We Don't Get It - Meeting

Since there was a holiday weekend in the way, we did not meet the week before, so the past writing was only mine.  It was my topic, so I had some kind of responsibility.

Our Doctor presented himself as impressed with the topic, mostly because it is something he never in his life thought he would discuss in an even slightly philosophical way.  He acknowledged that philosophy is reshaping itself for a new world, allowing these kinds of topics to be considered.  "Understanding" is something that has been discussed before in philosophy, but this colloquial, even vulgar idea of "getting it" was not to be found in his search.  He then delved into medicine, which he is naturally wont to do, explaining how the brain and the skin come from a common source.  The brain is, in fact, a type of specialized skin.  Our understanding of things should therefore be connected with our senses (particularly touch, I imagine).  He reminisced about reading the first play with scraps still to be read, Prometheus Unbound, calling it terrible.  "It is not theater," he criticized.  That style of performance might be gotten in ancient times, but now it is not part of our experience.  He went off a bit on a tangent, lamenting the time humanity has spent destroying things when we could have been constructing.  The Doctor then turned to the dictionary, reading off just a few of the possible uses of "get", reminding us of the great possibility for confusion in unclear language.  We think we know more than we do know, and we often say we get it when we do not.  However, we also do the opposite, insisting we do not get it when we get it perfectly.  We just prefer not to give the other person the satisfaction of being understood.  What about "it" then?  "It" is nothing.  Even the nonexistence of "it" is "it".  The referent for that pronoun is entirely dependent on the context of speaking.  After allowing some other contributions, the Doctor took another turn, saying right off the bat that he was against words.  Words have constantly been used against him.  They are tricky, not to be believed.  Yet, people believe lies after hearing them three or hour times.  Nobody knows what the intention of a word is when it is alone, the words around it affect it, not to mention the intonation with which it is spoken.  He then brought up art as a transmitter of messages, saying words need a translator but art is personal.  An image can provoke a sensation, and human beings are made of sensations and intuitions.  Finally, he spoke of getting oneself.  The idea is, if we do not get ourselves, who can?  However, in his opinion, if one says "I understand myself," s/he is "a liar, a thief, a bad actor and a very bad person."  Are we prepared to understand ourselves?: NO.  Other things?:  eh, sometimes.  He finished by telling us that life is not about understanding, but feeling and sensation.

The True Philosopher wrote but a short essay for us this time around, focusing on getting connections as a means to understand the world.  In the meeting he commented on the plural subject pronoun, saying if I don't get it, it is not a big deal, but if we, that is, the whole group don't get it, there must be a more serious problem afoot.  He was also clear about the need for context to produce meaning.  Individual words or phrases might as well be blots of ink on the paper or random noises on the wind; until we have a context to fit them into, they transmit nothing.

The Seeker of Happiness insisted on the need for community to promote the need to communicate.  Not everyone has the same perspective, however.  We do not always know or use the precise words to transmit, say, an image from our own heads to the hand of another.  Following the Leader's example, he also mentioned the difficulties of using a language not one's own, since structures vary and cultural expectations exert a noticeable influence on how words are used.  He compared Spanish and English as an example, saying English simply names things, while Spanish has a tendency to describe in a more roundabout way, not to mention speakers' habitual repetition of words and phrases.  He theorized that the softer Iberian climate made Spanish speakers more likely to tolerate standing around and shooting the shit, without a deep motivation to get to the point.  English weather, on the other hand, encourages people to get their business done, and the dash off to the pub (I suppose).  At the end, he asked if it was possible to think without words.  It seems all humans with language have a need to use words, even in their own minds.  The sensorally deprived use words in the way they can, for instance, deaf people imagine signs or the printed words.

The Leader pondered ideas in translation both in writing and in the meeting.  He also reminded us of the utter lack of universality in languages, not just in the global ones, but even small languages have a tendency to form dialects in different geographical areas.  He also emphasized context as necessary for meaning, saying "I don't find Jim," could be just as meaningful as "I don't get it," for the same idea.  He warned us later that society functions on superficial meanings, not on deep meanings, as we are not trained to suss out deep meanings normally.  The amount of inheritance versus experience and training in a person's use of language is not completely measured.  The Leader also pointed out that "getting it" is not limited to understanding, but also refers to being convinced or appreciating an idea, suggestion or work of art.

Connecting with the idea of art conveying messages, the Writer told us how David Lynch films spoke to her, even with hardly any dialog.  She felt she "got" these films, and so did many people, only through the images that were offered to the audience.  This is the same with other visual arts.  Not everyone "gets" specific styles of painting.  The emotions simply are not stimulated by the picture.  She also told us about her experience talking to a discussion group and using what she thought was a common metaphor, but realizing that nobody else in the group could understand it.  Each generation has its own culture, she said, and by extension its own language.  She disagreed with the Doctor, and his conclusion that we are not capable of understanding ourselves; in her view, we must understand ourselves before understanding others.  "Getting it" begins at home, so to speak.

What nobody else mentioned was the situation where "I/We don't get it," is perhaps most commonly uttered: when somebody tells a joke.  All of the possible interpretations fall under this circumstance:  I do not understand the joke; I do not appreciate the joke; I do not agree with what the joke implies.  There is also the exclusion component, since humor is related to the culture or group one belongs to.  We do not get other groups' jokes in the same way or with the same facility we get our own.  Maybe the key to tolerance is poking fun at everybody, and learning to live with how everyone else laughs at us.