From Dialogue to Monologues

The power to the complex interchange of ideals by means of articulated speech is endemic to the human race. We don’t go around squawking, squeaking, warbling, barking or meowing at each other during coffee breaks. We don’t whoop, howl and screech when demanding a pay increase (although it may sound like it at times.) Human conversation is filled with intonations, interruptions, gestures and individualised body language, all laced together to create a colourful spectrum of vocalised expressions.

Human speech, in dialogue form, has been instrumental in the propagation of human intelligence, in ensuring co-operative development and in ensuring constructive evolution. It is a marvel of the human intellect. It is what separates the animal kingdom from that of the human realm. It is also what negates all the above.

In modern life, constructive dialogue seems to be as dead as the proverbial ‘Dodo,’ specially given the fact that so much of it is filled with one-sided communication:

Television, although a clever invention, has entrenched itself into modern society with negative influences. Televised programs are presented in a singular fashion with specific goals and objectives in mind. The interactions are all on screen. All the watcher has to do is watch (an interesting point is that research shows that the brain is more active during sleep than when watching TV.)

The News media, while cowering behind ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘you have the right to know the truth,’ expresses biased opinions in a sensationalist manner while only allowing selected retorts to be printed.

Talk-shows are no better – A skewed subject is chosen, so-called experts are called in to argue the chosen subject (and the more acronyms they have behind their names, the more credible they are perceived to be,) and a ‘well-to-do’ presenter is chosen to chair the proceedings. The whole affair takes place under guarded conditions which minimize accountability and liability on the part of the broadcaster. The end result is a muddle of ideals.

The Internet, the miracle of technology, has done nothing to encourage dialogue: people are more prone to chat merrily for hours in anonymous chat rooms than to physically relate to people around them.

At work, dialogue, although seemingly encouraged, is disparaged by management - “yours is not to question why, yours is to do (or die.)” A dictum that serves no purpose except to stifle human communication.

The art of conversation requires aural and verbal skills from its practitioner. But listening may mean having to adapt one’s stance on a given subject, a subject that one may be uncomfortable with or be totally opposed against. The tendency is then to shut down the hearing sense and to continue to dispute the given subject, pushing home one’s viewpoint at all costs; monologue enacted. The end result, no advancement, no enlightenment, no progress.

As most of what is believed by the human animal is based on perceptions (individuals largely live by their cultivated assumptions based on their own philosophies and or beliefs,) the whole process of assimilation of new ideas via conversation, as an ideal, is rather difficult. It requires an abolishment of all assumptions, it requires a re-establishment of substantiation and a re-assembling of proof; in other words, don’t guess, don’t predict and don’t assume.

Unfortunately, the human animal, does not like being put on the spot, being made to (seemingly) look the fool. But the converse to the perceived connotations is an increase in enlightenment, in knowledge, in experience and in wisdom. Surely, a little embarrassment is a small price to pay for elucidation? Why oppose a viewpoint just because it clashes with one’s personal beliefs? Voltaire once said “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.”

The above may mean having to enter into discussions where one’s view points will be challenged, defied, taken to task, but in the end, if the information is correctly and wisely assimilated, one will be better off for it. That is the power of dialogue: enrichment, astuteness and understanding.

Living in an information-rich environment does not mean that verbal communication should be sacrificed or abolished for the sake of the medium presenting the information. Two-way conversations should be encouraged and fostered. It should be practiced often.

Dialogue: The power behind expressive communications; The power behind the exchange of ideas and ideals; The power behind the acquisition of knowledge; The power behind personal growth. The power behind luciferous living.

Is Freedom of Speech even Debatable

Why is it that we are so adept at proclaiming freedom-of-speech while, back at the ranch, running it down when that freedom asserts an ideal opposed to our own way of thinking? If reason be what makes us human, why the inconsistency? And maybe the fault is mine for “How ridiculous and what a stranger he is who is surprised at anything which happens in life.” – Marcus Aurelius

Democracy is about freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of actions; of course all tempered by liberal doses of moderation i.e. consideration for the wellbeing of others, consideration for the beliefs of others, consideration for the lives of others. As a matter of fact, consideration and moderation, besides the aforementioned freedoms, are the prime words by which democracy was devised (reminds me of the age old inconsistency: Look but don’t touch, Touch but don’t bite, Bite but don’t swallow…)

To the lob-sided equation, human-rights (human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing
factors, such as ethnicity and nationality,) was added as a condiment. These rights and freedoms likewise include the rights to due process, private ownership of property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. (In liberal democracies, such as that found in South Africa, these rights are generally constitutionally guaranteed.)

In contrast, Conflict, by characterization, refers to any quarrel between persons, regions, national districts or world powers. Conflict further refers to mental-states of unreasonableness, of stroppiness and of perverseness: arrogance, avarice, despotism, bigotry, absolutism. Qualities that not only subverts the human spirit but also relegates it to the annals of depravity - Ayn Rand in her gothic work entitled ‘Anthem’ expounded on what a world ruled by oppressive ideologies would be like: in one instance, she elucidates the arrogance of the ruling elite when it discards electricity in favour of candles for the concept was not developed by the masses for the good of the masses.

When Emmanuel Kant was asked to characterize Enlightenment (defined as the insistence on intellectual autonomy, a rejection of tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth, a loathing for bigotry and persecution, a commitment to free inquiry, a belief that knowledge is indeed power,) his vigour and clarity rose to the occasion: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.” Unlike his other long-winded works of philosophy, this was direct, to the point and sacrosanct.

In simple words, it is decisive forbearance towards all things that challenge and seemingly subvert ideals long held as truths, that determines enlightenment. Not an impossibility or a stretch of the imagination but a tortuous request nonetheless, for the general human propensity towards self-emulation will, if not checked, rise to the top: usually under the guises of nationalism, patriotism and eloquently-worded self-centred crowd-pleasing despotic monologues.

Therefore, as with enlightenment, freedom-of-speech, being a sub-set of enlightenment, must be conceived as an attitude in which the critique of what we are, be accepted as an historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us, and a testing with the prospect of going beyond them.

To all intents and purposes, there should be no debate pertaining to whether or not freedom-of-speech should ever be sacrificed, irrespective of circumstances i.e. noble intentions - history is full of noble intentions that did nothing but to propagate the will of those who proclaimed those very intentions.

Its for the above reasons that freedom-of-speech should be encouraged and cultivated at all levels of human interactions. It should never be allowed to wane or to be repressed irrespective of how much it condemns or criticises. It must be allowed to assert conjectures, contentions and what-ifs. It must be given free reign, for only then can life evolve beyond its self imposed immaturity - the world used to be considered flat. It was only by the covert persistence (an unfortunate system-induced malaise of the time) of a few heretics that the truth was eventually revealed.

Dare to speak. Dare to know!