Requisite metaphoric "circumlocution" avoiding disruptive disagreement

Metaphorizing Dialogue to Enact a Flow Culture (Part #8)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Artful use of avoidance: The possibility of metaphorizing discourse calls for consideration of another requirement -- if that modality is to be sustainable. The argument implied above is the need to avoid the forms of confrontation characteristic of "turf wars", "being put on the spot" or "called into question" in a way which causes the dialogue to "collapse" (as a "wave-function").

Obvious examples whereby such confrontation is avoided are the limits implied in use of circumlocution, euphemism, allusion (even double entendre), and political correctness, especially in formal settings (Daniel Worden, Developing Fluency in Circumlocution, 2016). Clearly these include artful rhetoric typical of diplomatic discourse -- possibly constrained by Robert's Rules of Order or other such articulations. Such conventions are now obviously inadequate to the challenge of the times. Some other modality merits exploration.

Can circumlocution of an ever higher order be imagined, as is potentially implied by the Triple Helix model of innovation (Psychosocial Learnings from the Spiral Form of Hurricanes: implications of the triple helix and the 3-fold triskelion as "cognitive cyclones"? 2017).

Unsaying: With the primary constraint understood as avoidance of rendering explicit what is most "confrontational", the question is whether such modalities can be enhanced in some way without rendering them even more ineffectual. A valuable clue in this respect is the art of unsaying (or not-saying) as has been developed in certain forms of theological discourse where a primary requirement is to avoid inappropriate reference to what is most fundamental -- in that case deity (Michael A. Sells, Mystical Languages of Unsaying, 1994; Robert K. Clark, Unknowing and Unsaying: negation in the mystic quest, 2006; FranÇois Hugonnier, Unsaying: Mystical Aspiration and Negativity in Paul Auster's Poetry, Caliban: French Journal of English Studies, 2014).

Termed apophasis, that modality raises the question as to whether it can be adapted to other contexts, as separately explored (Being What You Want: problematic kataphatic identity vs. potential of apophatic identity? 2008). Clearly there is a sense in which the most fundamental values and preoccupations of a discourse participant can be understood as a secular form of deity -- a challenge to articulation, even if that is considered inappropriate or offensive. The opposite may be the case where the preoccupations of any other in that discourse may be too offensive to be articulated in that context.

With reference to the literature on unsaying in relation to mysticism, Sean Joseph Fitzpatrick notes:

The use of "mysticism" and "mystic" as analytical terms in the social sciences is found to be problematic. Through an overview of current attempts to define the terms and a discussion of the use of the terms by representative theorists (Max Weber in sociology; Jacques Lacan in psychology) in examinations of representative "mystics" (Teresa of Avila and Meister Eckhart), the difficulties inherent in speaking psychologically and sociologically about mysticism are made clear. The identification of individuals as mystics is always tied to a political, economic, religious, and linguistic context. Any attempt to isolate elements common to an uses of the label "mystical" must take into account the motivations and cultural contexts of those who apply the labels as well as the differences in social contexts between mystical texts. Abandonment of use of the term would be premature; a better descriptive understanding may appear through an apophatic process of describing what mysticism is not. (Saying and Unsaying Mysticism: the problem of defining mysticism in the social sciences, 2000)

Whilst not conventionally understood as "mysticism", aspects of the unsaying modality are evident in flirtation, courtship, and advocacy. These may well be derprecated as "mystical" by the most rational. In the case of marketing, unsaying is evident in the widely known adage: sell the sizzle and not the steak. More challenging is discourse with a party with completely opposing values and agendas -- even held to reprehensible and repulsive. The art of dialogue is indeed then usefully described as circumlocution -- with a minimal degree of allusion to what is divisive, namely discourse by implication. Such indirection can be explored through dramatic comedy and double entrendre. It lends itself to potentially satirical exploration (The Art of Non-Decision-Making -- and the manipulation of categories, 1997).

Revaluing the missing: Irrespective of the theological preoccupation with avoiding explicit reference to deity, arguably any fruitfully meaningful philosophical language needs to encompass "something missing", as suggested by the arguments Terrence Deacon (What's Missing from Theories of Information? 2010). As discussed separately (Necessary incompleteness, 2014; Cognitive mystery of holes, lacunae and incompleteness, 2014), for Deacon:

The problem is this: Such concepts as information, function, purpose, meaning, intention, significance, consciousness, and value are intrinsically defined by their fundamental incompleteness. They exist only in relation to something they are not.... The "something" that each of these is not is precisely what matters most. But notice the paradox in this English turn of phrase. To "matter" is to be substantial, to resist modification, to be beyond creation or destruction -- and yet what maters about an idea or purpose is dependent on something that is not substantial in any obvious sense. So what is shared in common between all these phenomena? In a word, nothing -- or rather, something not present. (Incomplete Nature: how mind emerged from matter, 2011p. 23, emphasis in original)

A case for the relevance in this period of discourse of another kind is suggested by a traditional Daoist tale from Zhuangzi, as quoted by Ellen M. Chen (In Praise of Nothing: an exploration of Daoist fundamental ontology. 2010, p. 114). The reference is to the bliss associated with possession of a Dark Pearl as a symbol of chaos.

Curiously echoes of the "shapeless" and the "purposeless" are an explicit feature of the approach of Scott Simpkins (Literary Semiotics: A Critical Approach, 2001), focusing notably on the work of Umberto Eco as a leading semiotician. Simpkin sees the idea of semiotics as a "conversation" about sign theory and practice, explaining that:

This book is a bumpy, sometimes turbulent, tour through the discussion of semiotics. It also is a-thematic. By that, I mean that it doesn't exactly develop a thesis, or "go somewhere". (The conclwion is, appropriately, entitled: "No Conclusion") In part, this is intentional because, for me at least, such a discourse produces die kinds of yields you don't get out of more conventional, linear works. In this sense it's somewhat spatial in design or lack thereof. (p. 2).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]