Even though this likely never occurs to you, the subtext of every conversation you engage in is part of an ongoing referendum on what you believe about the very nature of existence. This is because the use of language presupposes an intelligible, mutually agreed upon pre-existing context that we draw upon to convey how we perceive reality. Therefore all communication inextricably either asserts or reiterates some notion of what we have chosen to believe about how reality works. Mind you, reality could care less about our opinions of it. Still, all the same, the language we use to describe our experience of it inescapably speaks volumes about how we find meaning and what we place value in.
This is why, whether in agreement or disagreement, a clarification of terms is essential. If I sincerely wish to understand what you mean, I can’t simply assume that our idiomatic use of language is identical. Because not only are you attempting to communicate information to me, but you are likely doing so in a way that conveys what that information means to you – so that I might be able to catch a glimpse into how you perceive reality. In this way, clarifying questions are necessary for building a bridge between us, making our use of language more effective at identifying where we agree and disagree – identifying where our paradigms overlap and where they are in conflict.
And it is in this conflict where I find it necessary to employ the Socratic method – where my questions begin to probe the underpinnings of your thinking as to whether or not the premise of your thinking can actually bear the scrutiny of an intellectually honest investigation. In this way, asking the right questions can become an invitation to a paradigm shift. Because the truth is most people spend very little time thinking about their thinking, instead assuming that the substructure of their beliefs are an ontological given. But when asked the right question, often a very simple question, their entire belief system is thrown into crisis – because it might turn out that those ontological assumptions haven’t actually been thought through . . . and that they aren’t simply a given.
It has been my experience that in what passes for political and religious talking points, many unexplained presumptions of what “ought to be” are pronounced . . . as if they were a given and needed no explanation. Now, more often than not, I have no real disagreement, generally speaking, in what is being declared as “ought to be” – I just want to know how the person making such a claim arrived at their conclusion. So I ask: On what basis have you determined this ought to be? At this point, the conversation almost always takes a decidedly existential turn – where I’m treated to various arguments based either in sentimentality or pragmatism. In essence, they end up telling me what they feel “ought to be,” mixed with an appeal to what they feel would be practical. But what they usually can’t tell me is what is it about existence itself (apart from our feelings and opinions) that presupposes such a thing “ought to be” . . . because they haven’t thought about it.
Like I said, the subtext of every conversation inextricably makes claims about the very nature of existence, which makes it extraordinarily ironic that we spend so little time consciously questioning the point of our own existence – it would seem we’d rather keep such questions in abstraction. But I get it because such questions can be very humbling if we are to be intellectually honest, as the answers to them lie beyond the realm of human certainty. Which is why the understanding of them must reside in the realm of faith, where our confessions look beyond the limitations of our finite minds.
This is why I find my faith confession best expressed in Colossians 1:15-20 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” For me, everything I need to know about my own existence finds its best explanation right here!
It’s a relentless truth . . . the kind of truth that makes you believe love can find you again.
[…] Open the full article on the kingdomwinds.com site […]