Aardvarks with Udders
As I have mentioned in past posts, language can be rather limited in its ability to convey concise concepts or even with regard to the identification of basic objects. Our inherently subjective nature skews our perspective. There are times when we believe we have a definitive handle on the truth, while the reality is far different from what we might be perceiving.
In an attempt to illustrate this to an acquaintance whose views of life were quite different from my own, I wrote a brief story (included below) with the goal of illustrating our separate methods of seeing the world. I tried to point out how we were both observing our environment in ways that were different from reality.
Unfortunately my tale only exacerbated the tension between us as this acquaintance insisted that his version of what we were discussing was correct while mine, in his view, was way off base. Regardless of an admission that my own version of the subject may be just as personally biased as his, there was no compromise, no comprehension that perhaps his sense of the world could use an adjustment.
We can see examples of this range of opinion on a daily basis. In any specific situation, it might seem ridiculous to me that what I’m experiencing isn’t as equally clear to someone else. Yet that person can express a completely opposite perspective even though we are looking at the very same object, assessing the same behavior, or listening to the exact same speech. It all seems rather crazy.
The Story
Once upon a time in a land not so far away, two hale gentlemen went for a walk in the country. One hardy fellow went by the name of Cedrick whilst the other bore the odd moniker of Tobin. Both were jaunty and in fine spirits on that glorious day in mid-August as they set out on nothing other than a lark.
They strolled along a rutted road and as they did, they spoke of the world and its wonders, laughing now and then and congratulating each other on their fine senses of humor.
Then Tobin spotted a herd of what he believed were cows with brown and white spots upon their hides.
“Look”, said Tobin to his friend Cedrick, “why, tis a fine herd of brown and white cows.”
“Tis not” said Cedrick as he stared in the same direction as Tobin. “These creatures are clearly a bevy of aardvarks.”
“AARDVARKS?” questioned his friend. “Are you daft? These be not aardvarks, but cows. Tis as clear as day. They have spots and udders. Aardvarks with udders? Tis lunacy”
“Only an idiot would believe these be anything but Aardvarks,” replied Cedrick. “Be thee blind or a fool?”
“Neither!” said Tobin, “Let us just be on our way and drop this nonsense.”
“Fine” responded his friend.
And so they continued their journey down the road until they came upon another field.
“Now there’s a fine sight. A glorious field of sheep,” stated Cedrick pointing across a fence by the side of the road.
“Not again,” sighed Tobin, “This flock of pink flamingos has no semblance to sheep. There be no wool, no four legs, no bleating. Thou must never have seen sheep, for these be birds.”
“MADNESS!” cried Cedrick, “These be sheep, future mutton if I have even seen a living creature.”
And thus they began to hurl insults at each other, eventually coming to blows and bludgeoning one another into a pulp of flesh and bone.
Whilst ‘cross the fence the Zebras moved on into the forest behind the field neither aware of nor caring about the two humans who lay bleeding and breathing their last breaths in a ditch by the road.
If there a moral be, tis that Sheep are not Flamingos and Flamingos not Sheep, though neither be Zebras and those who speak the language of one hath not the desire to hearest the other. And so be it for all time.
I rest my case!!!
Quite a nice folk tale! Your story telling skills are well honed…
So much turns on language. Language is the pivot-point for everything!
I mean whether the symbols which we use, which arise from our way-of-life, intersect sufficiently (like venn diagrams), with the linguistic system used by our interlocutor… Meanings held in common may not be sufficient to permit communication to occur. In such cases good-will, effort must be expended by both if agreement in any degree is to be achieved. Sans good will, – then “Katy bar the door”.
Analogous to a bird flying overhead in the air, homo sapiens live in and by language. Like a fish in water. The individual psyche/personality is constructed by language. At the same time, language is the first of our tools, which we use to visualize, and then to construct a “world” that corresponds to our “notion” of what is real.
We are symbolized and symbolizing mammals.
Let’s have a good laugh at ourselves. Aardvarks with udders…
As you and I have spoken many times, language is critical to our society and to being able to remain a civilized community. I sometimes think of driving as a language. There are rules and decorum that allow for all of us to navigate the roadways. Without an ability of speak the language of the streets, we would be constantly crashing into one another. There are enough rules that are broken already, usually with disastrous effects. But for the most part we can travel from point A to point B without incident because we are speaking the same language and interpreting that language in a similar fashion. So there is hope that we can translate that to other realms of communication and perhaps learn how to truly speak succinctly with one another.
Is the difference between your cows and aardvarks one of definition or of nuance? It may not be possible to tell unless fried up and tasted. One suspects the special aardvark sauce makes all the difference here.
Until recently I was unaware that Germany’s Adolph Hitler was considered a “Populist.” By this definition, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would be likewise lumped together. Although Donald is highly popular among my old Wisconsin classmates; and I’ve often suspected Adolph would be also, the language becomes stretched beyond usability. To Jerry’s point, is the assumption of good-will sufficient to resolve the differences?
Michael – Good to hear your voice (even if it’s through a written word). When I revisited this story a couple of weeks ago, I kept thinking about how citizens of this country view our Dear Leader. Some see him as a gift from some kind of sardonic god (though they probably don’t think of it that way) while others of a more thoughtful mind view him as the spawn of satan. He’s the same person yet we see two completely different animals. The human brain is so completely subjective and fucked up, at least at times.
Michael, one actually must exercise “good” will, no matter how mixed or difficult. Such openness is difficult at best, and ought never to be assumed. Only demonstrated.