--- All conversation is about becoming the mirror through which a person can see themselves. It's a tool for reducing uncertainty,[^Adjectives] one in both your relationship, and [[The Nature of Ego & Identity]]. This dialogue falls into two categories, either asking "who are you" or "What are we doing." Each of these questions probe at a different layer of a persons being. **The Authentic Layer** - Identity/Position ("Who are you") - Internal ego alignment - Authentic perspective vs mimetic adoption - True beliefs vs socially constructed ones - "Seeing with kind eyes of faith" - The perception of subjective realities - Gibson's affordances theory - Deep questioning techniques **The Strategic Layer** - Direction/Purpose/Velocity ("What are we doing") - Where we're oriented in possibility space - What truth we're moving toward - Shared vs individual trajectories - The leverage frameworks - Value equation - Network mapping - Understanding others' fears/aspirations [^Adjectives]: **Adjectives in English follow a highly specific, albeit intuitive, sequence: *opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, material, and purpose.*** A maximal, though admittedly unwieldy, example would be: "My **one** [number] **beautiful** [opinion] **big** [size] **old** [age] **round** [shape] **black** [color] **Canadian** [origin] **plastic** [material] **racing** [purpose] poodle." This sequence feels intuitively correct. Reversing it—"my racing plastic Canadian black round old big beautiful one poodle"—disintegrates the phrase into a mere list of disconnected words. The underlying logic appears to be a cognitive preference for moving from the most general or subjective information toward the most specific and objective. A phrase like "a beautiful blue sky" requires marginally less cognitive effort than "a blue beautiful sky," because establishing the speaker's subjective assessment upfront provides a frame within which the objective detail can be situated. This suggests that the structure of our language is not arbitrary but is, in fact, a reflection of the innate organizational principles of human thought. The most powerful connections aren't about manipulation but about developing genuine understanding of others' subjective realities and affordances. Be a clear and faithful mirror - not manipulating the reflection but helping others see themselves more accurately. It's about reducing uncertainty through authentic reflection rather than strategic distortion. This is perhaps why "most people don't know who they are" - because they've primarily encountered distorting mirrors that reflect social expectations rather than authentic being. The most masterful conversationalists, probe at a persons *Vectors of Psyche* (see [[The Nature of Ego & Identity]]), using ambiguous language as to gauge a persons depth and comfort. It's a strategic ambiguity. They're essentially offering a soft mirror that allows others to see themselves without feeling exposed or judged. However, when you employ strategic ambiguity to probe vectors, there's an inherent risk of creating a power dynamic where you appear to be "analyzing" or "studying" the other person, which can trigger defensive reactions. This is why seeing with "faith" is so important - humility is truth. You must not position yourself as an observer of their vectors, rather as a son of god, a human with shared experiences, a man who can look up at the stars. ![[Friedemann Schulz von Thun’s Four-Sides Model.png]] *Note: Diagram depicts Friedemann Schulz von Thun’s [Four-Sides Model.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model) The sender communicates a message composed of four facets: factual information (data or facts), self-revelation (what they disclose about themselves), relationship (how they view their connection with the receiver), and appeal (what they want the receiver to do or feel). The receiver, in turn, interprets the message through these same four dimensions.* ## The Commons Ground is quite hard to find if you're not looking down. To find, a mutual understanding, you both have to agree to look for it. However, when you encounter a person, it's rare for both parties to offer exchanges of good faith from the start. In our age, people are busy, they have their own circles of understanding, and it takes both time and effort, that most are simply unwilling to front. > "To share the depths of your being, is to open yourself to a world of indifference." > — *paraphrased Nietzsche* This is why most conversation is generic, is business minded, is judgmental, is surface level, etc. So, how do you both truly reach the commons? The usual advice, is to avoid topics of division, to only focus on that which you can agree on. The other advice, is to "lather compliments" or to downplay yourself. However, this advice is simply poor. It leads to those very monotonous business minded conversations we are attempting to surpass. Do you have to agree to appreciate? Do you have to see the same thing to see the same thing? The "commons" isn't found in agreement at all, it's the foundation through which you explore and converse each other's perspectives. You're establishing the terms of understanding, reducing unpredictability. - "How is this person going to approach our disagreements?" (**Trust in Process**) - "Does this person really care about what I have to say?" (**Quality of Attention**) - "Can this person even understand what I want to say?" (**Depth of Understanding**) - "What types of experiences has this person gone through, that makes me confident in our relationship?" (**Trust and Relational Foundation**)[^ExperientialTrust] [^ExperientialTrust]:This last question is asking, how confident the person is in how they will respond similarly, or predictably, in different scenarios. The hardest people to have conversations with are those who only see hate. They're so stuck in their ways they cannot understand why things are the way they are, including you. They can be fine people, but they will not understand you, and are prone to making assumptions. However, similarly, those who only see love cannot understand the depths of someone's character. Both can be equally as isolating. The point is not to make you become one way or another, but to be aware of how you answer each of these implicit questions. Through topic, environment, body language, speech, behavior, appearance and tonality. This is why phrasing with "strategic ambiguity" balanced with faith is crucial, seeing only hate or only love is limiting — both are forms of distortion that reduce the essence of a soul's reflection. In this sense, it's comfortable to consider "calibrating" how you reflect a persons character, however, even the act of calibration is a form of manipulation. The truth is that "true" conversations are uncomfortable, they require work, and so we avoid them. However, this document aims to guide an understanding which can surpass this. How can we be true, authentic, appreciative, while not lying and manipulating the other persons reaction? The key lies in what we consider truth and what the other person can afford. If a person begins by communicating their discomfort in their own perspective, even if subliminal, how do we continue forwards? Every piece of information communicating is a question. It's asking "How you will orient your own perspective of the person?" Every response choice reveals your own orientation: - Taking a teaching position → "I know better" - Offering immediate solutions → "Your discomfort needs fixing" - Matching their uncertainty → "I'm performing empathy" - Sharing your own journey → "I'm human too" Each is an assumption, the awareness of which is hard to overcome. The semantics of your wording communicate either your position, or the manipulation of your position, reflecting truth, or the hollowness of your being. So, how do we continue? Establish what you are talking about. Do not make assumptions. Be true to your words. Reduce uncertainty. *Remember, each of your responses is always about answering the same questions of predictability, formulate your response accordingly.* ## The Uncommons Having established a commons, we can address the layers of conversation. The two meta layers are - The Strategic Layer - Direction/Purpose/Velocity ("What are we doing") - The Authentic Layer - Identity/Position ("Who are you") How do we have effective conversations in these meta layers, especially if the terms of our commons deviates? For example, in a business context lets say I meet a billionaire. It's obvious that having a relationship with him would be beneficial to me, however, just knowing this directs people towards manipulation. So, how do we approach conversations in asymmetric power dynamics, both emotional and strategic ones. The key is that asymmetry is not one dimensional. There can be an asymmetry of power, but you might have an asymmetry of character. Either way, it doesn't matter. Asymmetry refers to a perceived dynamic. For an emotional or power asymmetry, to begin a conversation you usually have to confront this directly, however, after that confrontation has been made, its about the communication of value. You're still answering all the same questions of uncertainty, however, because the other person perceives an advantage or disadvantage, the terms of how you engage with those questions changes. Some matter more, some less, some might change etc. The fact you're even having a conversation is an act of communication itself. It's the other person saying that, despite the perceived asymmetry, im still looking for something because I value it. Again, all the same questions of uncertainty must be answered, but the additional questions transform the weight of them depending on the asymmetry. For example, a billionaire engages you in conversation. The first question shouldn't be "why someone with so much more is talking to me?" It should be, "what are they looking for?" How can I communicate that I have that thing, or if I don't, how can I be honest and or facilitate a connection. For an emotional asymmetry, the person might feel much more deeply on a specific issue, you might disagree, yet they still engage in conversation because they want something from you, they care about you. The commons of the conversation has been subtly changed, and the main question is "can you understand me?". Here, the confrontation I'm talking about is more implicit, rather than an acknowledgement. It's usually communicated in the first words or introduction of yourself. Let's take the counter example, where someone doesn't confront the power dynamic, they end up introducing themselves, and spend the time attempting to show the person their value. In doing so, they've "lost" the conversation, as they never talked about what the conversation was about in the first place. The confrontation is a direct question. It's saying, I know who you are (asymmetry) in this context, but what are we really talking about? The "confrontation" is actually about establishing the real context of the conversation immediately, rather than getting caught in the asymmetry. However, what about genuine confrontation? Of course the follow up is: "What type of confrontation do you mean?" This is where a framework such as [trivium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium) which describes truth as being comprised of three factors; - **Grammar**, concerned with the thing as-it-is-symbolized, is the art of inventing symbols and combining them to express thought; - **Logic**, concerned with the thing as-it-is-known, is the art of thinking; - **Rhetoric**, concerned with the thing as-it-is-communicated[^nabla_v][^nabla_h], is the art of adapting language to circumstance. [^nabla_v]: Vertical ($\nabla_v$) moves along abstraction—example $\leftrightarrow$ mechanism $\leftrightarrow$ principle—the classical pair of definition (genus/differentia) and division (Aristotle, Top. I.5). $\text{principle}\to\text{mechanism}\to\text{instance}$ [^nabla_h]: Horizontal ($\nabla_h$) moves across value-schemas, a disciplined use of koinoi topoi (commonplaces) to re-term without re-targeting: tribal framing $\to$ universal value $\to$ weighable outcome $\to$ domain-familiar example. When a confrontation arises it can always be mapped onto one of the previously mentioned factors of truth; - A Conflation of Grammar: Wherein the oppositional party has a misconceived or simply different notion of terms. - A Disagreement of Logic: Wherein fallacious reasoning, or immature presuppositions are proposed. - A Rejection of Rhetoric: Wherein the tone or images evoked doesn't resonate with the subject(s) In the following example, note how the oppositions question was categorized into the grammer, logic and rhetoric, and systematically dismantled. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HSgqfDIe5xA?si=qG-ZgVkf7hSLkzUD" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe> ## Does Language Shape Reality? This framework leads directly to a foundational question in linguistics: [[Barriers to Self-Actualization#Communication|Do we speak a certain way because we think a certain way,]] or [[Barriers to Self-Actualization#Perception|do we think a certain way because we speak a certain way?]] The latter proposition is central to the **Sapir-Whorf hypothesis**, which posits that the structure and vocabulary of a language actively shape how its speakers perceive and conceptualize the world.[^SpatialLanguage] [^SpatialLanguage]: For instance, some languages lack words for "left" and "right," instead relying exclusively on cardinal directions—north, south, east, and west. This raises the compelling question of whether speakers of such languages possess a fundamentally different, perhaps more absolute, model of spatial reality. Perhaps the most striking illustration of this principle is found among the Aymara people, indigenous to the Andes. Whereas most linguistic cultures, including those in the West, employ a conceptual metaphor where the future lies ahead and the past is behind, the Aymara reverse this entirely. For them, the future is behind, and the past is in front. While this may initially seem counterintuitive, it is grounded in a powerful logic: the past is known and has been witnessed, and therefore can be seen and understood as if it were laid out before one's eyes. The future, by contrast, is unknown and unseen. This linguistic metaphor reflects and reinforces a core element of the Aymara worldview, which esteems the past as a primary source of knowledge and wisdom. It is a reminder that even our most seemingly obvious assumptions embedded in language, such as equality and morality, are significantly culturally and linguistically contingent. The easiest illustration of this in our own language, is to look around a room picking out items of a certain colour. Let's say red for example. Count as many as you can, and upon recollection attempt to name all the blue things which you saw. This bias in how we frame things internally applies to our perception, values, and language (Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax, Morphology, Phonetics, etc.) However, no word possesses an absolute, self-evident meaning. This **Paradox of Definition** means any attempt to define a term inevitably relies on other terms, which themselves require definition, leading to an [[Infinite regress|infinite regress.]] [^PhilosophyRegress] [^PhilosophyRegress]: Consider an attempt to define "reality." One might say it is "everything that exists." But what does it mean "to exist"? Perhaps, "to have objective being." And what is "being"? Something that is "real, not imaginary." And "imaginary"? "Something that exists in the mind, not in reality." This circularity reveals that language is a closed, recursive system without an external, objective foundation for meaning. The frustration often experienced when reading dense philosophy stems not only from the obscurity of the prose but from this inherent limitation of language itself. Language appears to delimit the very boundaries of human understanding, rendering much of philosophical inquiry circular. This predicament led the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus*, to his famous final proposition: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." He argued that some concepts are simply beyond the expressive capacity of language. This raises a profound question: if one were to discover a fundamental truth about existence, could it even be articulated in English or any other human language? Or would it necessitate a more abstract system of representation, such as mathematics or pure logic? #### Phonosemantics While philosophy struggles with abstract meaning, a potential, albeit limited, foundation for objective meaning may exist in **phonosemantics**—the idea that some words derive their meaning directly from their sound and the tactile sensation of their articulation. Observe words related to nasal sensations, which often begin with the letters "sn": *sniff, snort, sneeze, snore, snout, snarl*. When articulating the "sn" phoneme, the tongue blocks the airflow through the mouth, redirecting it through the nasal cavity to produce a nasal consonant. The physical act of producing the sound mimics the concept it describes; one must almost snarl to say the word *snarl*. A similar phenomenon occurs with the "gl" sound, which is lighter and more delicate. This phoneme is associated with words concerning smoothness (*glass, glide, gloss, glaze*) and light (*glow, gleam, glitter, glisten*). Some linguists even theorize that the words *mama* and *baba* were, in a sense, invented by babies. The easiest consonant sounds to produce are bilabial stops and nasals like /m/, /b/, and /p/, while the easiest vowel is the open central /a/. The utterance "ma-ma" is one of the first and most natural vocalizations a baby makes, often when seeking its mother. Consequently, cultures worldwide have interpreted this sound as the word for "mother." Fathers, then, receive the second-easiest articulation, "baba" or "papa." This theory is supported by the prevalence of the /m/ sound in the word for mother across numerous unrelated language families. It serves as a reminder that language is an embodied process, not merely an intellectual one. In a humorous turn, it seems that infant vocalizations have provided a more stable cross-cultural foundation for meaning than centuries of philosophical inquiry. Another peculiarity of English phonology is our infrequent pronunciation of vowels as they are written. The most common vowel sound in spoken English is the **schwa** (/ə/), a neutral, unstressed vowel sound. In the word *America*, for instance, neither the initial 'A' nor the 'i' is articulated as such. Instead, they are both pronounced as a schwa. The true 'e' sound is articulated only on the stressed second syllable: *A-ME-ri-ca*. This contrast is clearly audible when comparing *photograph* (stress on the first syllable) with *photography* (stress on the second). Ironically, non-native speakers often articulate these vowels correctly according to their spelling, which is precisely what marks their speech as having a "foreign" accent to native ears. This demonstrates the significant disconnect between orthography and phonology—between letters and the sounds they supposedly represent. #### Paradox & Precision The inherent ambiguities of language give rise to logical paradoxes. The simplest is the **Liar's Paradox**: "This statement is false." If the statement is true, then it is false; if it is false, then it is true. The philosopher Bertrand Russell was deeply interested in such self-referential paradoxes, formulating his own, known as the **Barber's Paradox**: *In a village, the barber shaves all those, and only those, who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?* If the barber shaves himself, he violates the condition that he only shaves those who do not shave themselves. If he does not shave himself, he must be shaved by the barber, which is himself. To escape such ambiguities, language can be translated into the precise formulas of formal logic. Russell famously applied this to the seemingly straightforward statement: "The present King of France is bald." The statement appears coherent, yet its subject does not exist. Is it false, or simply meaningless? Russell reformulated it using predicate logic to clarify its logical structure: $ \exists x (K(x) \land \forall y (K(y) \rightarrow y=x) \land B(x)) $ In this formulation, the statement asserts: "There exists an individual, $x$, such that $x$ is the present King of France, and for all individuals $y$, if $y$ is the present King of France, then $y$ is identical to $x$, and $x$ is bald." By breaking the statement into its constituent logical claims, its falsity becomes immediately apparent because the initial clause—the existence of such an $x$—is false. This approach hearkens back to Aristotle, the inventor of the syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning where a conclusion is derived from two premises. The classic example is: 1. All men are mortal. 2. Socrates is a man. 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. As long as the structure is valid and the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. However, a syllogism can be logically invalid even if its terms are rearranged to produce a true conclusion. Consider this invalid form: 1. All cats are mammals. 2. All dogs are mammals. 3. Therefore, all cats are dogs. This illustrates the fallacy of the undistributed middle: just because two sets share a common superset does not mean they are identical. Aristotle's crucial insight was that an argument's logical validity is independent of its conclusion's truth. One could substitute terms into the same invalid structure—"All poodles are mammals; all dogs are mammals; therefore, all poodles are dogs"—and arrive at a true conclusion, but the reasoning remains fallacious. This analysis is far from mere intellectual exercise; the imprecision of natural language has profound real-world consequences. In 1998, during a legal deposition concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, U.S. President Bill Clinton famously responded to a question with the statement: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." While widely perceived as political evasion, his statement highlights a genuine philosophical and legal problem. The verb "to be" is notoriously imprecise. Does "is" refer to a transient state at a specific moment (*it is 4:00 p.m.*), an eternal condition (*the sky is blue*), or even a future state (*the meeting is at 3:00 p.m.*)? For lawyers seeking to make an absolute determination about a state of being, the word's ambiguity poses a significant challenge—and offers a convenient escape hatch for those under oath. Had Bertrand Russell been present, he might have asked for a confirmation that "there existed an $x$ such that $x$ was a relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky, and $x$ occurred in the past." Another group for whom linguistic precision is paramount is insurers, who attempt to define reality in ways that minimize their financial risk. In a famous case following the September 11th attacks, billions of dollars hinged on the definition of a single word: "occurrence." The World Trade Center was insured for $3.5 billion per catastrophic occurrence. The tower leaseholders argued that the two separate plane crashes constituted two separate occurrences, warranting two separate insurance claims totaling $7 billion. The insurers countered that the coordinated plot was a single attack and therefore a single occurrence. The English language could not supply an absolute definition to resolve the dispute. Ultimately, some insurers were compelled to pay twice, while others paid once. Despite the immense financial and legal ramifications, no definitive resolution on the meaning of this apparently simple word was ever reached. This serves as a fitting conclusion, for it demonstrates that despite our best [[The Nature of Representation, Symbolism & Meaning|efforts to map language onto reality,]] to derive unequivocal meaning, and to build systems of logic and law upon it, language remains as elusive and multifaceted as consciousness itself... for now.