OUTRAGE AND LINGUISTICS
by John Cooper
cosmicflyswatter.com

Awhile back I sent an email to everyone on my list of friends to share with them something that I found to be outrageous. It was a description of abortion techniques. Now I have always been fairly neutral on this subject since many years ago I supported a woman’s decision to have one. My culpability on this has grown over the years since, and my hindsight has provided much more clarity.

Without delving into any legal arguments about this false and supposed right found by our Supreme Court Judges, I simply sent the email to others to perhaps dislodge them from what I think is an irrational position. The portion of the article that upset one of my friends in particular, is quite graphic and I have placed it in its own window, here, so that you may elect to read it or not. The sense of this article is not dependent upon its impress.

It is my belief that it is through linguistics that we are able to artificially diminish the dimension of any topic of consideration so that we may justify irrational positions. The willing choice to do this produces a self-imposed blind spot that in its effect is similar to psychological disorders.

To read about the barbaric procedures employed by those whose first oath is "to do no harm" produces a natural emotional outrage. It is my belief that the emotions, one of the three parts of the triune soul, are an interface between the mind and its reasoning and the will and its movements. Any strong emotional response naturally calls upon the reason for a proper discharge. Emotions certainly produce biological functions, but they serve a higher purpose, beyond the rudimentary function of fight or flight, in encouraging the mind to order them rationally in disposition. The mind increases its database by their proper discharge. Psychological disorder can result in their improper discharge.

Syndrome is the popular word used today for many psychological disorders. In a nutshell, the psychologist first identifies the reoccurrence of a negative type of emotion and its resultant negative behavior. Some form of counseling method is applied after pinpointing the source. But the uncovering of the first cause of a disorder is but a single step that then requires some vehicle for the rational discharge of any unwanted or unhealthy feelings. It is my opinion that affixing a clinical label to a disorder produces a modicum of understanding within a patient but then also provides an opportunity to re-indulge in the psychological malaise simply by its certification. The next time a patient is on the verge of a relapse he can always point to his Corruption Certificate and take comfort in its authority.

The natural progression of human logic requires transcendence of the particles of psychology. The mind needs a realistic frame of reference in which to place the malady. It is not enough to point out the secular and legal consequences of bad behavior. The reason is searching for an understanding that psychology alone cannot provide. For some perhaps just the realization of things that they hadn't seen before is enough, but eventually the mind will seek a greater philosophical context in which to make sense of the problems of perception that gave rise to the psychological disorder in the first place. This same type of blind spot that can cause a psychological disorder can be chosen willingly and deliberately by anyone. A psychological disorder is not requisite.

My sending him an article about abortion outraged my friend. Of course from his point of view, the outrage was directed towards me. He ranted about (expletive deleted) Christians trying to impose their morality on people like himself who had no use for such narrow, bigoted and worse, ignorant kind of thinking. But I began to wonder if such a response was simply too reactionary. Me thinks thou protesteth too much, my friend.

We had had conversations before about the topic and though we agreed to disagree, all was left civil afterwards. But this time he brought the subject up and he was clearly on the offensive. Later that day after the dust had settled, it occurred to me that my friend’s unusual vehemence in our discussion might be rooted in something beyond the sense that my hearing had received from his protestations.

I think now, that his outrage was misdirected, and this was accomplished by his use of linguistic buffoonery. Our argument accelerated rapidly with his complaint that abortion is not killing a baby but terminating a fetus. I argued that if I grabbed a rose off the bush next to us and stomped on it that I was killing the life of that rose. No matter how he wished to characterize the procedure, it was undeniably the killing of a life. To his credit he agreed on this point, but he remained firm in positions that I believe are unsupportable rationally without the subtle parsing of reality by the use of linguistic hygiene.

It was no concern to me that he insisted on using the term fetus. Fetus or baby, the common sense result of allowing it to come to term is a baby. Kill the fetus; kill the baby. But this highlights for me the validity of our Lens Pole theory. Success or failure to see things as they really are resides in the selection of ones available filters. If a filter is selected that truncates the mind’s unceasing movement towards the higher, the greater, the superior overview, the mind must use words that support an artificial diminishment in perspective. The natural progression of logic is cut off at the pass. This is accomplished with words, the vehicles for rational thought.

My friend insisted on using certain words instead of other more common ones because some of the common sense terms I was using threatened his attempts to diminish the arena of our conversation. Much like the tacit use of Logical Positivism by some in the physical science crowd, my friend required drawing an artificial box around just what an abortion really is, which is in common sense terms the killing of a baby. It’s a free country folks; you don’t need to pour snake oil on the meal unless you think it stinks.

The natural progression of the mind is always moving towards seeking clarity and truth. This can be stopped or obfuscated only by the act of the will. Only by trying to cover up from the light of truth can man escape it and this is quite temporal, much like shoveling manure against the tide.

My friend is truly a wonderful fellow that I like very much, and for some things, that admire very much. However killing a baby is just killing a baby. If you like that sort of thing you support it. Of course most folks would not equate supporting abortion with liking it, preferring to consider abortion as a necessary evil. After all what choice does one have after they have taken their pants off?

Any emotional outrage is much better directed towards an inhuman procedure than towards those who see it as such. Clear thinking always highlights the natural discomfort attendant in faulty reasoning. The first place to clean things up is by losing the fear of common sense terms. It takes way to much effort to practice linguistic hygiene, and it only misdirects the outrage. The truth stands no matter how we avoid it. Killing a baby is simply killing a baby.