On Miscommunication.

On Miscommunication.

 

If I have miscommunicated something, I know this fact that I have failed to communicate it only for an instant. The instant arises by virtue of Non-directed Thinking. It may be merely a ghost of a hunch at first, something in the background of my consciousness. It may only have run its course once I have taken the appropriate action in order to bridge the gap in language.

Writing an e-mail is not exempt from the psychological predicament that I would find myself in when I speak conversationally; it only abounds with more illusory complications and red herrings that could only ensnare a perpetually adolescent mind.

Once the e-mail has been sent, one can always return to it and ask what would have happened had it been worded differently. Yet to test this has all ready become superfluous; it may have BEEN superfluous from the moment that one had all ready devised a more coherent mode of self-expression. The alternative wording, having been found, appears, and with its appearance disappears the Will to find one. That will disappears into the abyss. The sense of something needing to be corrected arguably dissolves prior to the sending of the e-mail.

 

The empiricist returns to the text to see if the first wording might have been, in fact, coherent. Yet the empiricist knows the intended meaning, and so his or her evaluation is flawed. The empirical method is always the work of the ego. The habit of Revision, the finding of an alternative wording and the settling upon it, belongs to the Self, which does not repeat itself, or if it does, it must always go unnoticed.

 

The empiricist reverts to the original wording and asks if the recipient would really have become confused. Yet this question had all ready been asked by the ego, and it was all ready answered by the Self. The Self does not answer twice. The question becomes a red herring. No matter how much the empiricist tries, he or she should admit that there is no way of knowing with CERTAINTY that the recipient would or would not have made the right guess in the face of the incoherent version of the message. It is precisely this CERTAINTY which the empiricist seeks, whether he or she knows that he or she does or not. Yet the ASSUREDNESS has all ready been attained and affirmed.

 

Dm.A.A.