Training The Rhythm of Thought
You must keep the rhythm or else you would pass there into some heresy regardless of how sincere you are
It is naive to think that how you say something does not matter—or that it matters less—than the content of what you say. If it were so, literature, poetry, wit, idioms, and adages would be missing from our language. And perhaps if we care to observe, it might turn out true that those who believe that how you say a thing does not matter as long as what you are saying is true may be deficient in matters of wit and cleverness. Maybe.
If truth is all that matters, I can safely say that it is true that human beings are superstitious. And with every turn and without the necessary mental discipline, our superstitious habits kick contend with truths such that we are able to play around with the truth and make them serve our superstitions. And in case you are thinking of grand superstitions like the moon granting fertility, consider scientism is also a modern superstition. Or that being an atheist either grants or is a precondition to a better use of the intellect.
You can say something true. But how you say it may play into our superstitions. You can say something true, yet say it in the wrong context, and it will lose its validity at least for that moment. For instance, tell someone that it is good for him to take responsibility for his actions. That is true. But tell him that just as his mother’s cold corpse is wheeled into the morgue and you might have gotten yourself a hater for life. It is all about choosing your moments.
However, there is a second type of saying things than uttering them at the right time. The first case is one of timing and tact. The second type is that of perspective: keep the truth within its correct framework or else it becomes distorted. Here, you must tell the truth in the right order and with accurate emphasis without which the meaning will be distorted for the listener. This case is like walking a zip line; you must put one foot in front of the other. You cannot afford to walk like you are a character in Dune. Or maybe you have to walk like a character in Dune to avoid upsetting the worm. I just know that this type of truth-telling demands careful and conscious attention to keep things in their right perspective lest a slight deviation ruins it all. You must keep the rhythm or else you would pass there into some heresy regardless of how sincere you are. It is one thing to say something at the perfect time, and it is a different business to place weight and emphasis on the right words and concepts and in the right order.
To illustrate this other kind, I will use the truth of human relationships.
It is needless to call our need for each other a fact. Man is a social animal we say. We cannot thrive in isolation; we need others; we are not self-sufficient. We flourish in communities. No man is an island. All that is a fact stated in various ways. And we, in knowing and living with that fact, have recorded individual and collective benefits. Those benefits include but are not limited to, better career opportunities, which translates to better pay, which may in turn translate to a better standard of living. So we see a fact, and we see the benefits of living according to the facts which themselves are facts that can be observed by everyone. Then, what heresy can proceed from such facts—how could something so true go wrong?
The first distortion proceeds from attempting to reverse-engineer the facts from benefits. That is, trying to read causally from benefits to facts instead of facts to benefits. Let’s look at the case of Mr Tung.
Suppose Mr Tung is a cheerful guy who runs a successful cabbage business, we might infer that customers love him because he is a cheerful guy. And this might be true. Or it might not be if we consider other factors like him selling fresh cabbages at cheap prices. Nevertheless, if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that customers love Mr Tung for his Ted-Lassoness, we might be safe in our inference. But supposing Mr Bong wishes to start a cabbage business, and he studies Mr Tung, he reaches the same inference as us. Then, Mr Bong begins thinking that to be a successful cabbage-man, you must be like Ted Lasso or Mr Tung. Immediately, he reads How To Make Friends And Influence People in order to develop a great personality and make friends for the purpose of selling cabbage. Now that’s a distortion.
It is a distortion for one reason: being a likeable person is a good and enjoyable thing in itself; being a successful cabbage-man is simply an accidental benefit. To do the right thing for the wrong reasons is a step into heresy; almost unavoidably. By getting the causation wrong, a true fact is distorted. In this case, a cheerful spirit becomes something you need for a job instead of something that is a need in itself.
And so many of us have made Mr Bong’s error. We realise the benefits of having healthy communion with others and reverse-engineer that to think that we optimise for these benefits. That is, we become blind to the intrinsic good of community with others and tinker for the extrinsic benefits instead. In a sense, the extrinsic benefits become the centre. We emphasize that building relationships are good for so-and-so while being completely silent on the fact that we innately pine for communion with others even when extrinsic benefits are not immediately evinced. We justify why we keep friends in the same way we would talk about how a jackhammer is a good tool for our remodelling business. We keep silent on the less pecuniary benefits of relationships. Then, we frame the benefits of human things like conversation only in economic terms. We now say quite boldly that “If it is not fetching me money, don’t call me,” which makes our non-economic conversations so boring and irritating like smoke in the eyes. We rename friendships as ‘networks’ because we need others to get ahead. We now speak of “outgrowing” friendships. Not because we suddenly disagree on virtue, values, and character. But because we have added a few possessions, and assets, and are now greener in our net worth. Heresies don’t get more heretical than that. (Just until they do.)
A distortion occurs precisely by emphasizing the benefits of a thing instead of the thing itself.
The second type of distortion stems from a lazy attempt to portray what is a moving target as a purely determined, rigid, concept.
Some concepts require a dance between the parts of it. You move forth and back with a trained rhythm for instance between loving humans and needing them for your goals. The emphasis here is on a trained rhythm because we are ever tempted to swing extremely in one direction. That you wish to avoid the extreme of using other humans as leverage to achieve your goals may for instance tempt you into an unregulated, indiscriminate acceptance of anything and anyone. Since thinking and living require discrimination, we must temper all our thoughts and actions.
The problem of emphasis and the untrained rhythm undergirds the battle between grace, faith, works, legalism, and licentiousness in Christian doctrine. Thus, the labour of the minister lies in training himself to move within time and context without sacrificing truth. This is the same with writers. On some days you will swing hard to the left—because that is what the occasion calls for. On other days you will swing as hard to the right because that is the need of the moment. Other times you will speak plainly. Other times metaphorically. Other times ironically. Other times with great, puzzling wit. Other times with a dry, fiery tongue.
Habitual and superstitious creatures we are, this dance is difficult to master. This may explain partially but not totally, why centrism and silence on political issues might be met with much fierceness from the extreme wingers. An extreme winger, for instance, may not understand why Edmund Burke, a conservative (in fact, the conservative) supported the American Revolution but opposed the French Revolution. Going by what we think of conservatism, it is not shocking to see the man oppose a revolution. What is shocking is to see him affirm one. Why oppose one and affirm the other?
Centrism is not a middle way. It is not aggregation as we do in Mathematics. It is instead a careful examination of issues against a backdrop of axioms and principles to reach a conclusion that may or may not align with your camp. It is a back-and-forth; an acceptance that no side has all the answers always. Extremism might be thought of as going in one direction without any friction. But that is not centrism. Centrism is friction. It is moderation by virtue and what is closest to the truth. It is not fencism. If it is anything, it is a tedious contemplation of issues.
I must repeat it for us superstitious beings: being careful how we say a thing is not a call to sacrifice the truth. It is a matter of choosing your time and methods. To the wolves who devour the sheep, you must bare your fangs. To the sheep, you must come calmly. To the complacent, stir; to the compulsive, offer respite. Scar those who love to take offence—those who think that the world ought to coddle them. To those who sincerely seek, let offence only be a by-product of the truth itself. Avoid the Bitter Truth fallacy: that the truth is bitter does not mean every bitter thing is the truth. Check yourself to see that you are not masking your bitter soul with the veneer of truth-telling. And this is especially true for the speaker or writer, not the listener or reader. For once you settle into the notion that how you say a thing does not matter, you slip into a carelessness that renders your sense of judgement blunt, your words sterile, your style unmusical, and your heart bileful.
Being a speaker, writer, and teacher, comes with the responsibility of being ever-present and awake. This we show by speaking the truth consciously—avoiding becoming autopilots in our thoughts and speech and avoiding cliches in our writings. It is all about making conscious decisions: offend because it is necessary. Comfort because it is needed. Throw in a joke deliberately. Cut the joke short if it obscures the purpose of the text. Employ sarcasm. Throw a witty saying for the elite. It is all about intentionality. It is a dance. Vale!
And it is your meme, featuring my boy Karl, who asks for nothing but your company.
If you want to enjoy my company like Karl, join me on LIAM.
