[ExI] Honesty and Passion

[Lee Corbin]

David writes

> According to my father, but not to my mother, my grandfather was 
> pathologically honest.
> 
> "Do you like this dress?" "No."
> "Do you think she's pretty?" "Yes."
> "Is she prettier than I am?" "Yes."
> 
> At some point, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 
> is counter-productive.

I see where you are going;  but I would disagree with this 
last way of putting it.  (I guess it has the wrong meta-implication!  :-)

> Also, as we all know but I certainly forget, only a fraction of a 
> message is carried by the words per se. The above questions are about 
> meta-issues, like "Do you love me?" and to answer the question as 
> written is to answer "No, I don't."

I agree.  You ought to address the *real* question being asked,
even if the asker is very guilty of er, what should I call it?
---awkward phrasing.  Those of us who appreciate precision
seem never to get used to this.  I *still* have to suppress
myself from giving a general description of my current health
whenever someone says "How are you?"

> Whether either framing is in partisan mode or truth mode depends on 
> facts not in evidence.

Yes---I guess that "do you like my dress?" defies my intuitive
feeling that any sentence may be analytically parsed to determine
whether it's in truth mode or partisan mode.

> Is there a truth-mode way to discuss abortion? "Pro-life" and 
> "pro-choice" are brilliant frames, that do each capture an essential 
> truth, but also only convey a slice of the full issue.
> 
> And are deceitful in their own right, even within the confines of 
> abortion. ("Pro-life" ignores the anti-life aspect of involuntary 
> servitude in requiring a pregnant woman to carry a child to term; 
> "pro-choice" ignores the anti-choice aspect of giving no say to the 
> father or the potential child.)

A key example, perhaps.  Yes, I would have preferred more
neutral language.

> Also, does truth mode imply dispassionate?

Imply dispassion?  Not necessarily.  The way that many people
choose to remain in truth mode and yet get across their "passion"
is to use the propaganda technique (at least that's what Wikipedia
calls it!)  of focusing on the more salient features of a phenomenon
that can be easily calculated to manipulate feelings.  For example,
to make a statement against the Nazis, one need only quite matter-
of-factly calculate the pounds of skin stripped off deathcamp 
inmates.

I don't feel a need to be confined to that, unlike some people.
Even though, like I said, I feel like I'm operating under
"Newspeak", English is still very rich.  I can call things
reprehensible, abhorrent, atrocious, base, contemptible,
deplorable, despicable, detestable, disgusting, heinous,
hellish, horrible, loathsome, nauseating, obnoxious, odious,
offensive, repellent, repugnant, repulsive, sleazey, stinking,
or vile.  (Of course I just "cheated" and called
up a thesaurus entry.)

> Does partisan mode imply emotional?

Definitely.  But there is *nothing* wrong with that.  Quite
the contrary.  If children are to be spanked, it should be 
done when you are angry, not as (untruthfully) as if you
were some kind of automaton.

Lee