything back to me, or B, they repeat back what I said verbatim.

Of these two responses, I reveal that their difference Is an illusion by the mere fact that in suddenly asking what I meant by a given idea, people are not generally able to tell me, or (which happens more often than anything else) they save face by coming up with something right there on the spot, which is nice, but wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t called them out on it. And I don’t want to have to call people out on not listening to me all the time, its exhausting and I have better things to do.

All in all, this means that people are either completely zoning out or they take what I said as a memorized recitation, both of which tend to suck.

What people are not normalized to is the fact that neither of these is valid, because neither of these actually produces anything.

I want to say to all those friends and family members, all the people I see who think they are being listened to, to actually stop for a moment to test the person for comprehension. I think anyone would be astounded at how little of what we say is actually being processed.

So, does listening mean that someone is able to repeat back to you what you’ve said verbatim?

Does listening mean comprehending? What is comprehension? Why bring something up if nothing is generated from it?

Comprehension doesn’t mean memorizing. Most people take understanding something to mean a general regard for it. But what use is a ‘general understanding’ if it seldomly relates to action?

Comprehension is what produces feedback.

Take this exchange for example:

“I detest pornography, it’s demeaning to women.”

“I know, I hate porn, it’s cheap, smutty, full of images of people having sex with no love attached, and that’s what people learn when they watch it, to view sex without love.”

“Yeah, I know, more and more, we’re detached from the actual act of sex.”

“Well, in any case, its demeaning, we have a whole genre of pornography devoted to each individual type of how a woman can be degraded.”

“There are so many examples of this, our world is becoming more and more removed from nature too, just look at how we’d rather watch TV and DVDs than play on a playground with other children.”

“I know, it’s getting crazy, I think that we could actually say porn is now totally mainstream too. It’s infecting how we talk and think about our world so much, look at how my daughter wants to dress, back in the day, she’d be considered a prostitute for what she wants to wear.”

“Something’s got to be done, before women are viewed solely as sex objects like they are in rap music today.”

“You know my mom was a feminist, hardcore one in the 60’s and 70’s, did a lot to speak out against the objectification of women.”

“Really, my family really didn’t, I have to admit, I’m pretty much the one who’s more adamant about philosophical or political issues.”

Are these two people ‘listening’ to each other? It may seem like they are since they say a lot of things like “Really?” “Something’s got to be done…” “I know,” or “I know, it’s getting crazy..” and stuff like that.

Wow, aren’t these, really similar to saying things like: “Right,” “Exactly,” “I get you,”  and “No, I know exactly what you mean,” “Uh huh,” “Continue…”  and “Sure.”

But if someone says:

“Yeah, I know, more and more, we’re detached from the actual act of sex.”

To which the other responds with ‘feedback’ by saying…

“Well, in any case, its demeaning, we have a whole genre of pornography devoted to each individual type of how a woman can be degraded.”

This doesn’t mean they’ve heard you, it means they are changing the subject to say what they wanted to hear themselves say.

A proper response to:

“Yeah, I know, more and more, we’re detached from the actual act of sex.”

…with actual feedback would have been:

“I think that’s true, just look at how porn portrays people making love: they’re not even face to face half the time.”

It would then have been valid to bring up a new idea, usually its better if it relates and personally, in polite decorum, one apologizes in a mild degree and asks if they can change the subject. This is not simply a matter of respect for the other person, it allows for there to be a change of pace and a line that is drawn between subjects makes for better clarity.

But in this example, as it is, what is being produced through their interaction aside from their original opinions?

How about these two people?

Bill and Jenny are entering a carnival; the entirety of their date takes place inside the small amusement park. They now stand outside its gates waiting in line before a huge crowd to get tickets.

Bill: “Look at these people, their all just like us aren’t they? And yet, we’re miles apart.”

Jenny: “What do you mean?”

Bill: “We’ll even though I hate to be condescending or sound like I’m on a high horse, it’s just that you always get this sort of run of the mill crowd, the rank and file of every town in America or in the world.”

Jenny: “We’ll that’s for sure, nothing new about that.”

Bill: “I know, I know, its just that I notice certain things about people in general wherever I go, I tend to see the same kind of groups emerging.”

Jenny: “And what groups would those be?”

Bill: “Well, you’ve got every hick and redneck going to carnivals and movie theaters these days, you don’t see too many well-to-do’s at a place like this.

Jenny: “Those are hardly more than vague categories, but I know what you mean, I wonder if that has anything to do with these being obsolete forms of entertainment, I mean, you have these huge sprawling amusement parks now, like Six Flags or Kings Dominion, and the movie’s are taken over by video, more specifically, DVD and even internet downloads now.”

Bill: “True, that’s probably the reason actually, I still think carnivals are a sort of weird place too, you know, sometimes I get the same sense at a movie theater, that ‘being-alone, but liking it’ feeling, you know?”

Notice something different with their interaction as opposed to the first one?

The difference in the second example, is that Bill and Jenny are COMMUNICATING.

Their original opinions are being altered through comprehension and feedback.

In communication theory, two people are said to have communicated if and when something is relayed, encoded, and then translated.

What good is it anyway to translate something in your head, and not tell the other person about it?

And that is what I’m saying: that at best, people are just getting a general understanding or even just a ‘feel’ for what you’re saying most of the time.

Ask them to tell you what they think you mean sometime out of the blue, and I almost guarantee you, you’ll catch em off guard.

And hence, most of the time, relationships between people resemble two people, living on two different islands, never having even interacted, though it might look like that’s what’s happening from afar.

I’ve come up with a list of principles, some of which have been covered here and others that are new. In any case, I think these embody the common denominators of all good, even minimal communication.

They can all be observed even in the two examples given, but I assure you if you look at your life, you will find them effective, and you will be astounded at how little you and other people are actually listening to each other at present.

They are the following:

Objectivity: Truth vs. Falsehood: If you aren’t trying to establish the truth of a matter in mutual agreement, what are you trying to do? A conversation cannot be generated without objectivity, since there would be nothing to debate or seek: This means that the primary focus is to establish whether said idea(s) are true or false by means of rational argument.

Rational Argument: What good is talking if nothing is resolved or furthered? The technique of rational argument is a ‘back and forth’ whereby premises are met with objection, and objection is resolved rather than left alone. The process of listening, processing, giving feedback or your opinion about something is unfortunately more often met with another statement. This hardly ever gets anybody anywhere. Ask a question, you will get an answer, this will then enable you grounds for your idea to be integrated into the other person idea, or at the very least, you will be able to pinpoint where disagreement that can’t be resolved, lies, and take action accordingly.

Comprehension & Feedback: Actually listen to what someone says by thinking about what you think it means, to you, to them, and in general. Don’t merely think about it on a superfluous level either, depth is required to really understand, generate possibilities about what you think they mean and ask them if that is the case. Then, give them an integration of your opinion on the matter with theirs. If you disagree tell them why. (If you don’t want to do this, well, then I’m sorry, but you’re fucked and I don’t care about you anyway)

Item for Item Responses: A real discussion is an exchange, an intersection, not a parallel highway; meaning that each and every statement or question is met with feedback to that item as a proposition. The earmark of bad communication is skipping a person’s statement, which only breeds the downward spiral of misunderstanding which usually leads to all things counterproductive, i.e. force.

Questions or Inquiry: My Dad always said that if you aren’t asking a question within at least every 30 seconds of a conversation or debate, you’re losing it. How can you understand what a person is actually saying to you without asking them? The primary way people miscommunicate is probably through lack of asking questions. What ends up happening is that you take what you thought the person means by a given idea, instead of what THEY mean, and since more often than not, it is not identical and most often, totally not what the person meant, you might as well be talking to a gerbil, cat, or horse–all of whom at least won’t scream at you out of misunderstanding.

Skepticism, Delimitation, and Divergence: What good are ideas if you aren’t seeing both sides of the argument? This is a more specific extension of objectivity. We only know something is true, by means of isolating that that idea is X, meaning that there is no other possibility within the realm of what we know. This is tricky because what we know is always limited. This is the reason is so important to always be expanding one’s knowledge, which leads to the next principle: divergence—the constant generation of as many multiple possibilities as you can. Delimitation in its etymology, means to ‘set boundaries around.’ In the realm of ideas, this means that one sets boundaries by understanding what’s outside as well as inside the concept, such as opposing views and why that answer and some other answer is the correct one.

Reason for Claims: Each proposition bears the burden of proof before the next is presented: that is, each new idea must prove itself as valid by gathering facts to back it up within the current frame-work, at which point it is debated and resolved, before continuing. This means in a more specific way that each claim is backed up with a reason for said claim. ‘You know what I mean,’ is not and should never be a sufficient basis for true understanding and communication.

Retrieval-Integration of Past Topics: Old ideas are retrieved upon being relevant, not forgotten, and synthesized or integrated with new ones.

Integration: Each proposition (concept) builds upon the last. That is, the goal of any conceptual conversation is to build a framework of new ideas, which builds from older ideas.

If you have ‘listened’ to this, and are able to master these principles, I assure you, your life and you’re entire understanding of people will be radically transformed into a progressive rather than stagnant or static relationship, into understanding rather than miscommunication, learning in place of ignorance.

***

Copyright © Neal Cormier 2011 All Rights Reserved

–Neal Cormier is an artist and writer originally from the Washington D.C. area. His concentration is visual art–especially oil painting and graphic novel illustration. He is also an up and coming fiction writer, of whichVesper Heliotropic will be his first full length novel publication with Lulu Inc. Neal’s most current showing was at National Airport in Arlington, VA (March 11 – June 25 in Terminal A). He has sold a variety of pieces to clients from around the world. His artwork has been shown in cafes, bars and galleries in New York City, Washington D.C., Paris and Alençon, France. After high school, Neal attended the School of Visual Arts in New York City and spent four years living in both Brooklyn and Manhattan. He moved to France after this, and spent roughly about the same length of time in the region of Basse-Normandie, northern France. As a result, he speaks French and has a (tall) 9 year old daughter, Lili. He now resides back home in Crystal City, Virginia with his fiancé, Kristin.–

Copyright © Neal Cormier 2011 All Rights Reserved

-Neal Cormier

Artist
http://www.NealCormier.com

Novel
http://www.VesperHelioTropic.com

Web Services
http://www.NealCormierweb.com

Last Minute Shopping Ideas? – How about an Artist’s Work? 30% OFF!

What could be more original than an original oil painting or print, from an independent artist?

FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY: UNTIL Jan 1 2012 – I am offering a discount code included in this email (as well as on respective sites in select groups of mine) that entitles you to do some 30% OFF custom gift shopping.

Unlike every other kind of gift you’ll find at the mall or even online these days, art is always a totally unique gift that someone can’t argue over quality on…Being how art is akin to beauty and all that jazz 😉 Not to mention a one-of-a-kind luxury product!

Click here to start

Reproductions also available
under discount code.

Click here to start

CODE FOR 30% ANY ART ORIGINAL AND/OR REPRODUCTION:

The CODE: UVUBHU

The three links you see before you are to my gallery-shopping mall and cart. Choose a piece of art, and go through the shopping process and enter the code upon checkout… 🙂

Click here to start

Overabundance of information is always the problem.

From a voice file:

This is my own observation. I think that it is inherently cerebral. At the moment. At the moment. I suppose that will change when we are through media able to visualize everything that’s in our heads as some kind of (no doubt) 3d display tech, in which the viewer is now participant for real, in a void or vacuum of a million balloons he must now sort out. But even then that’s cluttered, and we will need once again to sort it out, and once again, if not permanently, overabundance of information is the problem.

Because the Internet is basically text now, and will be inevitably voice dominant in the future (with text only as subsidiary form and filter) –we instinctively have an emphasis on words as filter bits in which we are funneled most of our information whether to each other in bed making love, chatting in our cars while talking to lost loves, or building a website; it is all involvement with the same medium, over and over. Looking at nothing but what are in reality, literally, flat planes through which our eyes pass through maybe a centimeter.

We will then gain the loss of perspective of the New Guinean Jungle tribesman, forever surrounded  by the trees and no perspective, nothing literally beyond a meter or two. Who thought upon visiting as Joseph Campbell and McLuhan point out, thought the buffalo on the horizon were ants. Why? Because for some moments at least, I don’t know, maybe minutes, maybe a day or a week or many years, but the tribesman literally thought the buffalo, boar sized beasts the size of three men put together, were ants crawling somehow in their vision like flies to swat from their faces, and I don’t remember, maybe they did.