Avalon

A bear is a bear

Sunday, August 19, 2012

There are many ways to describe a thing, many of which are often complex and over-explicit, some of which are parsimonious by self-declaration but deemed incomplete or unpalatable by others, and yet some might come across as shoddy and ambiguous to the point of pointless. Take the question "how do you describe a bear"? Some will probably give a wikip*dia-qualifying account of bears, complete with categorisations in the animal kingdom and a short introduction to the many examples walking this earth, not forgetting a short list of neat references to entertain those who show overwhelming curiosity. This is even before these people start launching into a description of the "kind" of bear they are into.

Alternatively, when we encounter one who gives the seemingly nonsensical answer "a bear is a bear" that clearly violates Grice's maxims of quantity (by not giving suitable information) and manner (by lacing the conversation with MORE ambiguity with all intention of creating an obscurity), our experience with the same person in previous exchanges, coupled with our own knowledge of the world and appreciation of its social cues might actually tell us with undisputed certainty that there is a reason for giving the answer and not abiding by this cooperative principle (something along the lines of er.. not being able/willing to be cooperative, just in case it wasn't that obvious). What's more, based on the pretext that all of us already DO know what a bear really is, is there a need to get that explanation out of someone who does not like to talk about bears, much less the type of bear he is into? What part of implicit speech and contextual cue is so hard to interpret and comprehend such that more questions are fired where gates have been discreetly lowered? Or is there no way to avoid saving everyone from the awkward situation having finally incited a definitive "no" as response to the question "can I ask you what is a bear?", along with any subsequent attempts like "what kind of bear are you looking at now", "why you choose this bear" and "where is this bear found". If an implied "no" is not enough, then there leaves little choice but to deliver an outright verbal negative.

So the next time the question "how do you describe a bear" is met with the response "a bear is a bear", note that the rhetoric exists for a reason... because where there is more to know, there is more that comes with that knowing, and knowing might not be such a good thing. As Marianne Moore has said, and I have quoted before, the deepest feeling always shows itself in silence; not in silence, but restraint.
Hence, trying to excavate for more like a dutiful and meticulous goldminer might not lead to any treasure but might result in a potential cave-in. Less is just, well, less hassle. And surely it is possible to just direct ones interest to some other places. There are still tigers, rabbits, horses and everything else under the sun to talk about. Sometimes, it takes active patience on the one side to emphasise and good grace on the other to accept that "a bear is a bear", and leave it at that.

"Yes, I am a bear... duh."

Envoy of the Stars @ 10:34 PM
-------------------------------