Hmm—I don’t think that either honesty or fearlessness requires directness.
a social dance that never satisfies my desire to find what is true
You can learn a lot from the social dance if you know how to read it, including some things it’s very hard to communicate any other way.
My point here is not to refute your perspective, just to observe that your goals (honesty, truth, and so forth) do not necessarily require directness. Human language is an imperfect tool for conveying the contents of human minds. Only ever using it directly limits us to expressing the symbols it has words for. Taking advantage of implication and social convention lets us derive more information from our limited symbol set.
The difference is like counting in unary vs. counting in decimal. Instead of only having the presence or absence of symbols to communicate value, you get the benefit of place values. With a frustratingly subtle change in expression (moving a digit to the left), you get the power to say much more, and more succinctly.
Obviously it’s not as useful when discussing topics that we do have words for, but for difficult-to-nail-down things like emotion and desire, I find it invaluable.
Psychologically accommodating
I like that. I might not call it catchy, but it’s definitely a clear descriptor, and I think it’s accurate.
Oh and I should add, I like your forest
Thanks! I don’t put as much active work into it as perhaps it deserves.
Ah, I think I understand now. Thank you.
Hmm—I don’t think that either honesty or fearlessness requires directness.
You can learn a lot from the social dance if you know how to read it, including some things it’s very hard to communicate any other way.
My point here is not to refute your perspective, just to observe that your goals (honesty, truth, and so forth) do not necessarily require directness. Human language is an imperfect tool for conveying the contents of human minds. Only ever using it directly limits us to expressing the symbols it has words for. Taking advantage of implication and social convention lets us derive more information from our limited symbol set.
The difference is like counting in unary vs. counting in decimal. Instead of only having the presence or absence of symbols to communicate value, you get the benefit of place values. With a frustratingly subtle change in expression (moving a digit to the left), you get the power to say much more, and more succinctly.
Obviously it’s not as useful when discussing topics that we do have words for, but for difficult-to-nail-down things like emotion and desire, I find it invaluable.
I like that. I might not call it catchy, but it’s definitely a clear descriptor, and I think it’s accurate.
Thanks! I don’t put as much active work into it as perhaps it deserves.