I read an article today about grammar. The author was explaining that grammar rules are not so much rules but commonly accepted styles of writing or speaking. They were hoping, I think, to comfort those who are constantly being told they are wrong for how they speak or write. Being one of those myself, I could relate, and that was of course what attracted me to the article in the first place. I do use creative grammar and occasionally spelling. I lead group trainings all of the time, and I tell my students that because I have the marker, as I write on the white board, I spell things correctly. I also let them know if they do not like how I spelled something they can change it when they write it in their notes. If someone does correct me, I fix it, but sometimes it doesn’t matter as long as they can understand what I mean.
That was the main point. Writing and speaking are ways of communication. Using common grammar styles can increase your ability to be understood by some people. It can also inhibit understanding if you are so focused on the person’s grammar that you are missing their point. While using writing and speech patterns that your listener are completely unaccustomed to will inhibit your communication, variations a bit to one side or the other won’t kill the connection. I agree with the writer’s point.
It was the comments that I found truly interesting though. One person was firmly stating that not follow grammar rules was why our society was falling apart. Saying that grammar was style not rules and allowing people to have their own style was exactly what is wrong with this country and why everything is going to and will end up in hell. This was an extreme view point that was more about their observations about how our society changing in ways they were uncomfortable with was going to mean everything good would eventually be gone. I cannot agree with that. He sounded very well educated, spoke three languages, and was a self stated older wiser human. While his commonly acceptable grammar was excellent, the responders to his comments seemed to have a very difficult time understanding his point, or so he thought. One person called him a coded racist. I did see that readers point and where they came up with that, but the person did not state anything that was racist. They were extremely upset about the downfall of society, liberals, and people who didn’t follow rules.
Here’s the danger of his thoughts and the thoughts of the person he was arguing with. They both thought that because they thought something, it was real and true and factual. This belief in the validity of their thoughts created anger and fear in both people. As they argued back and forth in the comments section they got farther and farther apart in their ability to understand one another. They began calling each other names and accusing the other of things that I personally did not read into their statements. The concern about this is that the anger and fear each of them had can potentially become so heightened that it spurs violence. This was an article about grammar, in which the downfall of society and racism became the topics of arguments. I thought, wow, how fast that fell apart.
This is the point I am making. When we believe what we think is real, and someone else does not agree with our thoughts as real, and perhaps has opposite thoughts, if we persist in our belief and they persist in theirs, well, that is why wars are fought, people are shot, and violence of all kinds erupts. Be careful. In truth, there is no truth without opinion. Only because we agree does something become true. I did experiments in collage with a psychology professor on memory, or more officially eye witness testimony. The bottom line is with our tactics, we were able to change the memories of eye witness testimony. People would swear that the facts of a slide show criminal act were different from the way the slides actually were, and when we showed them the slides again, they would accuse us of changing them. We never changed the slides, but we did plant suggestions on what was happening that was not factual into other things we did. They thought they remembered the suggestions, not the actual events.
There are no facts without agreement, and agreement these days, is hard to find. I know that some people will disagree with me that there are facts. The final argument that the gentleman arguing for pure grammar and the preservation of society was that he knew he as right because he believed in God and God was right. That does not inspire me to get on his train. He was on the Christians are right and the only one who know bandwagon. I do not have any concerns about Christians or Christianity except that they believe that God only has one way to communicate and be present in people’s lives and that they are the exclusive recipients of that presence. That if you do not believe as they do, you cannot commune with God. The God I know would not do that to people, make only one path to unite with them. Christianity is a valid path to find God. There are also many other paths to God.
So the discussion about grammar became about God and racism. You see how fast our thoughts about what is right and who is right can disintegrate into many other arguments. You can believe whatever you want to believe. If you ask me, I would suggest that what you choose to believe makes you happy, brings you peace, and allows you to be and feel connected to the people in your life who want to love you. Know that whatever you choose to believe isn’t the truth, it is your truth, and is as valid as the truth of the person next to you, who may or may not agree with you. If we could all get this point, which is God’s actual point, we would not have wars. I am sure that many people will want to argue with me. I will not do that. I thank you for having an opposing view. I ask you the same as I just suggested you ask yourself, does your belief make you happy, bring you peace, and bring us together or split us apart. There is room for all of us to have our own beliefs and still be connected in love.