The Anti-Soapbox: Collected Essays

Thus, these mundane thoughts and actions, which we might not normally ascribe the least meaning to, in fact involve great amounts of conceptual meaning in the form of semantics, such as the passing of salt or the tying of shoelaces (and all the underlying concepts which contribute to those).

  Also, semantics factor heavily into our communications. What if the two men mentioned above, holding starkly different semantics of “mother,” tried to discuss mothers? Were both men unaware of their contrasting semantics of “mother” (which is easily possible, considering the subconscious origins of semantics), then they would, really, be describing two different things despite using the same word—that is, not communicating much at all. So powerful and defining are those personal semantics of “mother,” they can individualize and redefine the very act of mothering itself, perhaps to be mothering in name only. This can be confusing enough, but what if, rather than mothering, the men were discussing something of even greater, more immediate import, such as the concept of “a good person” (or that of love, or proper childrearing)?

  Needless to say, much of life’s confusion can be attributed to semantic differences in our thoughts, actions, and communications.

  There’s more to semantics than just personal psychology, however, for the study of semantics isn’t just about symbols, but the meaning and interpretation of those symbols. And here’s where things really get tricky, because the very mind which must interpret semantic meaning is itself governed by semantics and their sentimental attachments. We see here a problem of self-reference, something along the lines of, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” For example, what if two academics, seeking to study semantics, hold different semantics of semantics? How, then, could those people effectively study semantics, with the very phenomenon of semantics hindering their collaboration? If their personal semantic-semantics are disparate enough, then the semanticists would run into the same problem as the men conversing about mothers: one would be describing something entirely different than the other, since “semantics” would, in each respective mind, conjure entirely different thoughts and perceptions. As a result of just such a scenario, the study of semantics has been hampered to no end, so that we as a people hold a generally distorted concept of semantics (if familiar with the concept at all).

  On top of that, let’s not forget that semantics are, like much of the deep mind, also illogical—that is, not needing any basis in actual reality to feel completely real for the person in question. This is because, generally speaking, the mind operates on coarse, illogical structures rather than true, realistic logic (however much we might like to believe otherwise). Thus, semantics are bound to that same fuzzy thinking, based on appearance and suggestion, that which makes $1.99 “feel” better than $2.00. The world’s abyss of saved pennies attests to the illogical semantics at play behind our thoughts, where semantic concepts of value insist that that spared penny equates to significant savings. Returning to the differing “mothers” of the conversing men, we would see that each semantic would “feel” completely real and valid to their respective owners, despite having little to no concrete reality, existing purely in the men’s heads. Nor do the “mothers” need to be based in actual reality, because of the semantic’s illogical in mechanism. If the men aren’t careful in their thoughts, their respective “mothers” will feel, instead, like Mothers.

  We now see why, taken as a whole, the subject of semantics is a complicated one, uniquely so, resulting in no small amount of confusion. And these same semantics are what presently rule our world.

  Again, the means by which semantics exert their rule is through the mind. Just as semantics form the uttermost blueprints of our thoughts and feelings, so too do they craft the material world, crossing over by way of our actions. The utmost force behind world affairs is not money, power, or who has the biggest guns, but human thought and belief, which shape those other things (and most else). As it were, the seen world is built not with earth or steel, but the thoughts which move those things.

  This is why semantics are so important, and this is why we should care about them. To be ignorant of semantics and their mechanics is to be ignorant of the forces ultimately responsible for the world in which we live.

  “But,” you might ask, “if semantics are so confusing, how could they control things so much?” After all, we wouldn’t normally think of something so disorganized and vaguely defined as being so powerful. Typically, we equate power with conscious, organized action, and, typically, that might hold true; but that isn’t always the case, and semantics demonstrate such an exception. It all stems from the semantic’s illogical nature, and that of the mind in general: because the deep mind thinks in such a fuzzy, disorganized fashion, semantics, really, fit right in. Being largely subconscious and mysterious, our semantics, in fact, gain power from the confusion they inflict (aided by the illogical mind’s insistence that it is, in fact, logical). It draws from the same concept as “What we don’t know can’t hurt us”—except, such things can and do hurt us. Additionally, such things can control us, and do so more effectively when we remain unaware of them, so that their powerful confusion is allowed to thrive.

  If only we could get wise to the illogical, semantic nature of our minds and thoughts, we might get a handle on this confusion and, perhaps, act a bit more conscientiously.

  And so we see the problem: when life hinges on semantic thinking that is rarely known, much less understood, there results a generally confused state of things—a state which, I believe, currently grips our world. This worldwide condition’s most devastating effect is seen all around us: confused behavior and decision-making, due to acting on the personal, subjective semantics that we hold, without knowing they’re personal and subjective. It’s something like “the blind leading the blind,” except on a mental level: the mind is running on personal, perhaps entirely baseless semantics, while believing that those semantics are, instead, fully real and concrete—a semantic-blind mind leading itself, as it were.

  It’s called a “po-tay-to,” darn it! “Po-tah-to” is totally wrong.

  It returns us to the two men discussing mothers while possessing totally different semantics of “mother.” For these hypothetical men, their communication is severely crippled, not just by the contrast of their personal, subjective semantics, but by their mutual unawareness of this discrepancy. When people do not define and declare their semantics (and the perceptions which spring from these semantics), there is simply no communication to speak of, so great is the distortion present. It’s akin to the childhood game of Pass It Along, where a message is whispered down a line of children and, inevitably, butchered beyond all recognition. But then, that last child in line knows only that butchered version of the message. And what if that child were to act on that distortion ...?

  Inflate this “blind leading the blind” thinking to the world stage, and we begin to grasp the extent of the problem.

  To frame our semantic conundrum in living terms, here’s a real-world example: the phrase “Listen to your body,” popular in certain healthcare circles. It’s a good starting place, because semantics mingle closely with linguistics, combining to govern much of our thoughts and behavior, often in ways subtle enough to avoid detection. And it is from here that semantics’ worldwide influence begins, starting in the seemingly smallest of ways.

  “Listen to your body”: I both do and do not agree with the statement, because its meaning is not singular or concrete—thanks to the statement’s semantics, of course. I don’t agree with it literally, as the language is simply is too narrow and imprecise to be of any real use. That is, “Listen to your body” does not contain enough intrinsic information to be properly interpreted—it doesn’t tell you much, a vagueness which is readily exploited by our semantic-driven perceptions, which “fill in the blanks,” as it were. Recite these words to a hundred different people, and it will result in up to a hundred different interpretations—and, thus, a hundred different reactions. What disaster might come from ad
vice that can be interpreted to mean something entirely different than intended? It again evokes kids playing Pass It Along, except now regarding self-diagnosis and the precious commodity that is good health.

  To illustrate my point, know that I do agree with “Listen to your body” in its expanded, defined form, that which is informative enough to withstand semantic distortion. My personal interpretation of “Listen to your body” is as follows:

  “By intensive, objective observation of the body, one can infer facts and patterns which lead toward a greater self-knowledge. By observing oneself, then analyzing these observations to determine how they should be interpreted and what they imply, one may then synthesize this information and then conclude on what, exactly, is being observed—what is being ‘heard from the body,’ as it were.”

  (Note: This essential technique can be used to help determine the actual reality of just about any observed event.)

  Now, my version differs hugely from the original “Listen to your body”—yet my version could still be interpreted as “Listen to your body,” in its condensed, abstract form. This process is