2) Content and Delivery: What we say and how we say it

By developer on October 2, 2015

Following up from the last post “That Which Calls Out to be Known”, I ended on Content and Delivery.

Can truth (whatever the hell that is) be evident simply in content, or is its manner of delivery integral to its being understood?

Here’s another question:  Can content be understood if it is not delivered?  Can you have a car without having acquired that car at some point?  Can you have a concept in your mind without the event of it occurring to you from the inside or being given to you from an outside source?  Doesn’t all content have inherent within it the manner in which is came into your life?

That’s delivery.  In the last post we touched on the measurable “stuff” in our lives and the immeasurable “effect” or impact it has on us.  The importance I find in this subject is something I feel a calling to point out because I’m not seeing it being talked about.

In the TRUTH movement, which appears to the world wide web via Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, WordPress and anywhere else you can watch or read content and comment on it, I see an abundance of people debating topics.  Debating content.  Arguing about political candidates or legislations.  Opinions on content and content on opinions.

I ask people whom I know that consistently argue, debate, or discuss content online what their intentions are for diving into these topics.  The answers are, for the most part, unanimous.  They want to make the world a better place.  They want to improve things politically, economically, ecologically, psychologically, spiritually, etc…

GREAT!  I find that to be an admirable cause to champion.  But content seems to be merely a vehicle for meaning.  Language is the tool of communication.  But what is being communicated?  On all the comment forums under Youtube videos, or the threads of comments below hot-topic Facebook posts, anywhere people can comment on other peoples work or about people, events, theories, inventions, ideas, yada yada, I see one thing that is withering in the shadow of the Content.  Delivery!

How are people talking to one another?  What is the attitude of all these comments?  How do we deliver our content?

I’ve seen one too many brilliant intellects with massive education and content on standby fall victim to the delivery method of bullying, sarcasm, competition, and aggression.  One needs look no further than political debates of supposedly mature adults to see the rolling of eyes, attacking of character rather than discussing the topic, interrupting candidates who are trying to finish a thought and make a point, etc.  Does this not smack of a group of kids playing Tag on a playground arguing “who’s it” by making fun of their clothes rather than discussing the evidence?

On Facebook, every day I see a topic like “New Age beliefs are bullshit” or the opposite.  “Science is boring, rigid, and incapable of measuring consciousness therefore afraid to speak about it or casually classifies it as a symptom of chemical reactions in the body”… or the opposite.  Either way, these viewpoints are simply content.  They’re just things to be discussed or debated.  But how do all these people I observe discuss or debate them?  With malice.  With arrogance.

Have you ever seen someone who subscribes to the purely analytical and measurable way of describing life who debates the validity or necessity of religion?  Maybe they have a point.  Maybe they even have advice that could truly inspire and benefit the person they’re debating with… but then the delivery method rears its ugly head in the form of condescending ridicule.

Facebook Comment Thread

Scientific:  How do you know God really exists?

Religious:  I just know.  I feel it.

Scientific:  Prove it?

Religious:  When my dog “Admiral Fluff n’ Stuff” went missing, I prayed to God to return him to me in better condition then when he left.  He returned the next day with a girlfriend “Señorita Booboo”.

Scientific:  That doesn’t prove God exists.  The only thing that can be PROVEN in that is that you said words in your head to a fictitious character and your dog got laid and decided to show off his girlfriend to his humans.

Religious:  You just don’t understand.  I have proof in my heart that God exists.

Scientific:  Where’s the evidence?

Religious:  My intuition is the evidence.

Scientific:  *facepalm.  You’re an idiot.

Religious:  You’re going to hell… as an idiot

Scientific:  There is no hell.  Just the dirt that our body returns to when we die.  Watch your mouth before I put you there.

Religious:  Just try it and see how far you get.

 

Now this FB thread has been reworded so as not to offend the people who were involved… but the point of it is simple.  Two human beings getting nasty and aggressive with one another.  Why?  It’s not the content.  I’ve seen this kind of debate go swimmingly well without threats of murder.  It’s the delivery method.  The topic is the language or the tool being used to communicate.  The one-sided, argumentative, disrespectful and stubborn attitude of their conversation was what dictated the direction of their relationship.  Both of them seem to think they are intelligent because of the complexity and intricacy of their theories.  Neither, however, were displaying anything close to what I would classify as truth or intelligence at the time of this Facebook thread.

They both displayed the most attractive and ensnaring form of ignorance.  The lust for information and theory without the wisdom of why we communicate at all.  Everything comes down to relationship.  All our content, all our massive intellect and brilliant theories amount to jagged rubble and sharp weapons in the war of egos when we lose sight of relationship.

How are we enriching the world and improving life politically, economically, ecologically, socially, psychologically, spiritually, if we are ramming our intellectual theories (dogma) down people’s throats with a vengeance?

So in closing:  If your ultimate focus and enduring attention is not securely fixated on how to enrich relationships rather than promote theories and ideas, then don’t call yourself a truth seeker.  If you hail the Trivium (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric or Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom) as the one and only path to gnosis (knowing) but your tone of voice is condescending and arrogant, then don’t pretend that your concept of “knowing” is complete.  If you claim your intentions are to leave the world a better place by spreading information and ideas, yet you measure your ideas by comparisons and attacks on other people’s work, then stop fooling yourself.

The only truth I have ever found in my life (note the conundrum of offering this theory to discount the importance of theories) is not What you say but How you say it.  Not What you do but How you do it.  So here’s my theory:

The measure of a human is in the merits of the heart.  The heart doesn’t bother itself with content.  That’s for the head.  The heart simply dictates how we deliver that content in communication with other people, the universe, ourselves and the gift of being able to live at all.  The head finds ever evolving technologies with which to behave and express.   But what those technologies are expressing is something only the heart can breath life into.  How are you treating people?  How are you speaking to them?  How do you show the one’s you love that you love them?  How do you respect the dynamic differences of the one’s that bother or challenge you?  Everything else is means to an end.  The merits of the heart that seeks to cultivate deep meaningful relationships… that’s the end.



Categories: Collaborative Opportunities, The Student, Uncategorized.

Tags: