21 Apr 2017
- From: FRANCISCO R. AGULTO
THE author of one your letters to the editor punches below the belt once more without checking thought processes.
First of all, I have ever taken a PRAXIS test, therefore, I could neither pass nor fail it. I have no inclination over such test of knowledge and rite of passage to the teaching profession. On this count, his facts are troubling and taking a course if it’s a slander.
Simple fact about language and conversation drills attention over mixing or combining observation and evaluation involved in the communication exchanges in that people are apt to hear criticism. When a perfect storm lingers that fills the arena of contradiction, the opposing view would be equally critical and acceptable. To free a thought without checking its clarity and authenticity would be dressing the writer or speaker with see through silk garment. And, when it happens, nakedness is a true sensation. The exchanges of opposing views is as normal as calling water H2O. Even accepting that the impurities present in the water would render it as part of the liquid and we still called it water (H2O).
This is what the poly-scientist is saying that for as long as the clear liquid appears as water, its impurities taking the form of all minerals, silts, and matters entered into the liquid form such as metals do not matter. Well, water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. When the impurities level mixes in the liquid, it is no longer water. Should we fault one that says water is H2O only, and when mixes of other substances included that it is no longer water? Let’s called water mixed with impurities as “not water” and maybe just maybe call it “impure water.”
This is the same as our CEO of CUC while saying that every drop of liquid that comes out of every faucets in piped water is water, but, hesitating at the same time to drink the water product produced by CUC. The view of the CEO is the same as the poly-scientist in that the so-called water by CUC could hurt his health and safety. Hence, the hesitation and assumed knowledge over what is real water. Our poly-scientist should know what real conversation is in communication exchanges.
Semanticist Wendel Johnson suggests that we create many problems for ourselves by using static language to express or capture our thought of reality in a very random world order. He said, “Our language is an imperfect instrument created by ancient and ignorant men. It is an animistic language that invites us to talk about stability and constants, about similarities and normal and kinds, about magical transformation, quick cures, simple problems, and final solutions. Yet the world we try to symbolize with this language is a world of process, change, differences, dimensions, functions, relationships, growths, interactions, developing, learning, coping, complexity. And the mismatch of our ever-changing world and our relatively static language forms is part of our problem.”
If the letter writer thinks he is the top of the food chain on intelligence and dogmatic thoughts and perfected premises, he must be welled in a wedge of confusion over human conversation. Thus, the sound of words comes from the primitive source of stumping, knocking, tapping, clapping, pounding, tiptoeing, scratching, pumping, sounds of bird cries and living critters, sound of running water. If you see these points, perhaps we can have a perfect conversation. The poly-scientist should not have any inconsequential connection about the source of language. “People are disturbed not by things, but by the view they take of them.” (Epictetus)
FRANCISCO R. AGULTO
Kanat Tabla, Saipan