In Chinese, this phrase is literally translated to, "he at 50-paces ridicules him at 100-paces". A fair approximation in English is, "the pot calling the kettle black". Why do I bother mentioning this? Well, aside from enriching your Chinese vocab by a picometre, I think it aptly describes a variety of people.
I'm hesitant to call them hypocrites, because it implies that they don't do it at all, which isn't really the case here. Nay, what I'm talking about here are those who are only half-way and yet look down on those who aren't. Case in point are the many students I've had the misfortune of meeting in the course of my education. English, being a rather common language spoken around here, manages to garner a reasonable amount of attention. And as all people discover at one point or another, not everyone speaks quite the same way. Some people use fancier words, some people speak more directly, others are very taciturn, etc, etc.
I don't think there is a "wrong" way to speak (except grammatically), but even then, it's a bit of a lost cause, since conversation is all about compressing information instead of elocution. But there are some, more often of foreign birth (like myself), who wish to rise above their birth and find for themselves a seat in society, instead of just one that is expected of them. These people will wish and want to better and improve their English, to be more natural, more intelligent and loquacious.
And that's not wrong. I myself am one such a person who was dissatisfied with what I was simply given, and decided to better my language through the efforts of reading a very large number of books. I encourage those who would seek to improve themselves and better those parts of themselves which they *can* change [naturally]. (Plastic surgery is something else, and something I don't want to get into.)
BUT, I do have a problem with people who are only halfway there and not only think that they're already all the way there, and who look down on others who aren't even halfway there. In this specific case of English and communication, it would be those who have perhaps expanded their vocabulary, maybe as much as 50%, but who have no concept of literature, or what it means to be literary. They condescend those whom cannot even bother with the few precious necessary seconds to look up the definition of a word when yet they themselves are no literati.
Words are only the beginning, my friend. It is how they are used in conjuction with each other, that they start to matter. Do not use a larger word just because it is sesquipedalian. I personally use a word because it fits and sometimes does the job of many words. It's a bit of an irony, but the more words one knows, the less words one needs to write. Consider:
"She threw her homework out the window"
vs.
"She defenestrated her homework"
Two whole words were saved, out of an original six. But I would still use a small word if it fit just as well. Promulgate may be a "good" word, but the phrase still remains as "spread the Gospel". Nobody says "Promulgate the Gospel".
I'm sure some of you can see a recurring theme here in my thoughts. It basically boils down to fractals, if I may be so bold as to make that analogy. We have an opinion of something or someone, which we may call our relation. And they in turn may have a similar relation with another person. But how many of us consider whether we are in someone else's relation? Visually, it's a self-repeating pattern, like two mirrors which are face-to-face. We are but one small reflection, seeing many smaller reflections, but yet not considering whether we ourselves are a relfection in a larger mirror.
But it's all the same! I know I'm not perfect and that's precisely why I prefer not to confront people about their flaws because I know I have mine too. But, one thing that I cannot abide by is people who look down on people for having flaws or characteristics which they themselves have (even if it's just a smaller degree).
I think Emily Post says it best when she wrote, "when you see a woman in silks and sables and diamonds speak to a little errand girl or a footman or a scullery maid as though they were the dirt under her feet, you may be sure of one thing; she hasn’t come a very long way from the ground herself," in her book Etiquette, published 1922.
In summary, it's good to strive to better oneself, and self-improvement is certainly no vice. But those who would look upon others with contempt shouldn't be so sure that they aren't so contemptuous themselves.
2005/06/09
2005/06/06
Social Relativity (Part II)
As promised, however late, hier ist mein Wortschwall der soziale relativität. Any relationship (used here to describe any rapport between two persons, whether it be familial, friendly, or romantic) is always in three states: the state in which it "is", the state in which party A thinks it is, and the state in which party B thinks it is. And in any relationship, since one's perspective is the only one that one has, it is the only one one cares about.
Therein, tragically, lies the difficulty. A relationship may actually be a tremendous success, but one party might tend to think negatively and see it as only doomed to go downhill. Or both parties could be delusioned with failure, when the relationship could have been a success.
In considering this, imagine how different things would be if one could know "the" truth about one's relationships with others. How many people would be freed from their burdens, and how many more would find happiness? (Although I do realize that knowing something and acting on that knowledge are two different things. Prime example being me; I *know* it's healthy to exercise, but I'm still the skinny, sedentary, senescent sesquipedalianist.)
Although I do have certain very specific relationships in mind (some of which directly include me, others which have me included), I shan't specify them here, for fear of discovery. (I've found that anonymity seems to be a popular practice on the internet.)
But here basically are the facts: with varying personalities, there are also varying abilities. People have different compatibility rates, and people also have varying degrees of observation. One can therefore easily speculate how a relationship could hypothetically contain two persons with a relatively low compatibility rate (given their personalities), where one of the two parties has a particularly low level of observation, therefore being more prone to delusions of emotions, elongating the duration of the relationship, and only further torturing and tormenting the poor soul on the other end. Let this sort of relationship be called the "Blind" relationship (because as humans, we all have an obsession for naming things).
One ought also to easily be able to conceive of a relationship in which the two parties have a reasonably high compatibility rate (for their personalities), but one of the two parties is particularly sensitive and tends to dwell on the negative, thereby concluding the relationship to be in decline. This relationship we shall name the "hypochondrial" relationship.
It is easy for us (or perhaps some of us) to think of relationships in our own lives which fit the description of the blind and the hypochrondrial. But imagine every friendship in which you were the one who tended to initiate contact, propell the conversation forward, advocate get-togethers. What if you were the blind one in a blind relationship?
Think of all the relationships in which you think you easily get along, but too much history has happened and there's simply too much "past" for things to go back to the way they used to be. What if you were the hypochondriac in a hypochondrial relationship?
In the same way that you would wish to instantly break all ties with the blind in blind relationships, would you appreciate it if your "friends" instantly broke all ties with you for being equally blind?
In the same way that you would wish to end all relationships that simply had too much history, would you appreciate it if your friends ended their relationships with you for their hypochondria?
It's easy to answer those questions when we only think about ourselves, but how many of us bother to consider if we've ever been on the receiving end of our own actions?
Of course, there are less destructive relationships which also illustrate this relativity (or imbalance). Between the pair AB, A may consider B to be A's best friend, but B may only see A as a good friend. Reasons are innumerable. A might have fewer friends, or B might have more criteria, &c, etc.
How, then, are we to proceed? In every one of our relationships, the other person is certain to think differently of you than you of him/her. Communication, obviously. But there is one small problem about language. A lawyer put it best when he said, "years in the legal service have only taught me to distrust language".
Then perhaps in actions? After all, actions speak louder than words, right? With our acts of respect and affection, surely we would be able to convey what we wish? Ah, but there is one small problem -- the loophole, as it were, of the Golden Rule. (The Golden Rule being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".) Say, for example, that one respects another by not looking at his watch -- he feels that it implies he is bored and finds more excitement in knowing the time than continue conversing with his partner. Suppose the partner is meticulous about punctuality and is also incidentally eternally busy with meetings. Then they are eternally offending each other while still observing the golden rule because while the one is willing to be a little late for the sake of a good conversation, the latter is always obsessing over time, subtlely insulting the one. The latter is also perpetually insulted at the lack of one's punctuality and untimely partings, which often are the cause of his tardiness at his following meetings. And this isn't even an extreme example (because it would be easily resolved through the imprecision of words). But other times it cannot be remedied, if the faults are integral to the personality. (If, for example, one were considerably more contact-based, and the other not touchy-feely.)
The purpose of this rant is not to say that we're all doomed, or to give some sort of clever solution to this problem (is there a solution to the egocentric predicament? I don't remember..), but rather, to just make aware the possibility that the relationships you are in may not quite be the same condition as you think of them.
So remember kids, if I take a long time to respond to your MSN messages, and come up with half-baked excuses, you can depend upon it that I probably think of you as being in a blind relationship.
Or more seriously, don't be too quick to dismiss people, especially if you're unsure of your own faults. Nobody's perfect, and nobody should be. But do you really want to be the sort of idiot who would break off relationships with people for the same faults that your other friends have been forgiving you for for a long time? Hrmm...
Therein, tragically, lies the difficulty. A relationship may actually be a tremendous success, but one party might tend to think negatively and see it as only doomed to go downhill. Or both parties could be delusioned with failure, when the relationship could have been a success.
In considering this, imagine how different things would be if one could know "the" truth about one's relationships with others. How many people would be freed from their burdens, and how many more would find happiness? (Although I do realize that knowing something and acting on that knowledge are two different things. Prime example being me; I *know* it's healthy to exercise, but I'm still the skinny, sedentary, senescent sesquipedalianist.)
Although I do have certain very specific relationships in mind (some of which directly include me, others which have me included), I shan't specify them here, for fear of discovery. (I've found that anonymity seems to be a popular practice on the internet.)
But here basically are the facts: with varying personalities, there are also varying abilities. People have different compatibility rates, and people also have varying degrees of observation. One can therefore easily speculate how a relationship could hypothetically contain two persons with a relatively low compatibility rate (given their personalities), where one of the two parties has a particularly low level of observation, therefore being more prone to delusions of emotions, elongating the duration of the relationship, and only further torturing and tormenting the poor soul on the other end. Let this sort of relationship be called the "Blind" relationship (because as humans, we all have an obsession for naming things).
One ought also to easily be able to conceive of a relationship in which the two parties have a reasonably high compatibility rate (for their personalities), but one of the two parties is particularly sensitive and tends to dwell on the negative, thereby concluding the relationship to be in decline. This relationship we shall name the "hypochondrial" relationship.
It is easy for us (or perhaps some of us) to think of relationships in our own lives which fit the description of the blind and the hypochrondrial. But imagine every friendship in which you were the one who tended to initiate contact, propell the conversation forward, advocate get-togethers. What if you were the blind one in a blind relationship?
Think of all the relationships in which you think you easily get along, but too much history has happened and there's simply too much "past" for things to go back to the way they used to be. What if you were the hypochondriac in a hypochondrial relationship?
In the same way that you would wish to instantly break all ties with the blind in blind relationships, would you appreciate it if your "friends" instantly broke all ties with you for being equally blind?
In the same way that you would wish to end all relationships that simply had too much history, would you appreciate it if your friends ended their relationships with you for their hypochondria?
It's easy to answer those questions when we only think about ourselves, but how many of us bother to consider if we've ever been on the receiving end of our own actions?
Of course, there are less destructive relationships which also illustrate this relativity (or imbalance). Between the pair AB, A may consider B to be A's best friend, but B may only see A as a good friend. Reasons are innumerable. A might have fewer friends, or B might have more criteria, &c, etc.
How, then, are we to proceed? In every one of our relationships, the other person is certain to think differently of you than you of him/her. Communication, obviously. But there is one small problem about language. A lawyer put it best when he said, "years in the legal service have only taught me to distrust language".
Then perhaps in actions? After all, actions speak louder than words, right? With our acts of respect and affection, surely we would be able to convey what we wish? Ah, but there is one small problem -- the loophole, as it were, of the Golden Rule. (The Golden Rule being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".) Say, for example, that one respects another by not looking at his watch -- he feels that it implies he is bored and finds more excitement in knowing the time than continue conversing with his partner. Suppose the partner is meticulous about punctuality and is also incidentally eternally busy with meetings. Then they are eternally offending each other while still observing the golden rule because while the one is willing to be a little late for the sake of a good conversation, the latter is always obsessing over time, subtlely insulting the one. The latter is also perpetually insulted at the lack of one's punctuality and untimely partings, which often are the cause of his tardiness at his following meetings. And this isn't even an extreme example (because it would be easily resolved through the imprecision of words). But other times it cannot be remedied, if the faults are integral to the personality. (If, for example, one were considerably more contact-based, and the other not touchy-feely.)
The purpose of this rant is not to say that we're all doomed, or to give some sort of clever solution to this problem (is there a solution to the egocentric predicament? I don't remember..), but rather, to just make aware the possibility that the relationships you are in may not quite be the same condition as you think of them.
So remember kids, if I take a long time to respond to your MSN messages, and come up with half-baked excuses, you can depend upon it that I probably think of you as being in a blind relationship.
Or more seriously, don't be too quick to dismiss people, especially if you're unsure of your own faults. Nobody's perfect, and nobody should be. But do you really want to be the sort of idiot who would break off relationships with people for the same faults that your other friends have been forgiving you for for a long time? Hrmm...
Nomenclature
In the words of our irrepressible pride of the English language, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
That just serves as an intro; I'm not going to get into the linguistic side of things. But there certainly is something to think about in our own lives; how closely do we identify with our own names, and/or how actively do we seek to change them? That distinction is sometimes made between one's birth-name, and nicknames, nuances that denote varying levels of familiarity.
And before we continue, I just have to add this because it's been bothering me of late: when introducing two people, no matter which order you do it in, always say the person's birth-name first, then followed by any prefered nicknames. Someone, and I won't say whom, made the grevious error of reversing the order, thereby thoroughly confusing me and consequently, retarded my eagerness to better acquaint myself with him.
Anyways, back to names. I, for example, am very sensitive to names. I may not know the meaning of most names, but I do err on the side of propreity than presumption. "Joseph" is the most commonly accepted form to address me, while "Joey" requires a few more stipulations. "JT" is also acceptable, but only to appease incorrigible parties to whom presumed familiarity is a way of life. Imagine the fun I would have if I actually had a title... (e.g. Doktor, Sir, Marquis, Duke, etc.)
How is it with you? Or rather, how aware are you with your own name(s)? Or more importantly, how careful are you when you use another's name? Whether subconscious or not of the speaker, would you as the listener find it more intimate and personal if addressed with your name in addition to a salutation? How much more personal is "good night, Joseph" than "g'night~"?
I realize that such precise etiquette is quite antiquated, but is its current disuse a sign of evanescence, or rather, that it is becoming progressively internalized and subconscious? Would that we had patronymics as in Russian!
That just serves as an intro; I'm not going to get into the linguistic side of things. But there certainly is something to think about in our own lives; how closely do we identify with our own names, and/or how actively do we seek to change them? That distinction is sometimes made between one's birth-name, and nicknames, nuances that denote varying levels of familiarity.
And before we continue, I just have to add this because it's been bothering me of late: when introducing two people, no matter which order you do it in, always say the person's birth-name first, then followed by any prefered nicknames. Someone, and I won't say whom, made the grevious error of reversing the order, thereby thoroughly confusing me and consequently, retarded my eagerness to better acquaint myself with him.
Anyways, back to names. I, for example, am very sensitive to names. I may not know the meaning of most names, but I do err on the side of propreity than presumption. "Joseph" is the most commonly accepted form to address me, while "Joey" requires a few more stipulations. "JT" is also acceptable, but only to appease incorrigible parties to whom presumed familiarity is a way of life. Imagine the fun I would have if I actually had a title... (e.g. Doktor, Sir, Marquis, Duke, etc.)
How is it with you? Or rather, how aware are you with your own name(s)? Or more importantly, how careful are you when you use another's name? Whether subconscious or not of the speaker, would you as the listener find it more intimate and personal if addressed with your name in addition to a salutation? How much more personal is "good night, Joseph" than "g'night~"?
I realize that such precise etiquette is quite antiquated, but is its current disuse a sign of evanescence, or rather, that it is becoming progressively internalized and subconscious? Would that we had patronymics as in Russian!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)