Here’s one way. If you’re lucky, you may find yourself regularly talking to others. Such talk might take one of three forms: discussion, argument, conversation. At first glance these tactics might seem too similar for useful examination. But give it a go. Needless to say, these are my examples not in any sense definitive.
Discussion: Two people, equally ignorant about getting from A to B, willingly engage in trying to find a common solution to this problem. Which they then use.
Argument: Same problem but without the willingness to co-operate. One or both believe they have a superior solution and fight each other – verbally – to prevail. Often uselessly.
Conversation: Same problem but while exploring the details both discover these exchanges are more interesting than the solution. Both are genuinely keen to hear what the other has to say and to build cooperatively on these discoveries. Optimistically believing they may find an answer to: What is life? I jest but only a little.
I’d love to pretend I regularly have conversations. In fact real conversations are rare. Few of us are born well-informed or without bombast, certainly not I. But during a true conversation the pleasure can be exquisite. We lose the sense of self. We are open to being informed and without resentment. We hope we are contributing but we understand why this may not happen. Human beings are complex; not pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
Some people, some time are civilised. Discuss.
Some people - sometimes - are civilized. I am going in for ingrown toenail "procedures" tomorrow. If I were a dog, and the Podiatrist a veterinarian, I would be sedated. As it stands, and as is almost always the case, I will have a large needle shoved into my greater toes at least four times to deliver local anesthesia. The shots have a reputation for being very painful. A dog would scream and probably try to bite its tormentor. I will try to decide between discussion, argument and conversation, but I'm convinced any human reputation for being civilized is working against me in this situation.
ReplyDeleteMikeM: Congratulations on persisting with this. I enjoyed writing it but when I re-read it I decided its appeal was, at best, minimalist and, at worst, a piece of prose that an Englishman might write as the ship carrying him (to be precise the SS France, definitely an uber-liner) eastward under the Verrazano Narrows bridge, concluding he'd given the USA his best shot but that some day a figure drawn directly from a Loony Tunes cartoon would become US president and would put at risk the Englishman's most treasured US memories - viz. the Bill Mazeroski - Gene Alley double-play combination, driving NE along the Golden Gate Bridge and not having to pay, discovering the Whisky Sour, and - in a different league altogether - a man talking to the counter guy at the the YMCA whille chewing tobacco and spitting an unspeakable residue into a can that once had contained peanuts.
DeleteI told myself: you went West, young man, to broaden your mind. By God it's so broad it's more or less flat. A great receptor, in fact.
My father-in-law was what I would call very civilised, in conversations and arguments. Never lost his cool, always polite and when the situation called for it, direct access to an excellently stocked drinks cabinet.
ReplyDeleteSabine: Thanks for an unexpected response. Whereas I'm perfectly prepared to put in the boot on the subject of British - I should say English mores - I remain continuously deferential when it comes to the Germans. Of course I may have got things completely confused: you and and R: ( Always a firm, assertive initial for use in a blog - mes félicitations) are of differing origins and it may be necessary to throw some specifically Irish herbs into this steaming ragout. There I would never go. I do however recall your sharp observations about another elder statesman in your wider family; but he was German and you were remarkably censorious. God, I wish we hadn't Brexited ourselves. I genuinely love Umlauts
Delete