let us reason together
Linquistic hallucinogenic schizophrenia is a condition whose symptoms are manifested by constantly reading between the lines, inserting words into another’s mouth, seeing words where none were written, completely missing the point, taking statements out of context, assuming intent without basis or foundation, and an inability to easily digest various forms of humor, sarcasm, irony, or criticism. But of course LHS is a condition produced solely from my own somewhat jaundiced mind, although it would appear that multitudes actually suffer from such a malady.
Let us reason together
Another admittedly self-constructed condition, Extreme Epidermal Translucency[1] or EET is, in my humble opinion, raging rampant among the people, and together with LHS have managed to silence any and all dissenting opinion, reasoned dialogue, honest discussion, and scholarly debate. I have little doubt that the preceding will cause a sudden surge in identified cases of LHS and EET, with those so infected exhibiting all of the aforementioned symptoms.
In truth, as a writer I recognize and accept the fact that what I write will never find complete agreement with every reader. I firmly believe that no matter whether favorable or unfavorable, all comments or letters should be welcomed as they serve as indicators that what was written has at the very least been read by the commenter or letter writer.
When any reader takes issue with even a small part of what I have written it always speaks to my heart, informing me that the reader has given serious weight to the message I intended to convey. Whether there is complete agreement or disagreement or simply some concern or question, the mere receipt of a response speaks volumes and I thank you for taking the time and effort to communicate your thoughts. Consequently it compels both serious introspection and retrospection on my part to adequately respond. Every comment or letter received always contains something of value to be considered, no matter what the perspective of the responder may be.
Most responses are filled to the brim with useful insights and well-considered thoughts, offering new ideas to cogitate, different points of view, or simply a fresh approach to consider. And to those who respond in such a manner I can only say, “Bring it on!” Agree or disagree, let’s sit down and have a conversation. In the end we may agree to disagree or change one or both of our points of view but no matter what the result, greater understanding will occur and each will come away with something good: the realization that someone listened and cared enough to consider your ideas worthwhile. It is how we learn and how we grow and how we discover how to love one another.
Some responses however provide little opportunity for dialogue or conversation. While a writer can always glean something useful from any response, some scribblers, clearly suffering from EET and LHS, pen their responses replete with invective, innuendo, and remarkably little substance. It is sad commentary indeed, when reasoned discourse, conversation, discussion, and dialogue are replaced with polemic broadsides, misanthropy, mischaracterization, and vitriol.
“Come now, let us reason together”, says the Lord.[2]
[1] Deacon Chuck Lanham, Sound of Silence – Day Six: Considering the Essence of Epidermal Translucency, July 8, 2015, https://deaconscorner.org/sound-of-silence-day-six.
[2] Is 1:8.
