Did what you said mean what I think it meant or did it mean what you said?

Why do people have trouble saying what they mean? For several reasons. 1) Those who listen have the option of making judgments about those who are talking. 2) Those who are talking are sizing up how much of something to tell someone else, so they leave parts out thinking that the person would be bored with the topic or can't be trusted with the topic. 3) Those engaged in the conversational dance negotiate as they go. The speaker thinks, "I'll tell so much, see what the response is, and continue if I don't get the signal to quit." The other thinks "If the speaker goes over 10 seconds of running speech I will have to hide the yawn." 4) Those who are speaking want to hide the facts because they don't know the listener well, or they don't want to hurt the listener. 5) Those who speak think very little of the listener, so they don't want to waste their own precious time.




The list could go on. Mainly, the reason is that people don't want honesty; they want image. It is so refreshing to be around someone who is honest in speech. When that happens stress is reduced, and I feel compelled to be honest in response. We all get inklings when speech is less than honest. Even if we don't know all the speech markers for lies or know methods for telling deception, we can detect an atmosphere of judgment or unworthiness or boredom. It increases the tension in the air; stress heightens.

I have been in my current job for a little over 4 years. Truly it seems like 44 years, but that's because the first 3 years were so filled with people not saying what they meant that the atmosphere could have been cut with a knife. Now, it's different in my immediate working atmosphere. Days are long enough, but the communication is much more honest. There's laughter even. And where there's laughter, there's clear, honest communication. The stress has been cut in half.

I think it has been written somewhere about letting yes mean yes and no mean no. Oh yeah, the Good Book. It's amazing what happens to a person's inner being when that occurs.

Humility 101 for the 1 millionth time

I just got back from a conference. It was better than expected. One of the tidbits of learning I came away with was a quotation from Heraclitus (6th century BCE Greek). He stated in his one extant work, "the path for the way up is the same path as the one for the way down." My immediate reaction was, "H-m-m-m, I'll have to ponder that one for a while."

Now I've pondered. That's a rather startling statement since a person can't really tell whether he or she is on the way up or down. We might think we're on the way up, but if we are disoriented, we're really on the way down. I think that's the point though. If we can't tell which way is up or down, then we shouldn't be so pompous in our daily walks. Of course, the words were hollow coming from Heraclitus since he was from a very wealthy and influential family.

But, as arrogant as Americans are, I guess it seems a little hollow that I would even reflect on the passage myself. I was in a session tonight trying to teach a 9th grader how to write an essay. One of the comments I make to students learning to write is to lose the arrogance that Americans have and learn to proofread. Not everything that rolls off the lips, comes out the tip of the pen, or flashes across the mind is worthy of remaining unrevised.

Just when I think I have learned the lesson well from experience, I seem to take two steps backward. I did that even today. I thought I would take a risk, said something, and then realized that it was arrogant of me to even have had a thought like that cross my mind. So I say to myself, "Physician heal thyself." Tomorrow will be a new day, and hopefully, a less pompous day.

Eating bread = life. Simple!

Cultures from 1000s of years ago have had the notion that people could live forever after they died. I don't really know where they got the idea. Egyptian tombs are the most representative of the old world's idea of living forever, but it existed before them. Why the Jews didn't believe in an after life is beyond me. I suppose that they were literalists and their idea of following the Talmud didn't include providing for an after life. It seems that as the years of the monarchy went by that some of the Jews, at least, had developed the idea that they lived forever through their posterity.

When the Son of Man walks on the earth's stage and has a conversation with some of his fellow Jews, as he did in John 6, it's no wonder, then, that they are shocked. They wanted to follow him for his miracles of healing and multiplying food, but when he started saying that he was bread from heaven and partaking of his bread would lead to the afterlife, he lost the crowd. They wanted to see a few more miracles before fully trusting that what he was saying about himself was true.

Maybe it's just me, but having the option of an afterlife sounds pretty inviting. The present life is what we make of it all right, but it's rife with disappointment and sadness. An afterlife with the Maker of Life sounds much better. If the Son of Man's bread is all I have partake of to get this life, I'm there. Of course, some would say that it's easier said than done to trust that what he said and did was straight from heaven and to follow his teachings. I don't know about "hard," but following His teachings is counter-cultural at times. That's just the process of making decisions, though. And humans are pretty good at making decisions that favor them. So, I'm thinking that eating bread and gaining the afterlife is a good deal. I can decide in favor of the counter-cultural when the odds are so much in my favor.

Working on noble aftermaths

The scene near the end of the 25-year-old TV movie Aspen took place in a court room. A lawyer was representing someone whom the city residents thought had murdered another person important in their neighborhood. The trial was controversial, but the powerful people of Aspen wanted the judge to put away the defendant. At a point just before the judge was to give his verdict, the defense lawyer asked to speak to the judge in his chambers. The request was granted. In the chambers the lawyer took the judge back to a skiing incident in their adolescence in which the lawyer had saved the judge's life. As adolescents, the young man who became judge, had promised his friend who became a prominent defense attorney, that if there was ever a time he could repay his friend for saving his life, he would do it. Back in the judge's chambers the defense attorney was saying that he knew the judge had the pressure of the town and the influential people on him and that he would probably rule against his client. He said his client was innocent and all the evidence presented was circumstantial. The judge agreed about the evidence being circumstantial, but told his friend he could not rule in his favor. The attorney then reminded the judge of his promise to repay a debt and said, "I'm asking for the repayment now. I saved your life. Rule for my client." The judge declined.

I still remember my emotions. I really couldn't believe the betrayal that happened in the judge's chambers. That riveting scene has been made a permanent part of my psyche, and I find myself emotionally responding to betrayal in all of its forms. There's a similar scene in the movie Braveheart. Mel Giblson plays Wallace excellently. The nobles of Scotland tell Wallace they will support his independence movement and call him to their headquarters. But, he is betrayed into British hands by the one with whom he had exchanged promises. He goes on to die a noble death, but the moment of betrayal by the lords of Scotland particularly repusles me.

Then, of course, there is the case of the one who called himself God's Son. He was with his followers in Jerusalem for the holiest of holidays. It was a show down. The high priest could see that the crowds were going to capitulate their normal beliefs in favor of the teaching of this Son of God. The story of Judas' betrayal is well known. But it still rips out the heart to read of or see the delivery of God's Son to the Temple Guard and eventually the Roman authority.

Humans betray each other. That's what we do. I am as guilty as the next person, so I don't know why I have highlighted this particular human activity in my mind. Maybe it's because the blade that causes the wound pierces the flesh to the bone. Maybe it's because the healing afterward takes so long. Maybe it's because the anger that is incited burns red hot searing in the pain and eventually scarring the mind. Betrayal causes temporary disorientation.

The really big betrayals in my own life have resulted each time in a total redirection of life's flow. They have caused great questioning of core values. There's no telling where I would have ended up had they not happened. I don't know that my character has been strengthened by them, but I am a better discerner of others' characters. The final scenes of Aspen have been burned into my psyche. So, I understand more about human nature. The downside is that it affects how I care about others, how much I care about others, and when I care about others. I'm not considered to be a very open person by those around me. I need to work on that. It's a result of major redirects in my life brought about by betrayals. But, since the Son of God has been down that path, I can do as He did and do as Wallace did who followed Him, and work on noble aftermaths.

Olive leaf

To ~j...

Grand calls, plans, and plodding

Once in a while, I see that certain people are prepared for a certain moment in time. Mordecai's famous words to Esther from the book by the same name are, "If you don't go before the king, God will rescue his people from another quarter, but who knows but that you have come to this kingdom for exactly this moment." Of course the Son of Man knew his timing and place. He told his followers on several occasions. John wrote in retrospect of these conversations, "He knew where he was from and where he was going." And a few chapters later John wrote the statement from Jesus' lips from the trial, "I have come for one purpose, to speak truth." In the Old Testament apocrypha, in Judith, the main character, Judith, knew that she was the one to deliver her people from the hand of the enemy when the city elders caved in to the demands of the Persians. So, she willingly accepted her role.

I suppose that is why people say that God has a plan for their lives. I think God has a plan. I think God helps people fit into his plan as they become willing to do so. But, I'm not so strong on the plan for my life part. Some people, yes, have moments when God has called their numbers. They're center-stage. Others, like me, don't ever hear their number called, unless it hasn't happened yet. I'll write another blog when this occurs. In retrospect of my life, I see that on occasion The Maker of destinies has said, "Yes," or "No" to some of my desires. But, that seems to be different from the grand call or the plan for my life.

I'm still breathing, so I guess I could have an epiphany about my plan. In the meantime, I will plod along doing what I can to follow the teachings of the Son of Man. His role after all was to tell truth.

The charmed life

You residents of Thebes, our native land, look on this man, this Oedipus, the one who understood that celebrated riddle. He was the most powerful of men. All citizens who witnessed this man’s wealth were envious. Now what a surging tide of terrible disaster sweeps around him. So while we wait to see that final day, we cannot call a mortal being happy before he’s passed beyond life free from pain. (from the final lines chanted by the chorus in Oedipus the King by Sophocles)

Oedipus the king had it going his way from birth, literally. He was supposed to have been discarded on the cliffs of the countryside. He survived that because of the kindness of a shepherd. Lucky for Oedipus, the shepherd delivered him to a king's household for raising in a not too distant city-state from where he entered the world. And, still lucky for him, he became a great king in his own hometown city-state by solving a riddle. Yes, the stars shone on Oedipus. His wife and children were beautiful and loyal. His subjects admired him. He lived what you might call the charmed life.

But, life is long. At least it was long enough for Oedipus' fortune to change. Unlucky for him, he had been born under a terrible prophecy. He was caught in a spiral finally in which he slept with his mother and killed his father, the cursed prophecy given at his birth. Really unlucky for him, he lost Apollos' favor. He gouged out both his eyes for penance and then was banished from the town he ruled for fulfilling his prophecy.

Life's full of ironies and illusions. Life is full of disillusions for that matter. That's what the closing words of the play by Sophocles relay to us. I guess around 425 BCE, people just like you and me, looked at life and thought that some people lived charmed lives. I know we look out at the country club tennis courts and wish we had the life of leisure like those people. Or we are driving down the street and see those Porshes and Mercedes and fantasize about the life those people are living, wishing we had it for ourselves. We like to drive through the really "nice" sections of town and wish we had a piece of that American Pie. Sometimes we even think we're headed toward the good life we deserve and then a setback occurs. We think that the people driving those Mercedes, living in those nice houses or playing tennis on the courts while the rest of the world is working don't have any setbacks. Their lives are charmed.

Perhaps, the great teacher summed up what the Greeks mused about as they left Sophocles' play in the statement, "The first shall be last, and the last first." But I do like the elaboration of Sophocles. One of the translations of this passage of Oedipus uses regret instead of pain from life's circumstances. In that case, it could be paraphrased that a person should not count him(her)self fortunate by having a life of no regrets until the day (s)he dies. Only then would you have no allowance for regretful times. Either way, you have to die before you know for sure that you've made it through life unscathed.

No one does of course, that is, go through life unscathed. People divorce, get betrayed, lose someone near to them, have recalcitrant children, become disillusioned, lose large sums of money, have businesses go under, get cast out of their families, and much more. Really, that is the point of the play as voiced by the chorus. It is great use of hyperbole, a form of irony.

So, if the Apollos-worshiping community of BCE times recognized the way of the world, and human nature hasn't changed since then, why would we have an expectation in our modern world that we would go through life unscathed? That's why I am banking on the last being first. There are a lot of us who are running last right now. I look forward to coming in first at the end.

Prophetic

I want to recall two mile markers in my life to start with. One is the reading of the book "The Power to Be," by Tom Olbricht 25 years ago, a book based on Jesus' lifestyle from the gospel of Mark; the other is a conversation with a woman named Sharon who taught school in Odessa 20 years ago. The book posed the thought that people should live in the moment rather than depending on and following some rigid schedule in order to be productive. The conversation and subsequent poem by Sharon, "See Me, See Life" referenced people who are very accepting because they don't live with preconceived notions of how others ought to act or converse with you. People should be able to take your words only for the moment and interpret them for what they are. (Boy, this should be a prime directive for translators, but that is a whole other subject, a battle for another day).

I subscribe to both of these ideas, but it's a cognitive accord only. In reality over the years, I have blown off other people because of a schedule. I have come to conversations with a preconceived notion on how it might go since the other person has a track record with me. I have tried to prepare for what might have been said rather than allowing for the moment's negotiation of what actually was being said. I had both an umbrella schedule and a specific schedule. That's what productive people did. I experienced 1 day out of 100 in which I let the day took me where it wanted. Frequently, I saw opportunities to help or to offer input or to prepare for only in retrospect.

So, when I reflect on the two mile-markers of the third decade of my life, I have to wonder if I why those two mile-markers were important to me. I certainly did not let the their message inform my actions. But, maybe I read the material then so that I would be prepared for the present decade of my life.

I just love the technology of the present. Now, I send e-mails that are productive for my work all right, but since they work at bascially instantaneous speed, it leaves time to write (what an anachronism) friends and family - by email of course. Not only is the transmission of the message faster, the painstaking time it took to handwrite drawn out letters has disappeared. Typing is so much faster. Then there's the phone, which has been around a while, but you used to have be around a land line. The cell phone has made that a memory. I can call friends anytime, pretty much anywhere. The other day I received a phone call from a friend in Fort Worth who just wanted to know how to spell a word. Cell phones have made conversations shorter, but much more frequent. And then there is the phenomenon of text messaging. I receive several a day - short little reminders that someone who cares is on the other end. Oh, that's not all. If a person wants to plan anything or assemble a written document of any kind, Googledocs are just the thing. It keeps workers and/or friends in the loop on basically everything even meetings missed. And, I love Twitter. The little details of life or the little tidbits of parts of life can be shared with whoever you wish to share those tidbits with. All of this is only a partial way to keep up. I can shop online from anywhere, remember people with e-cards for their improtant events, keep a transparent log of my life, philosophy, interests, work, etc., by blogging. I can prepare for family vacations through a collaboration center so that one phone call can be made instead of 3. I can choose about any app(lication) I want on a phone so that I can check the temperature, make a calculation, take a movie clip, find a movie, order flight tickets, or google my house on googleearth.

The deliberate world of the late 80s has yielded to a customized, much more seamless, lightning-speed world. I'm not out of breath trying to keep up either. I can keep pace because of the ease of the devices that deliver this new world. I can let the day take me anywhere it wants because its faster and shorter spurts of little information allow me to go several places in a shorter amount of time, breathlessly. I can take people more at face-value with fewer preconceptions because text-messaging, emails, IM, short phone calls allow me fewer words and tones of voices to judge them by. I'm happier, the people I communicate with are happier. Life is good.

The other day I received an email from a friend from Abilene while at work wanting to know what was up in my blogs. I answered him within a short amount of time. He responded. I responded. I had a productive work day, left for home made 3 calls on my trip home setting up supper, touching base with a work colleague, and ordering take-out to eat. I received a text message from my daughter, so I replied to her (yes, on the road). After eating, checked my email, blogged, twittered, worked virtaully with a student on virtual high school in its collaboration center, then went to bed with my cell phone's MP3 playing soothing strains through my earbuds. Yeah - living la vida buena, hermanos y hermanas!

Literalism doesn't inspire me

Generally, when people talk to me of heaven, I don't have a picture in my mind because I don't believe that a picture of heaven is painted anywhere on the pages of the sacred book. So, when one of my favorite people began giving accolades to a book called "Heaven," it was hard for me to get as excited as this person wanted me to be. But, I read excerpts here and there in the opening stages of the book because that is where the premise was set out on how the author knew so much about heaven.





I saw right away that the author's view of the sacred book was derived from a literal view and from a view that allows Old Testament passages to be put right alongside New Testament passages without regard for original context. One of the conclusions from one of the chapters was that we would be staying on the earth, a new earth granted, but the earth nonetheless. I don't know why we would need a new earth, but literalists don't seem to question much. They seem to merely take what is said and try to make the best of an explanation. Oh, and yes, a new heaven came with the new earth. No explanation on why a new heaven was needed either.

For me, just because one would be in the presence of the Creator is a good reason to desire to be "in heaven." And, I would get to be with those who have preceded me to heaven. That's another good reason to be there. But as to its appearance after I'm there or its allure to those who fear its alternative or want the image of golden streets, pearly gates,etc. or need the structure of a new earth inhabited by Christians and governed by the Son of God, I have no idea why they feel such a compunction to concoct unnecessary inferences. The Son of Man chose not to disclose any of its treasures or secrets, so I'm wondering how a human could write such an assertive position over 200 pages long on a matter not discussed by the one who came from there and promised to return to take us where he is.

So although my excitement over the book "Heaven" won't be seen in my demeanor, my desire to be taken to the place where my loved ones reside and to ride there with the one who will return for me runs deep and emits a tranquil aura around my face and a long-abiding belief in my core. I don't need a modern fabrication (book). I only need the original assurance that this will happen. No kaleidoscope picture of passages have to be cut and pasted into some fanciful mosaic, just an assurance noted from the lips of the one who will return. Then I'm satisfied and truly excited.

Just say no to following the regular Joe

I pass a sign from time to time on a church building. It says, "Abundant Life Church." I have no idea what the people are like who enter those doors, so this is not about the people. It's the phrase "abundant life" that begs a comment.

I barely know what "life" is, so "abundant life" escapes me. Oh, I know the verse well enough in John 10:10, "I have come to bring life to you and for you to have it more abundantly." But, in the context of John 10:1-18, life is put in opposition to destruction, theft, and murder. These last 3 were products of false Chosen Ones, the former a product of the true Chosen One.

It seems that the semantic set up in the passage is one of contrast. The focus is not just on abundant life, but on the kind of life that is distinct, not offered by those who destroy, kill, and steal. It's not abundant life, but a life that is different from the life offered by those who destroy and plunder. Powerful men who chose to plunder cities and maim its citizens just for conquest couldn't really offer a full or satisfactory life. There had been other chosen ones, sons of God to grace the earth. Alexander the great called himself with such an appellation. The pharaohs of the middle dynasties of Egypt did. Augustus Caesar did. More than one Persian king did. But following these earthly chosen ones didn't offer a fully satisfactory life. It lacked the spritual dimension, the life that might extend past what the present moment offered.

I'm not much of a follower. But, I can follow somone who has more to offer than what I see in the here and now. The offer is fuller, more satisfactory. It contains worthy desires that have actions as their vehicles for manifestation. I would have made a lousy ancient citizen for a king who thought he was all that, the chosen of the gods. I would have made a lousy follower of King George III in our own Revolutionary War. But, I can follow someone who offers a spiritual dimension.

The (in)tangibles

The mundane activities of our days drain the life from us. I know that routines are what the brain depends on, even constructs, for self-preservation of the body. But, I also know that what preserves on one hand deprives or destroys on the other hand. In fact, if someone asked me to tell them how my life was going, I'd tell them about my routines. That would be boring. Of course, if I was asked about my life, I could answer about the activities that caused my adrenalin to flow, or that raised my excitement level. Likely, though, the person would get my official mundane line, "Everything's fine."

Besides saying, "Iam life," the Master from the father said, "I have come to bring life to you." I know cognitively that he was not offering more mundane activities to perform in life. Still, so many people are not enjoying life. They're just moving from one mundane activity to another without too much arousal, stimulus, or excitement. I have been like that and find myself falling into that pattern more often than I like.

Now, supposing I have taken the Master up on his offer of life, what should my "life" be like? Is it simply modeling teachings such as "turn the other cheek?" Is it trying to be excited all the time because I have some notion that life=excitement? It seems to me to be the idea of something unseen, the invisible qualities of "life." It's having consistently kind behavior to others. It's helping friends. It's smiling at children because I know that scowls don't convey happines. It's spending money on others for lunch or showers or unexpected gifts sometimes. It's knowing what roles I have divided with a spouse, and acting on those roles with a degree of cheerfulness since I agreed to that role. It's not answering in sheer anger when prodded to do so by my own children. And it's much more. But, the above list is not merely a bunch of actions; the list is a bunch of desires to be good, decent, kind, helpful, measured, or consistent that manifest themselves in various actions over time. They are the invisible qualities that have all kinds of actions to them as vehicles to convey the desire visibly.

I think most of all, though, that the life that was brought just to me entails acting out the invisible qualities mentioned above through the set of talents given to me and presenting them to others through my personality. Then, I know I have life that is natural because I am using what I was endowed with, but also I have life that is supernatural because the desire to continue to use my talents without tiring does not diminish like energy that needs replenishing each night after being expended during the day.

Life brings energy to my soul, my psyche. It brings light to a mundane day, spring to my step, smiles to my face, laughter to my friends, a tune to my tongue, and glint of hope to my tiny life of 1 of 6 billion.

A reaction against the Accuser who stands before God

Why all this interest in the pursuit of knowledge of lying? I don't know for sure. If I go with the idea that people pursue in life what they most need, then I have one of those reasons. It has been hypothesized that people become psychologists because they are exploring some deep-seated need of their own. People become lawyers in order to put order to the chaos of their own world. People become firemen or policemen in order to learn more of their fascination of destruction and control, respectively. The list goes on. I guess I would want to dissect the lie because of need to understand where deception and betrayal come from or the need to set the record straight. Of course, there are other hypotheses for pursuing something in life. People are generally speaking, opportunists when given the chance. This means that I have seen an opportunity that will get me ahead in the game of life.

I really do think lying is despicable when it affects others. Nearly all lying does, but when lying causes people to alter their lives because of the advantage others might gain by lying, that's when I turn red and blow fuses. I'm not powerful enough or well conncected enough to hold people in check, but through knowledge of lying, perhaps I can help in making sure that people don't get taken advantage through some people's darker, deceptive nature.

I think I get this idea from my religious values. I find that the Great Teacher had a similar view to mine. He didn't mince words when he came into contact with some of the most ostensibly religious people of his time and place. On one particular occasion these very pious Jews were criticizing him for putting himself in a higher position than they were in relation to God. The Teacher retorted: "You are the children of your father, the Devil, and you want to follow your father's desires. From the very beginning he was a murderer and has never been on the side of truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he is only doing what is natural to him, because he is a liar and the father of all lies" (John 8.44). Now that's a strong statement - telling people they are the children of the father of all lies. Another example comes from the Apocalypse of John. In one of the scenes of his visions, he sees a war in heaven. During the course of this war, Satan is thrown out of heaven. The author uses much of the same idea in his description and function of Satan that Jesus did. "The huge dragon was thrown out–that ancient serpent, named the Devil, or Satan, that deceived the whole world. He was thrown down to earth, and all his angels with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, 'Now God's salvation has come! Now God has shown his power as King! Now his Messiah has shown his authority! For the one who stood before our God and accused believers day and night has been thrown out of heaven'" (Revelation 12.9-10). There he is, the evil one, still deceiving, still accusing, still lying in this vision.

Because there is such a strong reaction to lying in a book I deem sacred, then I believe I have taken that to heart because it matches some of my other desires, interests, experiences, and training in life. Many have pursued other parts of the Good Book and done well. This is my way of becoming leaven on the earth to create a little niche for good in an otherwise very evil, illusionary world. So, I try to track down the tangles in the web when people practice to deceive. It's a small niche The Maker of Interests has allowed me to fill.

Soul Sweetness

Attorneys play this vicious game called depositions. In this game, witnesses try to cover their tracks while attorneys try to expose the same tracks. Conversational Currents is a method that charts the 50 word responses of a witness being deposed. It tells how many responses occur before a witness comes to one of those big whopping lies as measured by the type-token ratio method spoken of a post or two ago. Some people like to build up to telling a lie. So, their chart will show a string of responses before the big one is told. Other people like to tell the lie up front so they can be consistent in their lie from that point on. Still others prefer to see where the line of questioning is going, spring the lie, then try to manipulate the questioner into ending the questioning because they have told the substance of their story. There are all kinds of styles.

Another benefit of the Conversational Currents method is that it shows where in the organizational structure of an attorney's questioning the really big lies are and where the minor lies are. If the attorney can have this pointed out before the trial, then (s)he can rearrange the argument to crescendo to the main lie and point it out as such, or (s)he can point it out at the very beginning and continue to hammer the point home throughout the rest of the questioning. Some attorneys like to present the lie in the original line of questioning and then hang the person out to dry on the cross-examination. Knowing the placement of the big lies and the minor lies in a deposition can help an attorney restructure questioning and final arguments in the trial and gain an advantage.

One other benefit of Conversational Currents is that it guts the witness of hedging that may happen. It makes the witness skip the hedge and become more direct. Most of the time that makes it easier for a jury or judge to see the lie being told. It's nice to be able to strip a lie down to its raw, cold, twisted skeleton. The liar knows (s)he has been attacked with a full frontal assault, that's for sure.

Many people think truth comes out in body gestures even though the words come out in lies. I think they have that wrong. A person can easily learn the tricks of the trade on body gestures and control the gestures just to trick someone "trained" to watch. Both lies and truth come out in the same utterance. Words having truth value can be separated from words having false value. The thrill of the hunt for me is in successfully illustrating that separation. It's sweetness to the soul.

Chess, anyone?

Hedging is one of the oldest games in town. It's seen as "not really lying." There are a number of ways to hedge. One can express uncertainty. One can just give partial knowledge of what is happening and withhold the other part of what (s)he knows. One can stall by using "um..." and pausing, hoping that the other party will come back in on the conversation and continue talking. One can also give mitigators to anything certain, such as starting a thought with "I think..." or "I believe" or ending a thought with "I'm not really sure" or simply trailing off without completing a thought.

Many people would not give hedging a second thought, or they would think that hedging is not really circumventing the truth, merely delaying how to say the right words. That would be false. Hedging is deliberate. However, when taken together with a type-token ratio, it helps put the right perspective on what the person is trying to lie about. Sometimes it shows that a person really has not rehearsed a stretch of statements. The more the hedge, the less rehearsed a statement is. Sometimes it shows that a person has definitely rehearsed a statement. The more direct an answer to a question, the less the hedge, and the receiver of the information is deceived into thinking that the direct answer was not a lie.

One of the most obvious hedges is the person who says, "I don't know, but..." The speaker thinks (s)he has put the listener off the trail of truth with "I don't know." But, it's a deliberate distractor for the truth that follows, usually not in whole but in part, and usually the last part of the statement.

Hedging is fun because it doesn't have to be counted. It just has to be noticed. Hedging is also part of the chess game with liars. They use it to enshroud their real lies or throw hunters off the smell of the game they are hunting. But, game playing is fun. One can get really good at chess, figuratively speaking of course.

Tangled webs

People don't know it, but they have something more than voiceprints that are unique to them when it comes to language. And that something, rather subliminal in nature, is a number. It's not a number assigned to their voiceprints either. It's a mean that comes from dividing their speech into utterance segments of 50 or 100 words (100 is optimal). This mean can stretch across several hours of speech if necessary.

In casual speech, a person's utterances respect the mean, meaning that nearly all the 50 or 100 word segments are within one standard deviation of the mean. But, we don't always respect the mean in our utterances. Sometimes our emotions are aroused. We have moments of heightened awareness. When such an occasion arises, it shows in our speech number. That is, people are aware of their words for one reason or another, so they choose them more carefully. This affects the speech number because then the words spoken don't respect the mean. They trend higher, many times above the 1st standard deviation from the mean, and sometimes above the second deviation from the mean.

And just why would people choose words more carefully when frightened or their status quo threatened? Well, because choosing to tell the truth might incriminate them. At least that is one reason for choosing words carefully. Another is to rehearse a story so that no matter how intense the feelings are in answering questions or having to admit to anything, they can rely on the rehearsed speech with carefully chosen words.

There's a little more to it. The speech number referred to is the type-token ratio. That would be the number of non-duplicated words to the number of duplicated words. Americans start to repeat words, on average, after the 15th word is spoken, words like articles and prepositions or key words that form the basis of ideas. TTRs in 50 or 100 word segments yield an average. So, when a rehearsed speech or a nervous utterance is underway, words don't get duplicated so much.

Neat trick, huh! It's hard to manipulate the TTR. So all you guilty souls out there who are lying your way through some bad habits, you never know when your TTR could just be the culprit that snares you in its net. Sir Walter Scott pegged it 200 years ago in his poem Marmion.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive.

(Canto vi, Stanza 17)

Just another peeve - I've got too many

Translation prinicples exist when going from one language to another. Thus, when translating Caesar's Gallic wars, for instance, a person has to know at least the vocabulary of Latin, but much more enters in. Most language students today recognize that a language is more easily learned when knowledge of the culture is also learned. Knowing what triggers a phrase helps in remembering when to generate the phrase.

I was sitting in a class today, when the teacher took a direction that would have better been served if some language preparation had been done prior to the direction. The particular direction depended solely on the translation from another language in literal terms. The outcome would have been quite different if the language had been taken in figurative terms. This is where language principles come in. Native speakers know when something can be taken literally or not. Native speakers understand, for example, parody, irony, sarcasm, and other satirical features of speech. Of course, the teacher was not a native speaker of the original language, so he couldn't know what a native might have thought. But, since he was using a translation for his discussion, I don't know why it didn't occur to him to find out if someone else might have known what the native people could have thought? Why do people park their brains when discussing Biblical literature?

As you can tell it's a pet peeve of mine. People are too trusting of a conservative institution producing conservative translators. By conservative I mean that the translators don't fully employ the principles of translation. One more fully understands the Gallic Wars, for instance, when one also understands Latin, the Roman war culture, Roman values in general, Roman views about enemies such as triumphal procession, etc. But these priniciples are many times set aside when reading for a particular view in the passages of English translated Bibles. If students learning a language know the value of culture and pragmatics when learning a language, then those who propose to teach a translated document might do well to consider the same.

Ah-h-h! It's been a peeve of mine since I was 19 learning language in a university that teachers of religious documents have special rules for themselves, a narrower set. 3 1/2 decades later, nothing's changed. Que lastima! Me genoito!