 |
Main Menu |
|
|
 Home Community Members options Search Web
|
|
|
|
|
Survey |
|
|
How many children are on the spectrum in your family?
|
|
|
|
|
News
|
Brian Henson : A Puzzle Within a Puzzle
|
|
|
Posted by sylvia on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 (17:53:52)
Many times, today, we see the piece of the jigsaw puzzle with the image of the child, denoting the mystery of those on the autistic spectrum. This mystery is there, indeed, but the person, per se, is not the puzzle; it is just that "aura" (if I could use a term) that follows the person wherever... but the person is not able to hide from this "aura", but finds this "aura" often very difficult but intriguing, at the same time.
Within this puzzle, as if you took the large jigsaw piece, and broke it down into a separate puzzle in itself, is the mystery of why anyone finds something "objectionable". Where is the basis, I ask, for this? If I don't like a sport, such as soccer, why would anyone, anywhere, find my dislike for this sport objectionable? If I prefer to eat with my hands, as opposed to cutlery, again I find it hard to accept those who just claim that it is "common sense" to use cutlery (when, often, those same people will pick up certain foods, such as bananas with their hands). These are just two examples of this overwhelming issue of what others find "out of sorts" with statements, actions, or public appearance that they object to.
Twice, on Internet email groups, a few years ago and recently, I read a "rule" that the moderator of the group, at that time, had just put forward.
In the events that unfolded a few years ago, I found that someone had just gone against the "rules" of the group, and I sent a private email to the moderator, to explain the problem. The moderator became infuriated with my message, posted it to the other members of the group, and claimed that I was trying to take control of the group away from her. She immediately banned me from that group.
In the most recent example of this type of "objectionable" reaction, a group moderator was discussing polls and asked the members if they had any suggestions for a poll for the group. If so, he continued, they should forward the suggested topic for a poll to him by private email. Just after that, another member posted an open message suggesting a topic for a poll. I wrote back to the group, with a quote from the moderator about his request that any suggestion for a poll be sent to him by private email. The next day, the moderator came back and accused me of "flaming" him, by the "tone" of my message, stating that this tone was "satirical" and claiming that I was accusing him of "bad" administration in the handling of this group. I was in shock for quite some time as to how anyone could take an expression of respect for a "rule" and turn it into an accusation of assault and harassment.
What makes people try, in any way, to "read between the lines"? Is it education, itself, that teaches children and adolescents that they should, under no circumstances, take a passage "literally"? Is it the religious leaders, in referring to an article of faith, that tell their followers to "interpret" the wording of the article in a certain way? Is it the need for humour, itself, that tempts people to twist the meaning of words to create illusions, and therefore, laughs? Whatever the source or sources of this practice, it does create many problems for persons on the autistic spectrum who, like myself, see things more (but not always) in a literal setting--word for word, as it is written.
I hasten to add that we do not always see things "literally", as in the personal experience that I had with an English teacher who had the class study a poem of William Wordsworth. In that poem, one line read: "O, listen, for the vale profound is overflowing with the sound.."
The teacher asked us to give a written explanation of what the words "vale" and "profound" meant in the poem. Personally, I felt that Wordsworth was referring to the "voice" of the person he was listening to, and to the depth of that voice.
However, upon receiving the results of the assignment from the teacher, I read that I should have known that "vale" meant "valley" and that "profound" meant "deep". The teacher left a note for me to look up these words in a dictionary. That, as I saw it, was taking Wordsworth's writing very literally, whereas, I was taking his writing more metaphorically.
It's not just the statements that seem to be taken "out of context", by people reading between the lines, but also words, themselves.
One time, at a brunch with a few other persons on the autistic spectrum, the discussion seemed to be about certain soap operas, and how a brother and sister were relating to each other.
I wanted to get in to the conversation, so I said, "I wish that they would be more open with the issues surrounding incest."
At that moment, one of the autistics present, a graduate student at a local university, slumped over with her head just about hitting her plate.
The hostess, who knew her background, asked me why I had brought up the subject of child abuse, but I quickly denied having brought up that subject, at all. The hostess went on to say that this autistic student had been sexually abused by her father from early years, and the sheer mention of the word "incest" had triggered her horrid memories of those years.
The student got up from her chair and went to another room to lie down. After about an hour she came back, and was full of vengeance, telling me that I had to "think before you utter a sound, ever again!"
I was just as adamant, myself, at that time, in my defense, as I had no idea, whatsoever, that one word, out of tens of thousands of words, could trigger such a shocking reaction from someone else.
These experiences have left a lasting impression on me. That impression is one of fear.
I fear even expressing myself in front of others lest they take one word that I have spoken and take is as a "terrorist attack" against their frail egosystem.
I fear expressing myself to those in any form of authority who might construe my support of their authority as a veiled threat against their control of any circumstance or situation.
I fear expressing anything literally, lest others take it as being too blunt and not refined enough for the occasion.
I fear expressing myself with any analogy or metaphor, lest others take those statements (coming from a autistic spectrum person) as literal statements.
These fears are what keep my desire for social contact to a minimum. The human need for social contact is still there, but, out of these fears, it must be reduced as much as possible. In other words, the risk (of having others find anything that I express as objectionable) outweighs any benefits that might be gained by social contact.
The ratio is not absolute (in the sense of one hundred percent risk to zero percent social benefit), but more relative (in the sense of about seventy percent risk to thirty percent social benefit).
However, as long as the risk is greater than the benefit, when a chance to get involved socially, with others, presents itself, I am extremely leery and cannot "push" myself to "take the plunge", lest the risks rear themselves, as they have done in the foregoing examples.
That, in the essence of social isolation, is one of the "boulders" to social integration for persons on the autistic spectrum.
It is easy for anyone else to dismiss these fears by such statements as "water off a duck's back". These fears are so deep, sometimes, that they could be called phobias, but that is not the same as a social phobia, as it is not the fear of people, but the fear of their reactions, in finding a person's behaviour, words, or statements as objectionable. If people who felt this way could only see their reactions as they are--coming from themselves, the reverse would not be true, but there would be more balance in human interactions. To expect this of others, though, is, I will admit, asking too much, as they have just as much of a foundation in the basis for their reaction as an autistic person has in his foundation for fearing such a reaction.
This is not to say that it is simply a matter of autistics versus neuro-typical persons, at all, as autistics fear just as much of a reaction from other persons on the spectrum, as well (as shown in the one example above, about the university student). It's never a matter of "we" versus "them", but a fear of expressing oneself in the face of possible adversity.
Note: Brian Henson is our online columnist, if you have any comments or questions please add them below or use our feedback form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read More... | 1 comment |   |
|
|
|
|
Brian Henson : ''Better Than Thou...''
|
|
|
Posted by sylvia on Friday, August 05, 2005 (11:04:54)
It seems, when looking in back over the years, as though many professionals and administration
personnel that I have come in contact with, were fully determined to practice their own form of
heirarchy at any cost--to prove that their way of seeing things is always a "better", "more
efficient", "happier", ...way of looking at any situation than anyone else's.
Many times, when I try to tell a hurtful situation to someone in the medical or social service
"industry", I get the remark: "Why do you let something like that bother you?" I cannot get
through to these "pros" that it is not a matter of "letting it" bother me; it is a very painful
area of life, just like someone with rheumatoid arthritis (to someone who has never experienced
it). They agree that rheumatoid arthritis is painful--anything "physical" like that can,
according to them, be painful, but anything outside of the physical realm, ....well, as they see
it, it's just a matter of not "letting it" cause one any problems.
Even if I give the example of
the pain of loss in a family where a member has been killed by a hit-and-run driver, they are
willing to accept such pain, but say that it (the pain) is "real", as the family did, indeed
suffer a "real" loss, but what I am going through in the painful situation that I described to
them is "just in your head", and that I should "snap out of it, and get on with your life!"....
To me, that points to a complete lack of empathy on the part of those who feel this sense of
"moral superiority". We autistics and aspies are always accused of lacking empathy towards
others, when we are only searching for empathy from others, and, not being able to find it
(or very rarely finding it), we are driven to withdraw from many contacts in life, as all we
get is tons of advice on how to "spruce up" our act, and "think positive", when we are not
looking for such advice whatsoever, but for an empathetic ear from someone who will share
our feelings about life, even for the moment.
This is not to say that all aspies are in a "sad state" of affairs; far from it. Often, for
example, when I want to explain that I have been able to experience sheer joy at just following
the outline of a tree against the sky (while others around me are, for example, playing golf,
swimming, or enjoying a carnival atmosphere at some park), I am told that it is "very
inappropriate" to ignore what others around me are doing, and that it is incumbent on me to get
rid of my "silly obscession" with trees, and start to engage in what others are doing.
This only adds more woes to my life, as the sheer joy of following the silhouette of the tree
against the sky is seen as a "disability" by these folks, when I am trying to find others who
are willing to share in this joy, as I wind my way along the path of life.
These pros are very quick at using the attitude of "yes, ...but" in their conversations, such
as: "Yes, you do find beauty in that image, but you are depriving yourself of contact with
others by perpetuating such ideas as though the world should stop what it is doing, and come
over to you, just so that you do not feel isolated!"
I tell them that I was not expecting "the world" to come over to me, at all, but just to find
one other person in the crowd who also could find affirmation in that image that the rest of the
crowd seem to be totally oblivious to, or just plain ignoring. Again these pros say that I am
expecting too much in others as they are going to do what they are used to doing, and no one
could be expected to change his or her life, even for the moment, just to "serve" me and my
obscession with this "thing" that is nothing but a diversion away from others, an "escape" from
the "reality" of personal contact with others.
When I ask why others cannot make personal contact with me, again they say that the onus is no
"me" to change my ways, and that it is just "foolhardy" to expect others to change their ways
just to "accomodate you and your clever ways at avoiding full integration in the social scenes
around you!"
This seems to go on, and on, until I can no longer get the "guts" in me to remain in contact
with that person, be it a professional (medical doctor, social worker, psychologist,
councellor), or an associate or even a "friend", and then the bridge that I thought would bring
a way of bonding to others is abandonned, as I cannot take the constant "heat" of being reminded
constantly that it is I who must change, and that the other person has no "need" to change, at
all, even if the other person has severe problems in other areas of life.
For example, one lost
friend who was told all about AS, and outlined that friend's problem with panic attacks, said,
one day, that there had to be a way of finding a "cure" for AS, when that same person had no
interest, at all, in finding a way of getting help for their panic attacks.....
No wonder others have problems in understanding why persons (such as myself) on the autistic
spectrum have difficulty in making or keeping "friends"--many (but not all) of these contacts are
far, far too conditional in their approach, even if they claim to offer "unconditional love". They
sure do not know how to practice what they preach!
Note: Brian Henson is our online columnist, if you have any comments or questions please add them below or use our feedback form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comments? | |
|
|
|
|
Brian Henson : The Cave Dwellers
|
|
|
Posted by sylvia on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 (11:44:17)
Each one of us is in a cave--a cave of fear of social rebuke, that is.
Yes, each person on the autistic spectrum lives in a cave, metaphorically speaking.
Our caves are the only means of personal security that each one of us has.
If we try, as we do, to venture forth from our personalized caves, we risk more than the loss of security.
We risk never having a place to call "home", because that is what the cave is for each of us--a home.
From this cave, we can signal, as primitive humans did, in various ways, to others beyond the cave.
Some caves might be strikingly similar, whereas others are strikingly different.
Some caves are so tight, as far as an entrance, that once a person has entered the cave,
there is virtually no way to exit the cave. The person is bound by his or her cave for a lifetime.
Others have very large and easily accessible entrances, and these people seem to be able to leave
the cave at will, only to return as soon as there is any threat on their security.
Some caves are so full of echoes that when a person on the spectrum tries to say anything, all he
or she hears is constant echoes which will never stop, and hence the person is in constant fear of
uttering anything, less it become a permanent echo in the cave.
Other caves are far more open with less chance of reverberations, but still some feedback nonetheless.
Each person's cave is a repertoire of his/her visual works, as was the case of the early cave dwellers,
millenniums ago. The works are still there, but only the cave dweller can appreciate those works, as
others who live beyond the cave treat the cave as a danger, and many refuse to enter, even if invited.
The caves are scattered over the landscape, with caves in most of the hillsides and areas of rough topography.
Each cave, though, is quite unique, and there are no caves identical to others, when it comes to layout, details,
or repertoire of impressions. Some caves are easy to access, but others are very difficult, if not impossible
to gain access to from the severe rock formations and potential for earthquakes in the regions.
Each autistic spectrum person speaks from inside his/her cave, and express himself in graphical means in
cave, as well. What one autistic person says from inside one cave is the message from that one cave.
Unlike the general public, which does not live in caves, metaphorically speaking, the spectrum person's
life is built in the cave, with moderate to very little contact with the world outside the cave.
The few who are able to contact the external world from their individual caves are treated in various ways,
either as people worth exploring (as a study case), or people who are "disabled" in that they are not
able to exit their caves for very long without having to rush back for personal security--based mostly on
physical sensitivity issues that exist beyond the cave. In the cave, the echoes, if any, can be controlled,
mostly by silence to constant "humming" or other repeated tone, but, beyond the cave, it's an uncontrollable
world out there, with no means of exercising a control on the volume. Also, the light is far more controllable
in the cave, as one can get away from the glare of the sun a lot faster than in an open field.
However, once a person has been able to contact the world beyond his or her cave, a problem of identity
becomes apparent.
Is this person an example of the way that people who live in these caves think and feel
about life in general? Can this person's outlook and descriptive forebodings be an indicator of how the others
(especially those who dare not venture beyond their caves) see life and all its diversities?
So far, the anthropologists and other social scientists studying these cave dwellers have been trying to get
a general outline of how these individuals live in these caves and according to the theories so far, the cave
people are lacking in a special chromosome that permits others to absorb the physical sensations (sound,
light, taste, smell, and touch) in all their intensity, and lacking this, these people are horrified at what, to
others, is just an everyday event that is just taken for granted.
These cave dwellers, once developed in their individual ultra-sensitivity, will notice sounds, sights, and other
details that most people could not hope to grasp. They become perseverated on the sound or light lest it
be lost, as others around them seem indifferent to what they hear or see, and when the volume is increased,
and they find that they have no control over the volume, they have but one choice--to escape to the cave.
The more they feel threatened for being in their caves, the more they dig deeper, especially in early years, and
any attempt to show them life beyond the cave is met with fierce resistance.
However, a few that did escape to their personalized caves managed to become experts at areas of life that
can only be seen or heard within the caves. The caves offered silence from the usual chit-chat of everyday
living in society, and permitted the cave dweller to become a genius or expert in music, art, physics, poetry,
or mathematics, to name a few fields that these cave dwellers have touched upon and made daring discoveries
not found in everyday society.
The problem for those outside the caves is to differentiate, when applicable, between those who do need help
in their living arrangements within the cave, and those who are not in need of help, and are capable of living
independently. Some cave dwellers might have times for both--help and independent living, and to know when
help is needed is very difficult, at present, to determine.
Some cave dwellers are sending out messages that say, in effect: "Leave me alone", whereas others are saying
"I speak only to other cave dwellers, as they, alone, will understand me!". Still others will send out no message
at all, and it is these cave dwellers, in all their silence, who present the problem of whether or not to give any
form of assistance, whether needed or not. If a person does not say if he or she is hungry, how does one know
whether to give food or not? Sometimes, the messages are very sublime, and only those who have studied the
cave dweller for a long time can decipher the messages that he or she is sending...
There is no presumption of what each cave dweller is trying to say, or how he or she feels about any situation, or
about life in general. Each cave dweller is unique, and what one cave dweller has to say is no indication (however
supported) of how other cave dwellers feel about any issue. That person speaks for himself or herself only, and
even if a lot of other cave dwellers who can express themselves show support, that does not mean that most of
the other cave dwellers support that person's perspective.
Many cave dwellers are so deep in their caves that
there is no way of knowing how they feel about a particular perspective, and their deep methods of communication
shed little light on their support or lack of support for any opinion or perspective.
As each cave dweller can only see life from his/her cave, and the caves can be so extreme in diversity, it is next to
impossible to describe, in a general way, the life of a cave dweller. As more come forward, and more are
discovered, each outline of life inside the cave becomes more unique, and each perspective a lot more different
than the perspective given by any other cave dweller.
Whereas, one cave dweller might have needed more water in his her cave, which was high above the ground,
the next cave dweller, whose cave was constantly inundated with water, was forever searching for a way to
get away from water. The same could be said of shadows, precipices, cliffs, and skylights in the caves, as well
as the presents of other predators or pests in the caves.
Each cave presents its own problems and potential to
cave dweller, and what is needed by one cave dweller is often the very item that the other cave dweller wants
help in trying to eradicate.
So far, these cave dwellers have no geographical or time boundary; they have existed for centuries in all continents
and defied any attempt to classify them by race or genealogical pattern. They might live close together, when
cave topography permits, or one might live beyond the horizon of any other cave. The pattern of living of these
cave dwellers is so diversified that it goes, to use an analogy, beyond the visible spectrum (as to the frequencies
present in the visible spectrum of light), and we are still tapping into the invisible spectrum as we try to unearth
how these cave dwellers have continued to permeate this planet since the dawn of time.
As each cave dweller
lives alone, the only way others have, for centuries, looked upon them, as being utterly selfish in their attitude,
and that is why, today, they have been given the label of "autism", as the root of this English term literally refers
to "selfishness". It is a cruel and degrading term, to say the least.... No wonder many of these cave dwellers
have problems with self-esteem!
Note: Brian Henson is our online columnist, if you have any comments or questions please add them below or use our feedback form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read More... | 6 comments | |
|
|
|
|
Brian Henson : Is Empathy a Rule in Behaviour?
|
|
|
Posted by sylvia on Friday, May 28, 2004 (09:38:59)
When it comes to behaviour, what are the rules?
That, in essence, is what I have been plagued with, for over half a century.
Often, I have been told (mostly in a nasty voice): "Behave yourself!"
I was lost, yes, completely lost, as to what this meant, in any way.
I was raised in a Christian protestant family, and, like my siblings (who
are not on the autistic spectrum as I see them), I attended church school
every Sunday morning when possible. I was taught the basic tenets of the
Christian faith, which included the Ten Commandments, The Beatitudes,
and the Golden Rule, along with many of the parables.
With all of this, however, I was still lost when told to "behave" myself.
I did not ever recall any mention in the scriptures of a person being
chastised for flapping his hands, not making eye contact, or not showing
empathy to someone who had won a sporting event. As these situations
arose in my daily living, I was lost as to what the response should be
from a purely spiritual plane, even if some folks knew the sciptures better
than the back of their hands.
Is it a rule of behaviour that you must support your own country, just because
you were born in that country? Is patriotism, in other words, mandatory in all
areas of this planet?
Is it a rule of behaviour that you must support your state, province, territory,
region, or county against others who might show that they are, in any way,
"better", than the area you are living in?
Is it a rule of behaviour that, while attending any educational institution, that
you must support the institution's own teams and entries into any competition,
whether in the sports, olympics, arts, entertainment, or whatever might come
up to compete with your institution?
Is it a rule of behaviour that you must look back upon the wonderful deeds that
a person has done when that person dies, and hide any or all of the bad deeds
that this same person has done, showing complete sympathy for the others who
will dearly miss this person in their lives?
Is it a rule of behaviour that when others do not wish to talk about a subject
(even if that subject is very interesting and even exhilarating to you), you
must adhere to their wishes, and remain silent on that subject to the point of
having no one else in your life to share that subject?
Is it a rule of behaviour that you must look at others in the eye when they are
speaking to you and be very competent in deciphering their eye gestures to
help you completely understand their verbal messages so that there are no
possible misunderstandings, whatsoever?
Is it a rule of behaviour that you cannot touch any parts of your hands to your
face, as it might distract the eye concentration of the other people who are
relying on the fixed attention of your eyes and face while talking to you to
get their message across to you?
Is it a rule of behaviour that, if someone else politely decides to clear his
breathing passages using a handkerchief, and makes a loud noise disrupting
your own concentration, that you have to take it with a grain of salt and have
a strong sense of humour towards this person (even if the same person
chastised you for picking something off your face)?
Is it a rule of behaviour that you cannot change the subject of the discussion
as long as the other party to the discussion wants to maintain the subject, but,
on the other hand, if you would rather the subject of discussion to be continued
and the other party does not, you must politely let the other party change the
subject to avoid appearing undiplomatic and naive in this situation?
This is just a touch of what is in the back of an autistic's mind when it comes
to behaviour, and what others mean by "appropriateness" according to the
circumstances. Like the old cliché, an autistic person is caught "between a
rock and a hard place" when it comes to trying to satisfy others as to what is
considered "appropriate" at any particular event or occurrence.
Right now, I am wondering if what I am writing in this passage would be
"appropriate" to hundreds of others who might, at some time, be reading these
words. Firstly, how does one establish the "rules" of correct behaviour, and
then, secondly, how does one justify each and every one of these "rules" over
time, as societies, cultures, and people, themselves, often change over time?
Even when it comes to clothing, it is almost impossible in our day and age to
make "rules" as to what is "appropriate", but many (if not most) people today
still want to let others know what they see as "appropriate" clothing according
to the surroundings and the events. If an autistic person disagrees with these
value judgements, that person is either in hot water for making any type of
disagreement, or else is devoid of another potential friendship.
Simple respect for differences of opinion between those with disabilities and
those outside of any concern with disabilities seems to be extremely low, at this
point in the global evolution of the human species. It's enough, at times, to cause
one to shed a tear, in dismay, as the hopes for the future seem to be shallow, at best.
It's not that individuals on the autistic spectrum lack empathy; often these people
experience very little, if any, empathy from their non-autistic acquaintances. It's a
matter not of empathy, itself, but of the type of empathy that autistic people need,
as opposed to the type needed by those outside of the autistic spectrum.
An autistic person is looking for support for himself/herself in the form of concrete
action (as opposed to notes of praise and goading a person on without concrete steps
to get there). Like a girl, for example, on the autistic spectrum who has had tons of
praise for her art work--she is looking for concrete steps on how to get her art out into
the world, at art shows, galleries, and judged shows, with the applied help of an "agent"
(even if that agent is her father, for example).
On the other hand, people outside of the autistic spectrum are looking more for
"emotional" empathy, in giving a person a pat on the back for their team, even if the
team just lost entry into a championship....
Yes, each abstract term (in English, at least), seems to have an autistic connotation that
is slightly "off-beat" to the non-autistic connotation, and these autistic connotations are
not so much static as dynamic, moment-by-moment, day-by-day....
Note: Brian Henson is our online columnist, if you have any comments or questions please add them below or use our feedback form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read More... | 5 comments | |
|
|
|
|
Brian Henson : Reason: The Answer to Everything
|
|
|
Posted by sylvia on Friday, May 28, 2004 (09:32:01)
Reason has become a way of excusing every event or action in life. This is true not only with present, ongoing actions or situations, but also events of the past in the form of hindsight. An action or event cannot, in this case, exist without some reason, rationale, or justification for its existence; it cannot just be.
People everywhere are always looking for why an even happened, especially a tragedy. If someone was to answer this with a statement of being, such as defining this event as a fact of history, others would still say: “...but there's got to be a reason why this happened!â€
When pressed for an explanation on why these people need a reason for events of the past, their answer is that we can learn from history how not to repeat the same mistake. Is that to say that once a mistake is made, no one in the future will ever be able to make that mistake again? It hints that these rational people are leading us to a perfectionist state over time.
As human beings, we all make mistakes. Granted that this is true, the law seems to look at not the reason for the mistake, but whether (or not) the mistake was intentional, or deliberate. If the intention can be proven, and the person or persons are found guilty, this still does not satisfy those who want to know why this occurred.
Did it occur because of genetic malfunctioning in the person's body? Did it happen because of the way in which the person was reared as a child? Or, did this event occur because of peer pressure and the lack of moral standards during adolescence? Another question to ask is whether economic forces, such as company profits, poverty, or hierarchy (such as in the military) had any bearing on why this event occurred.
Conversely, when people are enjoying themselves, or just “taking it easy,†there seems to be no discussion of reason at all. If one were to ask someone a party why that person is having a good time, all one would get in response, probably, is a strange look. Once people put the theatrical mask of comedy on their faces, reason seems to fly out the window.
Of course, one reason might not be enough. If I tell a friend that I am going for a walk to get some fresh air, that friend might also justify my action as an exercise, claiming that I need exercise now and again. This often leaves one in a predicament. Was the original reason for the action (fresh air) true, or is the added reason (exercise) also true, even though I did not originally acknowledge it?
Many corporate organizations are well known for claiming that there is no other reason for what they do other than the stated reason. When a person suggests otherwise, many of the managers, employees (except during strikes), and patrons of the corporation are ready to defend this monogamous line of reasoning.
We, as humans, are also guilty of projecting reason into all other areas of nature, both fauna and flora. We say that an animal acts a certain way at a certain time for a particular reason. We are now attempting to find a reason for every event in the heavens, both in our solar system and in distant galaxies.
What makes humans want to probe into all these areas? Some say that this is true because we have a conscious mind and intelligence. This response leads one to ask why we have a conscious mind or intelligence. The debate continues, and often results in raised voices or in disrespect for others.
During my waking life, (as is true in my dream world), I am always looking for something to do without having to give myself a reason for doing it. I like to laugh, for instance, but when someone asks me why I am laughing, the ghost of reason rears its ugly head.
One avenue of approach to this problem is via poetry. Poets are not, as such, interested in why something is or has been, but more into just describing the moods, events, feelings, and situations as they are to that particular person. In describing whatever the poet is involved in as he/she writes, there is no need to justify or rationalize what is being described.
In some ways, song writers use the same descriptive resources as the poets, but go beyond this to try to explain why to the listeners. Artists (as painters and sculptors) are also attempting to describe many aspects of life without the rational aspect, although, some would probably argue, and rightfully so, that their work is filled with rationale.
Is there any way to handle this apparent ambivalence between pure sensory description and the human mind's preoccupation, at times, with reason? One possible escape from this tug-of-war is non-communication, where a person refuses to discuss a particular issue, or anything at all, with another person.
For each of us, the decision is whether to allow description or reason to be our theme during any moment in this life. For myself, I would rather choose description as my raison d'etre.
Note: Brian Henson is our online columnist, if you have any comments or questions please add them below or use our feedback form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read More... | 5 comments | |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest: 
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 11458
Members: 0
Visitors: 14
Total: 14
1: