A very interesting thing happened at the Historic Preservation Board Meeting (West Palm Beach, Wednesday, 17 December 2014, 5:00 pm). Kristen Kellogg, 1st Alternate, criticized a new project on the docket because she was not comfortable with its ‘mass’. When asked to clarify her discomfort, she could not, except to state she would ‘feel better’ about the project if the architect would change the mass. Even though she could not furnish any guideline or direction about her proposed change, ‘she would know when she sees it’ re-presented to her whether or not the mass has been changed to her liking.
Through Kellogg’s singular act of subjectively ambiguous disagreement and blatantly non-constructive critique, she perpetrated a recklessness reflecting an unfortunately growing trend today. Rather than work towards a collaborative end of successful progress and definitive action, we are too quick to (mis)judge, disparage, criticize, and negate without offering any (sufficient) positive resolution. To a greater degree, the critical need for a comprehensively educated viewpoint (CEV) towards meaningful dialogue respectful of each participant is as blatant as Kellogg’s recklessly subjective ambiguity.
In my post, “CEV” of 16 June 2014, I touched upon the CEV for communicative understanding:
At the very beginning of my book – before the Table of Contents and Introduction – is a letter to the general public. The primary purpose of the letter is threefold:
- Return the focus and purpose of communication to an expressively meaningful engagement amongst equals,
- Encourage everyone to jettison judgment and ego when engaged in communicative expression and interpretation, and
- Ignite the desire in everyone to develop a comprehensively educated viewpoint (CEV) towards meaningful dialogue respectful of cultural nuances.
Ironically, we have become an e-globalized civilization of incoherently meaningless communicative expression mediated by the most advanced technologies to date. We have perpetrated the greatest sham in the history of communication. Accordingly, we are left with a deluge of non-communication towards no particular purpose with no definitive accomplishment other than a cacophony of cognitive dissonance. Thoughtlessly nonsensical statements such as Kellogg’s is one in a myriad perpetuating the ills of this discord.
If you are still unclear what the sham is, please let me clarify:
We are clogging the pipes of communication with words, ideas, thoughts, and banter that have been either unsubstantiated or made anonymous through our technological platforms. This is aggravated by the common phenomenon of talking at, over, or above one another rather than a direct engagement of equals, mutually respectful of each participant. Furthermore, because e-technologies mediate a globalized society, the sham is exponentially magnified on the entire global platform. We are not communicating towards meaning any longer. Instead, we are emoting egos of unilateral agendas, thus halting the natural processes of meaningful dialogue. Kellogg’s is a specific microcosm of this phenomenon.
The SWF Examined:
Strategy, planning, and cohesively collaborative efforts become exacerbated in a global society of non-communicative individuals pushing forward their own agendas unilaterally. Any significant degree of progress cannot occur without engagement and use of mutually respectful collaborative dialogue. More than ever, the CEV of meaningful engagement is critically necessary. Furthermore, the e-globalized arena calls for an added layer of need for a CEV respectful of cultural nuances and understanding.
With the CEV in mind, it behooves all individuals to participate in meaningfully communicative action. This positive action at the singular level will affect the global arena in an effect similar to the outward-radiating waves of a concentric circular pattern. That one pattern soon becomes many. In turn, the many transcends time and geography. Accordingly, preservation (historic or otherwise), progress, and survival will be better served.