Uncomfortable silence and the human condition

[Jason]

"It was so cold last night! It's meant to reach just 12 degrees today."

"Terry stained his pants at work, so he bought some new jeans yesterday."

These are "sharing" types of communication. They are not questions or commands, and neither are they generally useful or beneficial knowlegde or ideas, or attempts at propogating certain viewpoints, but rather they are sharing of experience, a desire for sympathy and understanding, a desire to share ones internal or external experiences, thoughts or situations. There is an assumption that these open-ended satements will elicit a response from those within earshot, and someone who does not respond to such statements is likely to be seen as odd, mute or even dangerous.

There is a certain desperation I think I can detect in some of this type of communication. It is not unusual for people to "share" things about even the most mundane and banal of things for hours at a time. It is not unusual for people to do this simply because otherwise there would be silence. In silence, the desperation, the unease of life, is felt more intensely, as the mind is less distracted by this chatter or gossip. Sharing this desperate, unseasy silence with another person seems harder than having it alone, maybe because one suspects that the other person is also reflecting on the basic "human condition."

It becomes like a self-conscious feedback loop: "I'm thinking about the human condition, he is also thinking about the human condition, likewise he knows I am thinking this and he knows that I know that he is thinking about this."

Talking about past events is often the predominant part of gossip. It may be that talking about the past is an attempt to avert ones mind from the present, the present being too obviously devoid of fullfillment, excitement and interest. Also the past covers a large length of time, so it is possible to pick out short highlights, which may further distract the mind from truth that the average moment of the present is mediocre.

So it seems that a lot of banal and mundane gossip/chatter/jokes/frivolity etc may actually be a cover, an attempt to suppress reflecting on the truth: the shared mediocrity of their mundane lives, the shared desperation of humans.

(I know silence can be shared without this unease. I am also not suggesting that all sharing communication can be tracked solely back to unease about the human condition.)

--

When I was a kid at primary school, every day I would come home from school, and my mother would ask me the same question: "What did you do today at school?" My response was always the same: "Not much." and that was all I said(even though my day had been full of exciting, fun and fulfilling activity).

Sometime, during the first year of high school, I began answering her question of "What did you do today at school?" with longer descriptions of the things I had done, instead of the usual "Not much."

The first time I gave a longer description, I knew it was an important change that I was making, I knew it had weight and importance, I'm not sure I knew exactly why at the time. To most it would have been seen as nothing but a simple conversation about the day. I still remember now. My younger brother was sitting in the kitchen with me and Mum and he heard me describe some of the things I had done at school. I remember feeling shameful, mainly because he witnessed it(and he was still living the life that I was losing, and maybe these actions showed I had finally given in and finally lost it), and I thought I was lowering myself and my life: it was indicative of me dropping to a new low, a new depression in life, a new sadness and desperation.

Life was getting shit, but I was expected to live a shit life, all kids were set up to go through this: everyone, all the structures of society and culture were set up so that this was meant to be my path, my destiny. The time had come for maturation: I had to do things I didn't like, to "make a living", "stop fooling around", "act your age" and to do this I had to live a lie. To try to make up for this shitty life I would begin to try to get some pleasure back out of my life by vicariously retelling it, sharing my shitty life with others.

That was what I was doing: I was trying to get an emotional reward and some sympathetic understanding of another person who had obviously also been living a life of quiet depression and desperation.


----------------------

I am not resolved to think that this human condition cannot be overcome. This is why I am still a boy, this is why despite my age I do not consider myself a man: I have not given in to the desperation and the chatter and gossip, I still believe that my authentic self, my dreams, my ultimate fulfillment of what and who I am is possible, somehow, sometime.......

I have plans.

[sschaula]

Everything we do is out of desire and unease.

[LooF]

good luck !

[Russ]

Hi Jason,

Your post reminds me of my teenage years. Same type of thinking but it sounds more of a psycological question.

I found a book called "The DENIAL OF DEATH" (Paperback) by Ernest Becker when I was 18.

The basic jist is that we are in such a blind panic about our condition that we need to find ways to distract ourselves from the horrific reality of our situation. The central theme for this book is heroism.....which can be used to explain a lot of the motivation for the banal conversations we have (amongst other things)

i.e. "How was your holiday" actually means "Ask me about mine because I'm just dying to tell you what happened to me then please pamper my ego and tell me how much you worship me"

Bit wordy but changed the way I looked at the world and the rather tragic species we share it with.

If you Google the title you can probably find more info if you wish.

I recommend it. The rest of this forum will probably find something fundamentally wrong with it.....to make themselves feel better.

[Rhett]

.

In the presence of others ones ego is protected and reinforced, often via daily life iterations, otherwise the others ego may well become one's own.

.

[Jason]

Hi Jason,

Your post reminds me of my teenage years. Same type of thinking but it sounds more of a psycological question.

I found a book called "The DENIAL OF DEATH" (Paperback) by Ernest Becker when I was 18.

I find this has a similar theme(and I think it is a brilliant piece of writing):
http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/humevas.html#14

[David Quinn]

Russ wrote:

I found a book called "The DENIAL OF DEATH" (Paperback) by Ernest Becker when I was 18.

The basic jist is that we are in such a blind panic about our condition that we need to find ways to distract ourselves from the horrific reality of our situation. The central theme for this book is heroism.....which can be used to explain a lot of the motivation for the banal conversations we have (amongst other things) ......

I recommend it. The rest of this forum will probably find something fundamentally wrong with it.....to make themselves feel better.

This is classic fundamentalism. If anyone finds fault with the book, it is not because the book actually has faults, but because we simply want to "make ourselves feel better". Thanks for that, Russ.

In any case, the idea that we are all in a state of blind panic and constantly need to find to ways to distract ourselves - thus implying that even the the practice of philosophy is a panic-driven distraction - is absurd. It certainly doesn't describe my life in any way.

-

[Jason]

In any case, the idea that we are all in a state of blind panic and constantly need to find to ways to distract ourselves - thus implying that even the the practice of philosophy is a panic-driven distraction - is absurd. It certainly doesn't describe my life in any way.
-

I agree David, not everyone is constantly in a state of "blind panic" and that is not what I was trying to convey in my original post. I do think a lot are in a state of deep dissatisfaction and depression, but this state is usually hidden by a very strong denial and behaviours like meaningless banal chatter,forced perkiness and jolliness.

[Russ]

[quote="DavidQuinn000"]

This is classic fundamentalism. If anyone finds fault with the book, it is not because the book actually has faults, but because we simply want to "make ourselves feel better". Thanks for that, Russ.

In any case, the idea that we are all in a state of blind panic and constantly need to find to ways to distract ourselves - thus implying that even the the practice of philosophy is a panic-driven distraction - is absurd. It certainly doesn't describe my life in any way.

-[/quote]

You're welcome David. Have you read the book?

There is a bit more to it than "we are all in a panic" and it describes what you would call 'the herd' (to which I belong)....not enlightened beings such as yourself.

Jason would probably find it interesting based on his first post.

[Russ]

Jason wrote: "I do think a lot are in a state of deep dissatisfaction and depression"

I think you are right but what are they dissatisified with and depressed about?

Money, love, career, the latest cool gadgets, basically things of no real value. Why does materialism & religion exist?

I don't kow anything about you but you sound like you have had the "what the f***s it all about?" moment.

You seem bored with the mundane and the ridiculous.....which I guess is why you are here looking for answers.

Good luck to you.

I doubt if QRS will supply answers but they are very good at asking difficult questions.

[Jason]

Jason wrote: "I do think a lot are in a state of deep dissatisfaction and depression"

I think you are right but what are they dissatisified with and depressed about?

Money, love, career, the latest cool gadgets, basically things of no real value. Why does materialism & religion exist?

I don't kow anything about you but you sound like you have had the "what the f***s it all about?" moment.

You seem bored with the mundane and the ridiculous.....which I guess is why you are here looking for answers.

Good luck to you.

I doubt if QRS will supply answers but they are very good at asking difficult questions.

I'm not here to get supplied with answers from anyone.

[hsandman]

Jason,
Is it a longer version of when you ask your self the question "Is it me, or is it the reality that is mulfunctioning?" Either way the answer is not someting you want to know, but you have alredy asked yourself the question, so go the distance and answer the question, it could suprise you. :)

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jason

and someone who does not respond to such statements is likely to be seen as odd, mute or even dangerous.

Perhaps we are perceived by others as odd when we fail to reply to mediocre conversation because the other person expects a certain response, and when we fail them, they suffer. I find everyday people get into patterns of communication, which gives them a sense of false security. Their false security is broken if an individual decides not to comply to their demands. However their desire is the same as you or I. They simply want to connect with other human beings. They want to feel part of the group, but they have never learned how to communicate properly in that they do not understand their everyday psychological motivations.

Sharing this desperate, uneasy silence with another person seems harder than having it alone, maybe because one suspects that the other person is also reflecting on the basic "human condition."

Actually I think it may have to do with the fact that not only are you feeling your despair and unease, but when the individual enters the area, you also feel their despair and unease because I suspect we are all part of one emotional field that is interconnected. Separation appears to be an illusion.

what is tragic is that when we encounter others, one immediately becomes self-conscious, and their is pressure to socialize on both sides because the shared despair is so intense. I suspect both people feel the despair at the same time, and both desperately make the attempt to escape it through whatever trivial conversation comes to mind.

[Eternal_Tom]

Money, love, career, the latest cool gadgets, basically things of no real value.

assuming that the drive to accumulate all the above is without value...

the quest for higher understanding, although difficult and sometimes painful, usually brings value to the lives of those who persue it, i dont see the need to criticise the people whose goals differ from our own.


if pushed, i dont think i could claim that puzzling the nature of man, or truth make me better than someone who gains as much pleasure from the acquisition of material things. it only seems like we SHOULD criticise them because the things you value are different.

and of course, value is totally subjective, so there can't really be a right or wrong.