Reflections on pronoun use in the forum.

[Guest guest]

In academic and research writing in the physical and social science, the

use of personal pronouns, " I, you, me, mine, " are, on the whole,

meticulously eschewed and used only when there is no other way to

express an idea or concept or action. Instead the pronouns it, one, and

we ( " the royal we " ) and the passive voice is employed. This of course,

lends an objective, non-personal air to the presentations, whether they

be book length or brief articles or notes. It also may provide an air of

emotional coolness, clarity, and authority. A sort of " in command of the

situation " sense is displayed in the responses and defenses of critiqued

positions, if done well. Those who engage in these activities often

remark on the quality of a presentation from the perspective of its

energy, lucidness, intelligibility and constructive meaning given to a

topic or issue without saying a word about the author, as if the article

wrote itself.

 

Academicians and researchers without pretensions, that is, those who

know that what they do is playing with ideas and that theirs is one of

many being presented and debated over, realize that the presenter,

regardless of their pronoun eschewing, have assumptions and opinions

that are purposely hidden and judiciously removed from their clearly

defined and demarcated writings. This is done to insure acceptability

and to ward off anticipated critiques. There is a wish to present

knowledge for knowledge sake, to be persuasive, influential, right or

dominant, to question or critique or some combinations of these. And

always it is not necessarily about what the person subjectively or

personally thinks (so it is imagined), but about the presentation

itself, the issue, the topic, the debate. No one without great risk goes

in for ad hominem attacks in public writing for that violates the canon

of respectability and fair play, though these attacks unceasingly occur

in the offices and departments and faculty clubs everywhere. The

writings are, generally and not completely, " pure " and free of these

back room opinions, condemnations, and other antics and stuff seeps

through and between the lines and we imagine what these are.

 

It can be startling to meet the author of works who in no way resemble

what they write. Marxists, structural anthropologists, and other

ideologically committed writers tend to be congruous, but there remain

differences between what is written and what is lived. One can never

tell till an open unreserved meeting is had face to face as to what is

congruous and incongruous and to ask how or why that may be so.

 

When first coming to the forum and others like this one, the posts read

seemed to be of four primary kinds. Those with consistent pronoun

dropping, those without, those who with an eclectic display of a little

of both, and those using pseudonyms with a differential use of pronouns.

 

To acclimate to this forum, pronouns were dropped at first. Then, later,

identities and pseudonyms (Advanced Trickster Old Pigeon, Lewis, etc.)

were used off and on and then dropped for the old " I. " Of course, there

were different responses to each, though " what or who writes " this has

been the same throughout plus the alterations in conditioning that have

occurred by being a part of the exchanges here.

 

Pronoun dropping hides certain aspects of being for it does not easily

allow the expression of the subjective, personal, emotional experiences

and experiences that place one in motion. One can say, I ran to the

store, but one cannot say that in the passive voice without sounding

ridiculous. Of course, one can say " no one ran to the store. " But what

does that mean here?

 

It can only means that " I " is empty of any inherent essence which can

ultimately define it. " I ran to the store " and " no one ran to the store "

are conventional and ultimate expressions of the same experience. One

also can say " No one ran to nowhere " if we use " emptiness " as the

defining assumption and it will only make sense to the other in the

context in which it spoken or written. To accept either statement should

be without difficulty unless the conversants are holding different

assumptions, intentionally or not or confusedly or not and going forward

in conversation based on those assumptions, however held. Usually with

both refusing to give them up or one questioning the assumptions of the

other or the changing of assumptions in mid conversation.

 

The result are clear: statement > contradiction > counter statement >

counter-contradiction > pointing out > counter pointing out >

exasperation-frustration > pointing out > dismissal > last word. Of

course, one may alter this by assuming the position one or the other

positions and turning tables, playing on either side, taking either

position or holding some totally unrelated assumption. This is nothing

but play. Usually, the one using " I " gets exasperated, frustrated, but

this display does not necessarily indicate anything more than that,

exasperation, frustration.

 

Then, this sort of play sometimes transforms into " ego " and " attachment "

detection and pointing out to " zombies " and catatonic personalities very

similar to that made by academics who accuse their peers of being

deluded by their erroneous assumptions, ideas and concepts ( " Big egos "

and the " brain dead " ). Ego detection, as it sometimes occurs here in

public, is akin to a " fundamentalist Christian " pointing out sin in his

brother or sister. " Fundamentalist Buddhists " do not point out sins.

Those who are attached to their beliefs like to point out egos, that are

conveniently resurrected for that purpose, and various attachments and

misunderstandings of what everything is all about. All got it wrong. It

is a pointing out of what is assumed to be (and sometimes is) cloudy

thinking, ego-attached, concept-riddenness. On the other hand, the

" misguided misinformed " point to " zombieism " and " mental catatonia " is

to the unmoved centering on a limited number of thoughts and ideas that

lead to rigidness, dullness, repetitiveness and stubbornness of thinking

and acting, and an unwillingness to change positions or regularly reveal

subjective experiences. Both of these outcomes, and all the variations

possible, are expected given the degree of unwillingness to change

assumptions mid stream in conversation or to change them willy nilly to

gain an advantage.

 

Being a pronoun less " zombie " can be exciting if one is not truly a

" zombie " and being a " wild and crazy I " can be exciting, even if at

bottom one is not that at all and all those positions in between can be

exciting as well. Taking on all these positions, whatever way one

manages to do so, does not change what we are. Reluctance to switch may

indicate something that only each appearance understands or not as what

is to be done when experiencing it. So you can call " the what or who

that wrote the above " a zombie, con man, Lewis, Old Pigeon, Advanced

Trickster, or paranoid, flipped, waffle daffle and so on and it is quite

all right. If it is disturbing not to clearly know " who " is writing just

notice that what is written is not harmful and may be useful. The

identity is temporary for the purpose that it serves and ultimately is

of no particular consequence until one makes it so.

 

the what or who that wrote this sometimes called Lewis or no one or

whatever suits your fancy.