One of the recurring themes that I discuss with my student, Psychic medium and elder Shaman Patrick John Coleman, is the use of the question in modern conversation. I noticed in my piece, about a year ago, that with my almost autistic level of sensitivity to communication that the vast majority of communication isn’t solution oriented but instead revolves around the problem itself, and isn’t designed to approach or recognize the solution. (https://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/problem-centric-narrative-definition/) We are going to discuss an aspect of how that comes to happen.
When I say that Questions are female I am suggesting that they are empty, they are aware of the lack of some presence in the form of the solution or some knowledge or expertise. Now based on my psycholinguistic models, the conversation is the relationship and everything that happens in relationship leaves a trace in communication, so if society in general is failing at relationship this will be evidenced in the narrative and the conversations that people have.
When a person refuses to ask a question why to they do that? Because they don’t want to acknowledge that someone knows something they don’t, or has authority on a subject they don’t.
When a person makes an accusation or an insinuation instead of asking a question, what does that reveal about the person speaking? It reveals that they are emotionally morbid and they are trying to increase their value by getting what they want while at the same time impugning the character and demeaning the person from which they are attempting to extract the vital information. It is illogical to answer an accusation, so I make sure that I never respond to this behavior the way the person engaging in this behavior expects. I never respond by giving them something of value, I give them counter intel or I expose their strategy. It isn’t an equitable interaction because they are trying to get something with something that has negative value. Unfortunately, this strategy succeeds all too often.
When a person asks a Sarcastic or leading question, what does that reveal about the person? Often times Sarcasm is a form of bet hedging, where a person can say they were serious if they turn out to be correct and if they turn out to be wrong they can say that they were just kidding. This is a very toxic form of communication. My room mate always tells me, “There is always a little truth to joking.” Too which I respond, “No, be serious when you are being serious and joke when you are joking.” Although, there are some instances when all a person can do is be sarcastic because they are dealing with a tyrant and overt criticism isn’t acceptable. When a person asks leading questions, that aren’t legitimate, they are often trying to get you to turn your scrutiny back on yourself. This is only valid on people that don’t scrutinize themselves, discipline themselves and control themselves. Some people use this behavior to suggest that no person should ever criticize another person or that some people and groups of people are not allowed to be scrutinized. It happens because of a feminine instinct to control the focus of attention of others and how they feel about what they are looking at. The toxic mother figure using this strategy will tacitly try to change the subject and lead your attention back to yourself and make you feel bad about yourself. This precludes the fact that you might be justified in your scrutiny.
What is curious to me is that as I see the absence of the uncorrupted feminine principle in conversation, I also see it in relationship, and I see emergent properties in the world that are coming from this failure in one to one conversations and relationships. I see the forcing of female communication rituals in the form of radical political correctness, and a meritocracy of pleasantness being instituted, which means that you can be an incorrect douchebag pleasantly, but you can’t speak the truth if it is unpleasant or if it hurts someone’s feelings.
In order to evaluate what I have just said, you will need the correct comparison set. Please don’t compare what I have said to your feelings, or what you believe is normal. These are both biased comparison sets. The correct comparison set is to compare it to Masculine Communication Rituals. Remember that Bill O’Reilly in his book “Killing Patton” pointed out that Patton thought that profanity was the language of the soldier. And remember that Deborah Tannen created the initial science of Masculine and Feminine Communication Rituals. Which use a positive form of Agonism to point out the mistakes that other men have made, mockingly, not to ridicule them but so that they will improve. Furthermore, there is the ancient Greek practice of Parrhesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesia) Which Cornel West loves to use. Remember if you will Socrates pointed out that Pretenders to Wisdom and his students would laugh as they eaves dropped on his conversations. . .