2005/08/14

Filters

  It has often been postulated that the world would be a better place to live if people were honest and open with their thoughts and feelings. That social intercourse would be easier if we didn't have these "filters".
  What is considered a filter? A filter is a conscious effort to either enforce or discourage any number of things. A diction filter, for example, would restrict the language one uses. (e.g. filtering out swear words for the elderly, or big-words for children, etc.) There can be conversational filters, i.e. avoid talking about death or marriage to a recently widowed woman, or avoid vulgar jokes and crude humour with the "clean, christian crew". There can be gesticulatory filters, not slouching in public, or tapping one's foot on another's chair. Avoid eating foods with one's fingers, if possible. There can be clothing filters -- avoiding pink clothes, or refusing to wear baggy jeans, rejecting anything that isn't from the GAP. Many, many filters which seem to restrict our speech and manner when speaking with other people. Why can't we just be honest and do away with them?
  Isn't that a filter? Since when does a filter have to exclude things? As people who [hopefully] seek to progress and improve themselves in some way or fashion, tend to focus on one thing at a time. These are filters that are designed to exude some manner or quality of that person. There are therefore grammatical filters, in which students of a second language carefully form their sentences. There are dialectic filters, in which people consciously try to speak a certain way in order to fit in, or not stand out. There can be even diction filters, in which people try to display their pomp and pretension -- middle managers who try to use "professional" language in an effort to impress their colleagues. Students who seek to impress their peers by speaking only in slang. And yes, there can even be filters to use only "big words".
  Most of the time, these people are blissfully unaware of their efforts, and find it "natural" to use those words, or to wear those clothes, or to act in those ways. But here's a concept: manners, clothing and language itself isn't natural. They're all man-made. They are, therefore, all filters. There are those who have been with a filter for so long that they have refined it. E.g., people who are the pinnacle of good manners, or those who possess diction of lethal accuracy and precision. But those of opposite disposition, who suddenly seek to turn around their habits, while commendable, is somewhat laughable that they would claim that such a new habit is "natural".
  There are people who find the rules of etiquette to be formulaic and insincere, when they themselves use the same, formulaic responses. "Hey dawg," "haha... icic," "o i c k," "hey 'sup?" etc, etc. They may not carry the same flavour as "how do you do," or "it was a pleasure to have met you," but really, their usage is exactly the same. It is an autonomic, dry response just as sincere (or insincere) as those who would use the older phrases.
  To take it a step further, I am willing to go as far as to say that it is shere lunacy and idiocy to truely remove all filters from one's being. Speaking consistently in one language is a filter. Dressing clothes from the same era is a filter. Seeing people as humans is a filter. A lot of perspective is used through these filters. In other words, with assumptions. Yes, we shouldn't make certain assumptions, but it is quite impossible to live without any sort of assumption. (That you or I exist is a very nice assumption. That this world is real is another comforting assumption.) So those who think that people shouldn't use filters are like the epistemological skeptics (who were nicely disproved by St Thomas Aquinas).
In short, these people who are against filters in general are like "moral imperialists" who impose their morals of calling it wrong to imposing ones morals upon another.
  And no, I'm not saying that all filters are good and valid, but just that it's somewhat silly to think that we can exist without any filters at all.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just because you weren't born with manners, clothin, and language does not mean it is unnatural to want to have etiquette, have clothes, and have language.

We are not born with a wife. That does not mean it is unnatural for most malesto want a wife.

Oh yea, jes so you know, I invented "o i c k". =) It is not popular language, only I use it =o. In my perception, "Hey dawg" is CONSIDERABLY different from "how do you do"/"how are you?"

Oh yes, I am a moral imperialist. So was Jesus Christ. It is wrong to enforce your personally invented morals onto someone else. It is RIGHT to enforce Jesus-given-morals (and deductions/exrapolations from his morals) onto another christian (with love).

You really think that it's silly to think that we can exist without any filters at all?

=).

1 word. Heaven. There will be absolutely no filters up there.

-gUmmI-

b.p. said...

is the above comment a spam? did YOU get comment spammed? :P

Joseph said...

Gummi: yes, the mood and the tone may be different, but how is the usage different? They're both template responses that (to most people) hold very little sincerity.

BP: I think I just did... D:
That's a first for me...

雪の物語 said...

There is something I've noticed this past month about so-called filter use in different societies (Canadian vs. Ukrainian). You know how North American people are stereotypically considered more reserved than Eastern Europeans (and you can probably add dwellers of Southern Europe, Africa, South America, etc. to the list too ~ please ignore the *racism* of the comment, hehe~)? Well, I've noticed that when you compare the behaviour of Ukrainians and Canadians, it seems that when it comes to expressing emotions (both positive and negative, but especially negative), people in Ukraine are more likely to say what they think without using the "politeness" filters. I used to think this is a good thing, since you really get to know what the other person is thinking (almost like those moral imperialists that you mention). Yet (to add to your point of the benefit of filters), because people say what they think there is so much gossipping, swearing at others and expressing negative emotions in general, that it seems that filters are nice because they protect one from hearing unpleasant things (e.g. from hearing comments about your appearance, or mental abilities, for example, from people whose opinion you might not even value). Also, seems that the more you express negative emotions in public, the more you ruin the moods of other people...

Of course, this is not to say that the whole thing with being politically correct (and not racist - and I love your previous post, by the way) is great. IMHO, political correctness and so-called politeness has gone too far in Toronto, but that's a whole other story.

I wonder if there really is a perfect balance between saying what one thinks (even if you know it will offend someone else) and being of help or use to the person you are saying it to, at the same time. For example, I want to tell someone that she can't spell and she should use a spell-checker more often. Should I be honest with her and tell her that her spelling sucks, or should I use some kind of filtering and carry my point across indirectly? This is probably not a great example, but I hope it helped explain the point.

Oh, and hope you don't mind such a long comment - I really liked your last two posts.

Joseph said...

Heeeey! You're back! Now, where's my Faberge??? XD

雪の物語 said...

Ahahahahahah - raaaaaiiiiiitttt............... I have no idea what you are talking about :P.