TBAY and diversity, continued and long

[delwynmarch at delwynmarch.yahoo.invalid]

Hello all !

I've been thinking, again :-) Here's the result of my thinking. It's 
quite long, sorry. For those of you who want just the conclusion, you 
may jump straight to the "SO !"

OK, so first of all, I'd like to say that I'm not completely stupid, 
guys :-)

Eileen said:

> that post of Pippin's wasn't an example of TBAY. It was an example 
> of a regular type post that uses the same idea as TBAY

Laura said :

> Oh, Del, but the confusing part of what you quoted had nothing to 
> do with TBAY at all.

And Karen said :

> Oh, Del, by the way, I don't believe that Pippin made any 
> references from TBAY in her example... 

Well, I was perfectly aware of that, thanks very much :-) ! I used 
Pippin's post as an example of how literary metaphors and symbolism 
can get me lost. Which leads me to my second point :

Eileen said : 

> Yep, I still think that people's problems with understanding TBAY
> don't lie in the fact that it's a foreign language, but a foreign 
> way of thinking.

> The things that make TBAY difficult are the leaps of the intellect 
> in the land of metaphors. 

> It's not *about* having a key, *about* having the history. It's 
> about having a mind that thinks that way.

Exactly ! That's the point I've been trying to make right from the 
beginning ! My language discourse was only a *metaphor* to explain my 
problem with symbols and metaphors (duh ! :-)

See, I said in post 178 :

> you have to figure out the metaphors and other symbolic stuff (which
> I don't).

> there are threads on this list that require not only tremendous 
> specific knowledge, but also additional capacities or specific 
> mindsets, 

> people who request that other people have a specific mindset to 
> understand them and who don't care about being understandable by 
> everyone

> Note : this is not just a matter of *knowledge*, but most of all a
> matter of capacity and mindset. Discrimination by knowledge is
> impossible to avoid. When someone gets talking about alchemy, for
> example, they get me lost. But I don't hold it against them, because
> the only difference between them and me is a real-life learned 
> thing. With TBAY it's different. In order to be able to just 
> understand some TBAY posts (let alone participe), I not only have 
> to acquire a great load of specific background, but I also have to 
> develop (if that's possible) a very specific mindset.

So I did say right from the beginning that one of my main problems 
with TBAY is that I just don't understand the way it works !

So now that pretty much everybody seems to have understood the 
problem symbolism can create for some people, let's see if something 
can be done to solve that problem. It doesn't seem so :

Eileen said :

> This just confirms to my mind that this isn't a TBAY problem. 

> Pippin's got a point. Would people who don't understand TBAY
> necessarily understand us TBAY-posters *outside* of TBAY? I rather
> suspect they wouldn't.

> Let it be noted that whenever Elkins posted in non-TBAY format, 
> there were an awful lot of people who immediately proved that they 
> didn't *follow* her. 

> But it might not be that TBAYers could make more sense off the Bay
> proposing the same theories. I rather suspect that the reason 
> someone feels inclined to take one's theory to the Bay (in most 
> cases - some people obviously just find the format fun) is that 
> they can express themselves better there, that they *couldn't* 
> explain things to their satisfaction off the Bay. 

Laura :

> I think if Pippin had posted her theory in the conventional way, 
> you still would have been confused. The symbolism discussed is not 
> a product of TBAY,

> But your confusion stems mainly from the fact that Pippin assumes 
> that the reader will have the grasp of conventional, Western 
> symbolism needed to decipher what she's saying, not in her TBAY 
> format.

Karen :

> If using a background of concepts and symbols that *any particular*
> listee may not be familiar with is a problem, we are *all* in big
> trouble.

In big trouble indeed, which would explain why TBAY systematically 
leads to such a hot debate. It seems that some people just NEED to 
express themselves in metaphorical ways, while at the very same time 
some other people simply CANNOT understand most metaphors. This is  
going way beyond a simple matter of preferences. It goes right down 
to people's needs. Enforcing a rule one way or the other is 
necessarily going to trample someone's needs.

As Eileen said :

> if one doesn't think that way, a primer isn't exactly going to help.

But as Karen said :

> I don't expect anyone to scrub their posts of all possible
> references to either the culture at large or to the culture of the
> list. 

> By the way, using symbols and stories to illustrate and illuminate
> ideas and concepts is precisely what Jesus was doing when he told
> parables. Sure, he could have tried to just spell everything out
> discursively instead of fictively (are those the terms we're using?)
> but I think that much would have been lost in the, well, 
> translation.

(Will it come as a surprise to anybody that I've had a very hard time 
understanding Jesus's parables ? I do grasp some symbols, but I keep 
missing the more profound ones)

So in short : on one hand, it wouldn't be fair to forbid people like 
Pippin to use metaphors and symbols. It might not even be feasible : 
if it is their way of thinking, there isn't much you can do to change 
that. On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair either to expect people 
like me to understand all that metaphoric talk.

Note : David did try to be a middler in this. He said :

> I think we can overstate the extent to which people 'get', or fail
> to get, symbolic interpretation. I believe much of it is learnt
> behaviour, and that it's never too late to start. Sure, a few catch
> on with almost no prompting or effort, but that doesn't mean those
> who don't, never can, or can't enjoy it when they do.

> In that context, Pippin's offer to explain things to those who ask
> is very helpful. After all, we most of us learn best through
> specific examples.

I don't completely agree. While it is true that quite a few people 
can familiarise themselves enough with the TBAY style of thinking, I 
stil think that many people simply don't have the means necessary to 
study and acquire that kind of knowledge. Some don't have enough 
time, some don't have the opportunity, some have a mindset that is 
just to alien to that kind of thinking, etc... Whatever the reason, 
it can't just be *expected* of EVERYONE to make such an effort.

SO !

Where does that leave us ? I'd say, in the Land of Diversity. We have 
to acknowledge the fact that we listees aren't all the same and will 
never be and shouldn't be expected to be, and to be at peace with 
that. It's tough with me, because it means that some brilliant 
theories born of brilliant minds will almost always elude me, but I 
have to accept that as inevitable. (Well, I'm being a bit too 
emphatic here : there are quite a few good "translators" out there, 
who have already proven that they can express a good deal of the TBAY 
theories in more "conventional" terms).

It's just the same as in real life : I can't figure out why so many 
people just don't seem to understand the basics of mathematics, but 
on the other hand, I am absolutely hermetic to law. It's just the way 
it is, it's diversity, and it's a good thing.

But as I said in a previous post, it also means we have to be ready 
to welcome other formats of post, reflecting other mindsets, other 
ways of thinking. If it ever happens, it probably won't be too easy, 
it might be quite unsettling, but it will be necessary and the only 
fair thing to do.

This TBAY War, far from being a destructive war, can turn into one of 
the best things that ever happened to this group, if it means that 
ALL the listees feel welcome to express their individuality, to 
discuss things in their very own way, at the best of their ability. 
If EVERYONE feels respected for who or what they are, if all of us 
feel we have the right to speak to our same-minded fellows in our own 
jargon, if each of us knows that he is excused in advance for not 
always understanding what someone else said, then things will be a 
bit more chaotic for sure, but hopefully a great deal more productive 
as well.

However, as I said before again, this will mean that the Rules will 
have to ensure that everyone's specificity is respected. Again, I'm 
not saying that they don't as of today.

(That was the end of my TBAY conclusion. Those of you who were 
interested only in that can stop here).

By the way, since I'm talking about respecting everyone's right to be 
different, I'd like to make a few comments about "expectations".

Laura said :

> But your confusion stems mainly from the fact that Pippin assumes 
> that the reader will have the grasp of conventional, Western 
> symbolism needed to decipher what she's saying, 

Karen said :

> All the concepts and symbols she used were pretty standard to 
> English literature and culture. 

> "The pen is mightier than the sword" - don't know who said it first,
> but has most definitely achieved cliche status, at least for those
> educated in the US, Great Britain, etc. Familiarity with both the
> words and the concept can be reasonably presumed when writing for a
> general, English speaking audience

> Faith, Hope and Charity - from the Bible, um, somewhere in the New
> Testament? (OK, now you all know that I was not raised in a 
> protestent church, or I'd be able to cite chapter and verse. 
> Sorry!). Once again, so generally known and used as to be often a 
> cliche.

(First of all, I'd like to say that I *do* know both "the pen is 
mightier than the sword" and "faith, hope and charity". What I did 
*not* understand was how those concepts were applying to the 
situation at hand).

I know English is the official language of the list. I also know that 
we can safely assume pretty much everyone on the list has read HP in 
English.

However, that's a BIG step from assuming that everyone comes from a 
Western, Christian, Anglo-Saxon background, and that everyone knows 
all the cliches, symbols and concepts relating to it.

And even among those who do come from a Western, Christian, Anglo-
Saxon background, I'm pretty sure quite a few don't know much if 
anything about the concepts and symbols commonly used in Literature.

We have a lot of listees coming from quite a few different 
backgrounds. It is true that most do come from that Western Christian 
Anglo-Saxon background. But quite a few of us don't. *I* don't. I'm 
not from an Anglo-Saxon culture. And I quite resent being told that I 
am expected to know what an American would, or to instinctively react 
like a Brit would. The name of the list is HP for Grown-Ups, not HP 
for American and British Grown-Ups. There are no borders on the Net, 
so let's not put any on this list either.
I'm not saying we should explain every cliche either, mind you ! But 
I *am* saying that we should be aware that those cliches might not be 
self-explanatory to some listees reading us. Hopefully, they will ask 
for some explanation. But they might not and still answer to our post 
and make gross mistakes because they misunderstood us. That's the 
downside of extreme diversity like we have on the main list. But I 
personally think it's worth it.

Del