Dialogue Deficiency: The World's Most Insidious Disease

Vantage Point - the podcast for critical thinkers.

Why the loss of real dialogue may be more dangerous than any other global condition.

In this episode
A definition and a hard look at the episode's theme, plus 14 of Eli's aphorisms, William Ernest Henley and Merriam-Webster from great minds.

Eli’s Aphorisms
“If you can honestly state your problem, then you can solve it.”
“Look for where your talent(s) and the needs of the world intersect. There's where you matter.”
“We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us only by what we have already done.”
“The irony of technology: the more we have the capability to unite humanity, the more capability we have to create chaos. And we prove it every day.”
“More than climate change, pandemics, wars, trade wars, or corrosive politics, the world is suffering from dialogue deficiency.”
“Along with the ability to record history comes the ability and opportunity to misrepresent it.”
“Carefully chosen language can win a point while saying nothing about advancing the truth.”
“Before saying anything, ask this: if this were to be the last thing I utter before I die, and history were here to record it, would I say it?”
“No matter who you are or what you do, what matters most is if at the end of the day you are proud of yourself for doing something to make someone else's life better.”
“Dialogue's own detritus will likely serve as its own resurrection, making it so insidious.”
“What if is always an important question to ask, not just proactively, but retroactively.”
“We are not political, just critical.”
“Keep questioning, keep learning, and keep thinking critically.”
“Using the word negative would have been negative.”

From Great Minds
“It matters not how straight the gate, nor charged with punishment the scroll. I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul.” — William Ernest Henley
“A conversation between two or more persons, an exchange of ideas and opinions, a discussion that is aimed at resolution.” — Merriam-Webster

This episode is supported by Vantage Point's Executive Sponsor, Stephen Bozer, SVP of Human Health at Flavine.

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. More at eliamdur.com.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:10

This is Vantage Point. The podcast for critical thinkers, where we make sense of and excel in our lives, our jobs, and our world. We are not political, just critical. Thanks for joining in the third of our eight inaugural episodes. I'm your host, Ellie Amdur. By now, you're probably aware of what's driving this podcast: the disturbing decline in critical thinking. Please go back and link to the first two episodes of Vantage Point if you want to get a better fix on that. All that said, let's get to the topic of the day: dialogue deficiency, the world's most insidious disease. A few thousand years from now, sociocultural anthropologists will understand something immensely profound about us here at the beginning of the 21st century. Something that we are so immersed in that few of us recognize it, let alone understand it. More than climate change, pandemics, wars, trade wars, or corrosive politics, the world is suffering from dialogue deficiency. Later on, I will offer my reasoning to justify the argument that dialogue deficiency is more serious than the others. But for now, let's look at what dialogue is and where the word comes from. Merriam-Webster defines dialogue as, among other things, a conversation between two or more persons, an exchange of ideas and opinions, a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict, a discussion that is aimed at resolution. The etymology of the word is interesting and pertinent to this discussion and its intentions. Stemming from the Greek dia logos, conversation, its roots are dia, which is through, and logos, which is speech or reason. We trace the term to Plato, in whose works it is closely associated with the art of dialectic, the dialogue between people holding different points of view, with the goal of arriving at the truth through reasoned argument. And that last phrase should indicate where this is going. As long as there have been alphabets, Egyptian hieroglyphs approximately 5,500 years ago, and then springing up in Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Sumer, Anatolia, Greece, and so on. We've had the ability to record history and current events using language rather than drawings like the ones we see in the caves at Lescaux, France. The problem, and it is an innate one, is that along with the ability to record history comes the ability and opportunity to misrepresent it. In the larger sense, along with truth comes a distortion of it, sometimes innocently and inadvertently, but more often than not, by design and for ulterior purposes. Unchecked by dialogue, this results in exactly the opposite, the lack of dialogue. Keeping that in mind, let me bring you to a modern-day case study. While the absence of dialogue is usually the result of authoritarian suppression or skilled exorcism, it can also be achieved strategically with the long view always kept up ahead. Such is the case with the political and social climate dominating the United States as well as other places around the world. Since I can speak with some familiarity with the United States' state of affairs, I shall. I want to talk about the beginnings of the dissolution of dialogue. Until 1990, American politics and government was always a raucous and contentious, how do you do? But ultimately a cooperative venture to one degree or another. Famous for that was the cordial and convivial nature of the relationship between Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democrat Speaker of the House Thomas P. Tip O'Neill. As frontmen for the two parties, they certainly led from the front in many, many a bloody battle. But at the end of the day, there was a cord, usually anyway. O'Neill stepped down in January 1987 and Reagan left office in January 1989. Their larger-than-life departures leaving huge voids. At the same time, Representative Newt Gingrich from Georgia was already in ascent, assuming the position of House Minority Whip in March 1989. While he went on to the powerful speaker position in 1995, it was in 1990 that he first had a powerful impact. Gingrich issued his now famous, or should I say infamous, pamphlet, Language, a key mechanism of control, which was sent to Republican candidates running in the 1990 midterm elections, therein making the non-negotiable point that carefully chosen language can win a point, saying nothing about advancing the truth. So he listed two categories of words which candidates were to learn, memorize, internalize, and use whenever needed. The first category was, in his words, optimistic, positive governing words. Thirty words like common sense, courage, family, fair, freedom, liberty, moral, peace, prosperity, truth, and vision. And in his first example of using language advantageously, Gingrich entitled the second category Contrasting Words, not negative words. Using the word negative would have been negative, as one would expect, but Gingrich was one step ahead of the rest of us. Here he used thirty-six words, including anti-flag, betray, crisis, disgrace, failure, incompetent, liberal, radical, shallow, taxes, traitors, and welfare. It's clear that these lists weren't intended to promote dialogue, and we're living in the world resulting from it. The Republicans didn't gain control of the House that year or in the presidential election of 1992. Clinton swept in that year. But they did in 1994, and Gingrich assumed the speakership, and with it, all the influence of the third most powerful position in the United States government. There was nothing that even hinted at striving for dialogue, and it's been missing ever since. I deem dialogue deficiency more serious than all other global societal conditions, because the others exist ubiquitously. Therefore, we can see them, measure them, and decide on the methods of their dissolution if we are so committed. On the other hand, dialogue is, for all intents and purposes, extinct and must be recreated before we can attempt to initiate and ultimately institutionalize it. The paradox here is that there will be more disagreement than agreement arising from superficially sound but intellectually dishonest arguments in support of a far gone conclusion of what dialogue is. Precisely the reason we have lost dialogue to begin with. In other words, its own detritus will likely serve as its own resurrection, making it so insidious. That will require us, all of humanity, to call on all the great thinking that got us out of the dark ages, into the Renaissance, through the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution and into the modern age. Dialogue deficiency will take many generations to cure, but there is no choice. Imagine the world 75 years from now, 2100, or 2101 to be exact. If we let the disease go unchecked and run its course. But let's set that weighty thought aside for a moment and turn to something a little more personal. In my very long career, here are a couple of inescapable truths I've discovered along the way aphorisms. And I'll share them with you the way Ben Franklin shared all of his in Poor Richard's almanac. Franklin didn't explain them, he just gave them to you. And I'm going to share more with you each episode. After these, we'll see some great thoughts from great minds in the past, including some thoughts from my mind. Notice the lack of the use of the word great. Two that I think are comfortably fitting in with what we're discussing today. Before saying anything, ask this. Now, as promised, let's check in with a couple of history's greatest thinkers. And this is a combination of From Great Minds and What If. Nelson Mandela recited the poem Invictus every morning for the twenty-seven years that he was imprisoned on Robin Island. Every morning. So who was this person that influenced Nelson Mandela, one of the great minds and great leaders in history? In Victors, which translates to unconquerable, was written by William Ernest Henley in the middle of the nineteenth century. Unconquerable. Henley was besieged by a very difficult life. He lost one leg to amputation and almost lost a second to amputation until the great Joseph Lister jumped in and was able to save Henley's other leg. But Henry was was besieged also by one disease after another. He lost a five-year-old daughter to one of those diseases. He had a rough life. But he wrote in Victus a four-verse poem, which he writes in the fourth verse. I am the captain of my soul. I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul. Nelson Mandela, who had much bigger things in his imprisonment in mind, took to that poem and recited it to himself out loud every morning for 27 years. It doesn't need to be said what Nelson Mandela achieved. What would have happened? Here's my what if. Had Nelson Mandela never read that poem, how self-motivated would he have been? My guess is that he would have been self-motivated by something else, but he chose Invictus. And in that sense, Invictus and William Ernest Henley live on through Nelson Mandela and through us. And if we can expand our thinking a little bit beyond Mandela and us. What if the United States concept moved to Europe in the 1920s and 1930s? Albert Einstein always imagined a United States of Europe long before he became famous here in the United States. He imagined it because he said it would unify the economies of all the countries, it would prevent war and it would promote research, development, education, etc. A United States of Europe. Europe didn't do that, and beginning in 1933, took off in its own direction under the Nazis and Hitler. And there was a war that ravaged Europe, and I don't have to tell you the rest. What if there was somebody like Nelson Mandela imprisoned in Robin Island who had said, what if we had a United States of Europe? Well, we do almost. And it was brought to us by the European Union. What if is always an important question to ask, not just proactively, but retroactively. That just about does it for me for this episode. Coming up in the next few weeks, we're going to be discussing writing and continuing to write, critical traits for the 21st century, and the first spotlight of a great mind, Nicolaos Copernicus, one of the original critical thinkers. Furthermore, I want to talk to you about what made Sandy Koufax great and how it can work for you too. So thanks for listening. Thanks for your uh interest in Vantage Point, and thanks for your time. See you in the next episode. Until then, keep questioning, keep learning, and keep thinking critically.