Communication Basics: What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate about Rest

As a track coach, I have always understood the difference between walking and renewing.  The problem is that many people regard walking as a form of rest.  It is NOT!  Not only that, but it is the least restful of the paces available to a person trying to reach a destination in a particular time frame.

Let me illustrate this from track.  In track, there are four paces:

rest
sprint
run
walk.

These are the variable speeds available based on a person's lung, spirit, breath, or wind capacity.  Every public school track coach knows these are different.  I hope everyone can agree on these.  My coaches never failed in communicating this clearly.  Walking was unacceptable for the mile run, for one example!

Let me also illustrate from the Bible, In Isaiah, there are four paces:

renew
fly
run
walk.

These are the variable speeds available for those who bind themselves to the LORD (Yahweh). Every private school should teach these paces to all their students.  I hope all Christians (and Jews) can agree on these.  When a situation calls for a sprint, I hope no Christian (and Jew), thinks a run or trotting pace will do!

This is all pretty straightforward, but there is still a problem.  The problem is that people think walking is restful like renewals or rest itself is.  That is a major mistake.

Let me explain what I mean.  Moving from renew and rest pace to walk pace, each pace is increasingly more restless.  So here is how I rank each pace in terms of its level of rest:

renew/rest - most restful
sprint - more restful
run - less restful
walk - least restful.

To understand this, you need to recall something that goes beyond track athletes.  You have to think in terms of location and time.  In everyday life, people have a destination and a time for arrival.  In track, you have for a destination of at least three places, the fenced in area around the track, the starting line, and the finish line.

Think of young family members here.  Children don't get too restless about shorter distances or shorter time frames.  They get restless about longer distances and longer time frames.  Don't you recall this question on the way to Grandma's house: "Are we there yet?"  This grows out their increasing restlessness on every stop along the way.  They won't rest till they get to Grandma's house unless you can entertain them, like my parents when I was growing up and help the children lose track of time.  Everyone should get this.

In track, it is the same way, except now you are no longer dealing with the youngest family members, but with young people who are now functioning out of their first stages of being an adult.  Still the lesson does not change - the slower the pace, the greater the restlessness.

The first pace is that of rest.  Once at the track and settled on a location, a good track coach instructs all competitors to take it easy and to rest.  He or she then tells each individual to listen for the 1st through 3rd calls for their races.  These 3 calls are each fore-warnings to report to the area of competition and to break off from resting with the team is at place where they are resting.  Rest, though, is the first state or pace that track athletes need to master.  During full rest there is no distance or time between start and finish.  You rest where and when you are resting with your teammates. They may not move an inch and settle in under a second. Their starting and finishing line overlap one another.  Rest is living in the here and now fully.

The second pace is that of the sprinters.  They are generally those who run races that can be finished in a minute or less. This varies, of course, according to conditioning.  Also the separation between starting and finishing lines are 50 meters (I'm not sure what has replaced the 60 yard run from an earlier era?), 100 meters, 200 meters and 400 meters.  These locations are relatively close to each other and like I said before can be sprinted in under a minute.  With that short distance between lines and the short time to run, the sprinter's restlessness until they have reached the finish line is relatively short.  Be smart here.  You must separate fear or nerves due to a lack of confidence from restlessness.  Once the runner eclipses the finish line, they have put that race to rest.  The sprinter flys a short distance for a short time to reach the here and now of the finish line.

The third pace is that of the runners.  These races all take over a minute.  There is the 800 meters, 1600 meters, 3200 meters, and 4800 meters (3 mile) runs.  In these instances, the races vary from around 2 minutes long up to quarter of an hour.  The 3 mile race on the high school level is not part of a track meet like in college.  It is instead the distance for cross country racing.  Runners have to set a reasonable pace for their distance and they have to be more patient than a sprinter because they have to run for a longer time.   As an experienced runner and coach, I can tell you that one of the reasons sprinters don't want to e distance runners is because they don't like how long the race takes.  As a former distance runner, I can tell you that the length of the race is the roughest part.   You don't get to rest until you cross the finish line!  A runner runs for a little longer distance and time.  It can test how well you handle a long restless state.  For me, the two most restful moments were the start and the finish.  Let's end the wait.

Finally, the fourth pace is that of the walkers.  These races all take place at the college level and higher.  I happen to be at the UCLA Summer Olympic Festival in the early nineties where the American record for race walking was set by the gentleman I happened to visit with before his run.  I also had one of my former teammates from high school, Roger Kordus, go on and become a race walker in college.  That is my only direct connection to these races.  For me, this is where the tortoise and the hare story makes some sense.  It is "slower" than the sprint and run, but not "slow" and here "steady" is important.  The thing is that these races can become tedious and people can become restless and leave before the race is over!

The problem in our day is that people mistakenly associate restlessness mostly with sprinting rather than walking.  I think there is a failure to communicate and understand the restlessness of a sprinter in that case.  The restlessness is building due to a delay in a finish, and not due to a fast finish.  Also there is a restlessness created by a tension between one person who can do something fast and someone who is less fast.  Let's clarify things more at this point.  Here is how I see it:

renewing is not restless
sprinting is restless for a short time
running is restless for a little longer time
walking is restless for the longest time among the four.

In each instance, restlessness is there until the final destination and the end time are reached.  There is no tension, when you are already here.  There is the height of tension, when we are not there yet. Don't forget the elementary here - remember the kids!

I am at a place of rest in my life.  It is only when I walk out the the door and meet people who still haven't found what they are looking for that I run into restlessness!  Ah, the satisfaction of having already finished finding what I was previously looking for!  Ah, the satisfaction of having finished this post also.


Be healthy and live life to its fullest,

Jon

Communication Basics: Healthy Begins with Fast and Variable

I Have to Last and Not Just be Fast, I Have to Be Fast and Not Just Last

Whenever a person does an activity like writing a book, it is done in the context of time.  There is a first edition and there is a last edition.  From one to the other, improvements can be made, but the first edition remains the first except under one condition.  That condition is that a significant part of the fast first edition will last until the last edition.  Was the book written well enough to avoid a full restart at its core?  Will I need to retract what I said in any major way? 

I wrote the first edition of my book, Mental Health for Everyone, to get out my ideas fast and to make them last.  I felt the need to try to break the cycle of mental illness fast, especially for the sake of the suicidal; but also to make corrections to my work as it progressed to make sure its effect will last.  The finishing part is never completely done for a writer.  For example, I can always continue improving the book.  The only question is whether the start requires a full restart.  I don’t believe my book will require a re-start – that I was too jumpy and was guilty of a false start.  I waited for the gun and I am off and running already with no plans to finish until the race is over!

I don’t need to restart what I did, but that doesn’t mean I can’t add to what it says to explain aspects of the book in a still better way.  My principle in the area of schooling and relationship of “fast and variable” will last.  I will not retract that piece, but I can still further amplify what I mean.  I’m a track athlete and track coach so my analogy from track is routine to me.  Even the complex parts are relatively simple to me. The first edition of has to balance amplify with simplify, but only in the future it can be good to still further amplify it as well.

 

Let’s amplify what I say in my book.  So what do I mean when I suggest that the key to schooling is being fast?  Doesn’t that fly into the face of common sense which according to Aesop’s Fable says that “Slow and steady wins the race”.  Also doesn’t that disagree with psychology’s insights about manic-depression or hyper-activity?  I can clearly answer for myself that it does not fly in the face of common sense or the basic insight of psychology on manic-depression.  Let me assure you though what I mean by adding to what I have said before. 

In my book, Mental Health for Everyone, I emphasize four principles for guiding mental health in the areas of education, schooling, coaching, and teaching.  They are:

         1)   Biggest 
         2)  Fastest  
         3) Strongest 
         4)  Smartest

It is not just the biggest that wins, it is not just the fastest that wins, it is not just the strongest that wins, and not just the smartest that wins.  It requires all four in some winning combination.  All of this may sound a bit controversial.  I can’t amplify on that here in this short space or amplify on every principle individually here, but let me assure you that I am aware of the movement from big (small) to biggest, fast to fastest, strong to strongest, and smart to smartest. 

I am not a proponent of the too big to fail, etc. thinking.  I am a proponent of a healthy movement from all of the least starting points to all of the greatest ending points.  For example, biggest is a virtue, and it is not a harm in the proper understanding.  In the size of this blog entry, I am going to only amplify more what I have said before on fast to fastest, but I can make it even bigger elsewhere or when I am given more time than the average blog reader will give me. 

There are five themes I want to emphasize.  To each I will devote one paragraph.  They are:

1) Fast to Last

2) Fast to Fastest

3) Variable before steady

4) Unhealthy states

5) Healthy states

First, let’s discuss fast to last.  Here is a key thing.  The carpenter’s rule says, “Measure twice, cut once”.  Why don’t they say measure once?  Isn’t that faster?  Doesn’t twice mean we waste time?  Doesn’t that mean there is no end to double-checking, triple-checking, etc.?  You get the point.  I believe the first measure is to get the job done fast.  The second measure to make sure the first measure can last.  If it doesn’t and only if it doesn’t, then  you measure again to make sure it will last.  You keep re-measuring until you get a match, then the measure with high probability will last and now you can move fast to cut the board once.  It is a lot better than starting over again, because you were going too fast.  In the long haul, a house built by measure twice until two agreed is built fast and to last. 

Next, notice that I say it starts from fast and moves to fastest.  I don’t believe that in life we begin from slow.  Even babies are commended for being fast, when they are.  They learn that fast trying to keep up with adults.  We recognize when they are getting fast.  We say, “Look at him (or her) go!” Today, we have the signal speed of electricity moving at trillions of kilometers per hour to power the internet and our cell phones.  The baby’s physical movements are no match for the signal speed of the human brain or the internet, but eventually that baby may become the physically fastest man (or woman) on earth! 

Next, I say variable comes before steady for a very obvious reason.  When I first was a competitive runner in grade school no one said anything about steady.  They didn’t have too.  I never ran far enough for that advice to really apply.  Even when I ran somewhere around 550 meters, I just ran as fast as I could to stay with the leader.  Later in Junior High, I set a record (that didn't last!) in the 200 meters.  It was not until high school, when I went up to the 400 meters, that I realized first that I had to vary my speed from the 200 meter race.  Then I also learned to vary my pace (very slightly) for the 4 parts of 400 meters.  Finally, when I move to the mile, then I learned the lesson of steady.  But steady doesn’t win a single race, if you are slow.  Aesop is wrong.  Someday, I am going to write not a fable called, “The Tortoise and the Hare”, but the true story called, “The Wolf, the Tortoise, and the Hare.  Well, it will be a fable that is in one sense true. You can imagine who wins!

Next, I want to applaud psychology.  The other day, I applauded psychology and a sincere Christian, who met me for the first time, wanted to introduce me to Jesus.  He didn’t know I could applaud both.  Let me applaud psychology for recognizing one unhealthy state – manic depression.  Most of society still doesn’t know what it is, because the diagrams for it are rarely introduced with the theory.  Psychology gets it right that manic-depression is unhealthy.  It shows that too fast is harmful outside the healthy lines.  Please pause for the applause.  Now, there is still one problem.  That is not the only unhealthy state.  It is though the only unhealthy state that colors outside the healthy lines.  So that unhealthy state is fairly obvious.  There is another state that is equally unhealthy.  I call it the too slow version of unhealthy – procrastination regret.  On the upper cycle it lives in the euphoria of its procrastination and in the lower cycle it lives in the despair of regret.  This too is unhealthy!  This set of unhealthy states can happen between the lines as can also too fast unhealthy states within the lines. Psychology needs to finish the job!

Finally, the major problem for psychology in the US at least is, as Japanese leaders in the business world have commented, that they are too negative.  They start with a name that essentially names what is unhealthy, but does not start with what is healthy.  They don’t talk about the four speeds we have in track that are healthy: rest, sprint, run, and walk.  What is the name for all the healthy states together?  In track, we call one combination Fartlek running with unappealing connotations.  So do we call the healthy states fast variable instead?  That is my first guess.  It may not be my very last, but I am sticking to as a start for discussing what is healthy and not just what is unhealthy.  My track coach made me a healthy runner.  He didn’t just teach when I was an unhealthy runner.  I pray that we can all learn to be healthy minders and not just healthy runners, etc. 

Everyone needs to last to a reasonable level and not just be fast.  We also have to be fast to a reasonable level and not just last.  Have a great day running your mind to health and not to stealth – a hidden objective of health.  I have revealed to you some part of what is healthy here.  It is a start.  I will add one last thing.  Smart athletes know that the first step to running fast is recharging your batteries with rest when needed.  That especially applies to your mind.  Take care. May you now have greater peace of mind. 

Be Healthy Everyone,

Jon

Communications Basics 101: A Communicators Job is Never Done on a Higher Level

While I have completed a book and then had it published too, it does not mean my communication is over.  In one sense it is, the fundamentals in it really are done.  What remains is more of each of those fundamentals - their development.  My book is titled, Mental Health for Everyone,

One of the chapters describing schooling is the key to making a major dent in the problem of manic-depression and the other extreme of putting people to sleep.  My sample or example in that chapter comes from the sport of track.

Since writing the book, I think the key point using track is solid, but I should have developed my approach in contrast two approaches.  There are essentially three approaches to the mind's handling of relationships.  They are:

fast and steady
fast and variable
slow and steady.

I should have used the story of what I will call my reformed school one mile race.  In high school, I ran a race against two runners from a reformed school.  One was fast and steady and the other was slow and steady.  I was the one who was fast and variable.

The fast and steady runner took off in the race like it was a 400 meter or 440 yard race.  He collapsed after a couple of laps.  I mean he literally collapsed onto the track.

His teammate on the other hand ran steadily slow until he realized it was the last lap.  Then he at the last moment took off in an effort to catch me.

Personally, I was lulled into running too slow myself by his approach to the race and by his activities leading up to the race.  I call it the zombie effect.  Until he took off after his procrastination in the race I had been running a too relaxed pace myself.  Fortunately, a teammate let me know I should get going since the guy was coming up on my fast.

I took off harder myself with 300 meters or 330 yards to go.  I in the end held him off since I had run fast, but variably based on my distance.

In this race, I knew I had to vary my pace from what I would do for 400 meters.  That way I did not collapse.  But I also knew to run fast still, since too slow of a pace could also lose the race.  That is what happened to the second runner.

In the United States we have young people especially who are trapped by a world that is only fast and steady and eventually collapses - too often in the form of suicide or some form of breakdown.  We also have many who procrastinate until the race is lost and it is too late to win the prize.

I could further the ideas in  my book by developing this story.  So I am doing it now.  This will likely go into a second edition, if I am fast enough to get that opportunity.

The good thing is that I finished my book - I did not collapse and not finish.  Likewise, I didn't drag it out until the last gasp and end up getting it out too late - I still have things left over to improve next time.  I didn't engage in fruitless procrastination.

My book titled, Mental Health for Everyone, is available through Amazon and through Barnes and Noble.  To get to my book simply type in my full name or the full title or both.  You will find it.

If you want a bit of a preview beyond that found at Amazon.com, then you can go to youtube and watch the following (you might have to copy and paste this to your browser):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC5XDFly3GA



Have fun!  Remember, it is fast and variable wins the race.  Go get 'em and let's win this race!



Sincerely,

Jon Westlund

Communication Basics: A Quick Update

It has been some time since I made an entry on this blog.  My goal had originally been to resume submitting posts in August of 2014.  Now we are fair distance from that time frame.  So I want to offer a quick update.

My book, Mental Health for Everyone: In Captivating, Motivating, Inspiring, Meaningful Pictures is very near completion.  The pictures in the book are what have me excited.  Before long, I will be sharing something about at least one of them, before the book arrives on shelves.

I wish I had time today to do that, but I have to get back to writing and finishing that race before I begin another.  Let me say this quickly - the book has huge implications for communication.

Imagine this - you could summarize the smarts of the two authors of the Johari Window, of Vince Lombardi in Instant Replay and John Wooden's Pyramid of Success, the wave diagrams for manic-depression and hyper-activity, and the work on education and translation by Benjamin Bloom and by Eugene Nida all on one page.  Now that is something to be excited about, isn't it?  

I have been very fortunate to simplify all this material to where it is now accessible from the starting line on one page!  You only have to see the back side of the same sheet to picture the finish line!

That is what is in my book.  The danger in a book is that the person gets lost in the forest due to too many trees.  I and my editors will be working hard to make sue the pictures (or diagrams) in the book remain the focus.

Please pray that I can hasten the project along.  That is enough for now.  It is coming soon, I pray!


Sincerely,

Jon

P. S. Don't be too late to the start and too soon to the finish!

Communication Basics: From 5 Questions to 10 Questions

Teachers, especially writing teachers and journalism teachers are supposed to teach their students the basic questions every reporter or writer should ask:  "Who?  What?  Why?  Where?  and How?"   I would like to re-work this list and chang it up some.  I want to say that some of the most important questions are left out. 

My first clue came from my higher level of educaiton in theology where I ran across Martin Luther's original question of "How much?" behind the answer of "the righteousness of Jesus Christ".  See often people think too much about answers and not enough about questions.   I know John Calvin's answer was "humility. humility, humility", but what was his question?  I have asked teachers in the Reformed tradtion and they still have not gotten back to me on the question.  I think it might be a "when" question (that is my best guess). 

So without further ado, let me show you my re-working of the 5 questions into 5 groups of questions.  They are:

1) How many?  How much?

2) Where?  When"

3) Who?  Whole?

4) How?  Why?

5) What?  Which?

I have found these immensely helpful to avoid the pitfalls of not asking a critical basic question.  How many times do we zoom to teaching a "how" (method) without a "why" (motivation)?  Do others sometimes tell us "what" (ice cream) they want, but they forget to tell us "which (kind)" (chocolate) they want?  Do we dare get in trouble for bringing them plain vanilla?  We need to ask "which (kind)?" 

So when I teach or tutor a student or when I am a good listening mode, I ask all these kinds of questions.  They are all valuable.  Do you (who?) have any (of the whole of?) questions?  If you do, then please choose one of the questions above and ask through your comments!  Thank you. 

Take care,

Jon

P. S.  Happy teaching and learning!

Communication Basics: Word Meanings of Knowers and Teachers

When I was in junior high, I saw first hand a very important lesson.  We had a very enthusiastic French teacher who unexpectedly found herself explaining to her class her frustrations, following her visit to France.  For all of her study of French, the native speakers of France were able to identify that she herself was not a native speaker of French.  She had learned the hard way the difference between being a teacher of French and a knower of French.  Keep this distincion in mind, as I explain some of the language that is written about the basic meanings found in languages from around the world. 

The lesson from my story is not that there is something wrong with being a good teacher of French, as some do mistakenly interpret the story.  This was my own mistken interpreation in the past.  In their minds, there are only two alternatives: going technical or going native.  Instead the lesson is that the ideal would be to first be a knower of French, like the common citizens of France, as well as a teacher of French, like my junior high school teacher. 

Some pieces of my writing are aimed mainly at knowers, others mainly at teachers and others for those who are the ideal combination of both knowers and teachers.  This entry is mainly designed for those who are both.  But it is also to give more confidence to knowers, who understand the basic terminology I have used elsewhere, while maybe not grasping some of the technical language in this entry. My main point in this entry is to show that there is successful and technical scholarship behind the knower's basic five classes of meaning. 

I have referred before to the following classes of meaning:

Wholes (the Total of all its Constituent Parts)
           Amounts
           Relationships
           Actions
           Things

I have just begun to read a volume titled: Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testatment: A Supplemnet to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testatment Based on Semantic Domains.   In it, I discovered this technical terminology:

Words as Signs (for Speakers)
           Characteristics
           Relations
           Activities
           Entities

This language does not surprise me, because Eugene Nida is one of the two authors along with J. P. Louw to write this volume, as they were together the authors of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains.   I would guess, without the opportunity to interview both or them or one of them, that this is an updated scholarly vocabulary for Nida's earlier words. 

His terminology was usually simplified to the following classes and usually referred to by the acronym of TEAR.  It is made of the following technical terminology used by translators and their teachers:

Classes of Language (The Total of Four Constituents)
           Attributes (Abstracts)
           Relations
           Events
           Things

This new terminology added to this older terminology that Nida used might not be that convincing for the knower of English or any other language, but the new terminology says to me that they are trying to appeal to other teachers of language (in linguistics and in biblical scholars in this case) among the scholarly community to acknowledge these basic categories of meaning. 

Where in the literature they pulled this terminology from or why they went to this terminology other than my general observation is hard to determine.  But I do regard both Eugene Albert Nida (his more technical full name) and J. P. Louw as important scholars behind my own knowing and studying. 

It is gratifying to see them still working with the TEAR classes as recently as 1992, even while using different words to say much the same thing that Nida said much earlier (at least as early as 1964 in Toward a Science of Translating).  It would be very gratifying for me to be a person  that popularizes Nida's idea of these four classes by my basic language approach, while the basic TEAR method continues to prove itself over and over in its practice among the many languages of the world by Wyclifffe Bible Translators, SIL and other translation organizations.  An added benefit from this technical terminology is that more teachers and scholars would acknowledge the same method as valid not only amoung knowers, but also among teachers. 

If more teachers would be begin from meaning rather than grammar, then I think we would see a revolution in the classrooms worldwide.  Perhaps letting teachers know about the technical vocabulary, that is behind the basics of my popular words for knowers, will help more of teachers to acknowledge meaning and grammar as very important to basic language teaching. 

This would take things full circle and would show once again that the ideal for all French teachers and teachers of other languages is a person who is both a knower and teacher of a language.   I hope this helps all my readers whether knowers, teachers or equally both knowers and teachers.  Go learn and study these basic meaning classes, so you can be both a knower and teacher! 

Sincerely,

Jon

Communication Basics: Combining the Strengths of Rhetoric, Grammar and Logic

There are many angles from which to explain the strength of my idea on communication basics.  One of the angles is from that of classic rhetoric, grammar and logic.  From this angle the strength of the method I use is that it combines the strengths of rhetoric, grammar and logic; rather than depending on primarily grammar. 

Contemporary schooling has turned the basics of classic education into the 3 R's of reading, writing and arithmetic.  In classic education the big 3 were rhetoric, grammar and logic.  When I studied linguistics in college I now realize that the greatest gain I experienced came from combing rhetoric, grammar and logic.  Yet it is the renewed use of rhetoric that was the real source of greatest insight. 

Classic rhetoric recognized four classes of meaning plus the whole that unites them.  I have simplified those four classes or categories down to amount, relationship, action and thing.  This is not discovered in reading or writing classes that rely mainly on grammar.  Likewise, logic is no longer taught as essentially logic, but is now mathematical logic and so is taught indirectly through mathematics. 

So what all of this boils down to is using a method that does not set aside the insights of classic rhetoric, that does not exalt grammar too much and that does not ignore the logic of mathematics.  That is what my linguistics professors in college handed on to me as a legacy.  I thank them very deeply for their insights and for the experience of excitement rather than boredom as I approach language.  

Sincerely,

Jon

Communication: The Distinctives

When it comes to communication ideas, it is important to understand what the key things that are behind an approach to communication. This is especially true in my case, where I point out to people that I do a few things differently from what they might be accustomed to seeing.

It may be good to begin by saying that my approach is not meant to replace or undercut the generally effective ways of teaching communication. What it does do is strengthen more what is already effective. So my approach does not so much replace, for example, grammar's use as much as shift it's use to where it is more effective.

So let me deal with each of the key things in my approach one by one. They are: 1)an integrated approach to language, 2)a surface structure approach to language, 3)a communication as relationship approach, 4)a cycle of communication process and 5)a thing-based approach to language. These are the positive components of what I teach about communication.

Let me say something about what I don't do. First, I don't do these things because they are at higher levels in the developmental process and they are not basic. When you get to a higher level, then they do have value. So I don't avoid them as though they are purely negative. It is just that I do not find them to be basic as too many teachers insist they are, when they are teaching in the classroom. I don't teach 1)just one particular approach to language like generative grammar, 2)the deep structure approach to language as more valuable than the surface structure, 3)communication for its own sake outside of relationship building, 4)a chaotic process of communication that leaves out the author or audience and so misses out on the cyclical part of the communcation process and 5)a word-based approach to language that relies on an expansion of vocabulary approach for learners to get smarter.

So back to my list of 5 positives. I will list them in the same order as above.

First, I approach language from an integrated perspective. I think you need to see the whole as you grapple with different views of language. You could call it a multi-dimensional approach. In contrast, I think the phonics versus whole-language debate is way too narrow in its scope. Each side misses the point. It is like a golfer who uses one club for every shot.

Second, I approach language from the surface. I think that the surface structure is actually right there in the speaker's mind. On a basic level, not on a deep level, they know what they are trying to say and in one sense it is all clear. In contrast, I find the generative grammar approach or sentence diagramming to be backwards from what we actually are after. It is like a fisherman fishing in deep water, when the walleyes are feeding close to shore.

Third, I approach language from the standpoint that something relational is happening or there is little sense to trying to communicate. The point is that you have to understand fundamentally whether the communication is attempting to form a connection or not. In contrast, I find some of the analysis of language has lost sight of the basic purpose of communication in trying to connect or not connect people. It is like forgetting what you went to the garage to get.

Fourth, I approach language as a process that begins with an author and leads to an audience and as a cycle in which the audience may then ask the author questions to see if the cycle of communication was completed successfully. In contrast, some books start with a text and then lead to a speech or another book without consideration for the author or the audience. It is like leaving off the beginning steps, like getting together the ingredients, in baking a cake and jumping right to putting the only part of the ingredients in the oven.

Fifth, I approach language as thing-based rather than word-based in its earliest development. Children do not learn vocabulary initially from dictionary definitions. Instead they learn words that point to things. This remains fundamental throughout the process, even after the dictionary becomes a helpful tool. In contrast, many teach language as though it began with definitions of words from other simpler words without any inclusion of things in the beginning. It is like giving a fishing pole to someone who doesn't know what a fish is.

These are the five most basic keys to my approach to communication and to language. For me, these five things or principles have revolutionized my comprehension of communicaiton. It has also enhanced my ability to communicate. Remember these are basic, so there may be those who can communicate better than I, but I think I can stand toe to toe with them on the basics. I know where to begin, even if others have already reached the finish line. Before this point in my life, I could not even find the starting line to begin the race and my communication was chaotic at best. So at least I can help a lot of people get started on the race of communication and give them a fair chance of finishing too rather than a few people finishing, while others haven't even found the starting line.

Sincerely,

Jon

Communication Basics: The Education Gap

You know how it is. There are some who achieve educationally and there are those who don't. There are also those who no longer care. In the end, there must be an explanation for this achievement gap in education.

For me, the secret to success in the traditional educational system in the United States is to realize the importance that words play in the system. It is modelled after the Greek system of education more than any other model. This system focuses on words over things.

This is both a strength and a weakness. This means that we can through our system of education, become experts in words. This is its strength. This also means that we can through our system of education, become failures at real life. This is its weakness. This is because we lose a sense of balance between words and reality. The secret is to maximize the strength while minimizing the weakness at the same time. Those who no longer care usually gave up trying to do this a long time ago.

My writing on this blog will focus on the basics of communication as found in using words. It doesn't mean that we won't ever talk about things, but dealing with things is better done through another means than words alone, even concrete ones.

I will be introducing a way of communication that I think is basic to meaning and talking about the things we all need. I will do my best to add something every month. So please stop back and check in every once in while. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jon