University Daze … (another short story)

Mitchell said it. He repeated exactly what I had said yesterday without any acknowledgement that I had already said it the day before. Then he told me not to be so naïve. Naïve.

Mitchell, I wonder, do you know what that really means? Naïve. We were sitting in the back of the law library drinking our cappuccinos and had been talking about writers again. Reporters. Journalists. Authors. Chroniclers of Fact and Fiction.

“Is there an objective responsibility”, I asked, “or is it all just subjective relativity”?

Mitchell said no. “No”, just like yesterday.

He said, “There is an external reality.”

Reality. Geez, words are so dead these days.

Mitchell then said “There is an objective knowable Truth.”

Truth. I sipped quietly at that one.

The trouble is, Mitchell, in my opinion, I repeated, is that we have been so overly sensitized to both the rhetoric of language and the rhetoric of mind development, so much so, that we are now totally unable to grasp the inherent dignity, let alone, viability of such a word as Truth. Truth has just become another commodity, like sugar, that we buy and sell. It is so easy to Bullsh*t. I said that to Mitchell.

He said, “Bullsh*t.”

I felt that I had failed to accurately explain my position. Mitchell, what I mean to say is this: we have been nurtured in a liberal bourgeoisie educational system with limitless access to a proliferation of alternate media sources and perspectives. We can read Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’, and Anne Francks’ Diaries in the same day. We have the opportunity to view news clips from Brazil, China, listen to the BBC and Radio Moscow. Surely, cumulatively, this means we are unable to see objectively. We only consume and spit out points of view. Our individual perception is only a lumpy pottage of other snippets of perception. There is no such thing as an objective knowable Truth.

I continued, ‘For example, and a concrete example, our individual ability to describe a tree hug is restricted by our personal ability to visualize, think, speak, conceptualize and articulate our experience of hugging a tree’.

Mitchell said No. Again. “The fact remains.” he said, “Within the shared heritage of our language – tree hug has meaning. Whether you experience it or not. Whether you like it or not. We would both know, understand, what a tree hug is.” But, of course, he added, our description, our interpretation, our tangible individual experience might differ slightly. “I might hug old growth,” he said, “You might hug new growth, for example, if we hug at all.” He sipped his coffee.

But Mitchell, I floundered, then let’s look at another example, a clear abstraction, like Freedom. Here is a word that is in our common language heritage, and without examination or hesitance, we would probably both agree that our understanding of the word Freedom is the same. But, my question to you is this; does this word have any meaning outside of a strictly subjective context? Surely a Palestinian concept of Freedom is distinctly different from an Israeli notion of the idea. Mitchell responded by saying, the principles of Freedom remain the same. I paused, and sipped too. The principles. Do you mean the tenets that support the notion of Freedom? Is Freedom then only the sum total of its various parts; is it only a constant recantation of its segments?

Mitchell said that was rhetoric.

But Mitchell, I said as he sipped, it seems to me that we are not talking about Freedom at all, but the elements that supposedly comprise the Idea of freedom. I mean, if Freedom is so common, why do men fight? Mitchell sighed and said, “Listen Marvin, your semantic and combative rhetorical attitude is destructive to an appreciation of the knowable Truth of the concept of Freedom. To persist in challenging in this way expresses a naiveté and immaturity of understanding.”

Mitchell, I said, that sounds to me like the rhetoric of failure. ‘In my attempt to understand what you mean, in my attempt to reach the innermost recesses of your rational mind, in my attempt to understand the elements, yes, the elements of your broader understanding, you chastise me and say I am naïve. Don’t you see that I am only trying to get at the Truth here, our supposed common ground of understanding? Yet, you persistently deny my opinion with your NO’s and you propagate only your own subjective relativity. I, on the other hand, am attempting to comprehend this ‘objective knowable Truth’ that you seem so sure of. I am trying to enter into the rhetoric of your reasoning . I am attempting to breach into this external Reality that you seem so sure of.’

Mitchell just said No, and continued talking.

It was then that I noticed that my cup was half empty and that Mitchell’s was half full. And that Mitchell had a little white moustache imprinted above his upper lip.

Just like yesterday.