I just came across something I found most amusing and excited to know.Amusing,for I had never heard of such a concept before this.Excited,for it now presents to me an absolutely apt answer to my friend.My friend incidentally happened to tag one or rather all my posts she read to be negative and written in a state of PMSing.
Faux amis. What is faux amis? Words or phrases that look or sound similar in two different languages yet having different meanings.The writer of the article I read had stated in example the French word ‘histoire’ similar sounding to the English word ‘history’.Nevertheless the word is at large used to mean ‘story’ and not history in French unlike the English word, meaning ‘history’.History is known for its documentation of truthful facts and story cannot be at all times taken to be of the truest account.
Another concept as explained by the writer was of understanding.I find it a relief that I finally found an answer to why I don’t understand many a things as plainly as it should be understood.It was one such an article I had written three days back.Raising a question on my difficulty at understanding the concept of emotional inferences that landed me into the post of a negative writer.
The author described understanding to be a blend of the two types that existed.Relational understanding and instrumental understanding.’Understanding what to do and why’ fell in the realm of relational understanding.’Rules without reasons’ underlined instrumental understanding.So,now I have my answer.More than an answer to my friend I should regard it an answer to the self.For a good few hours yesterday,the debate in my head was in search of the perfect rebuttal as to why I never regarded myself to be negative.It was not in my slightest intention when I wrote.Then why?
Let me explain.The author at a point made mention of mathematics as a ‘faux amis’.How could the well regarded ,most objective,universal, unchallengeable mathematics be a faux amis?It was totally in the hands of the teacher who taught the subject that gave it,its variations.The meaning differed if a teacher attempted at getting the concepts across to his/her students through a technique of relational understanding.The students were then taught to understand how the Greek ‘π'(pi) made its way into measuring the circumference of a circle.The mentioned measurement could also be made to be understood instrumentally.Tell the students that the measurement is 2πr(r=radius) and thats the end of the story.Its a rule and best followed.
Now, how the relation to all this serving as my answer to how we look at the world?Lets put it as simply as this.When we look at the world for reasons behind everything that exists,is made,survives or is felt we have a relational understanding.If we,then don’t understand the reasons behind the answer to our question we are left in a state of confusion.If we want to understand why we are happy or not or how we are happy we demand an understanding of the situation relationally.We are negative.(or we are so perceived).
If we belong to that category of people who puts it as simple as this,”We are happy,We are just happy.We feel we are happy,We want to be happy”,regardless of what,we belong to the instrumental understanding lot.Now we are positive(as widely perceived).
So now,isn’t ‘happiness’ a faux amis?Not for its difference in its use in different languages per say,but for its difference in its capacity to be understood by the two large groups that infer its meaning,justifications and expressions.
Here is the point, I arrive at my answer.I can very convincingly convince myself now as to why I find the need to substantiate anything to as basic as why I feel someway,with a reason.
Neither of us are positive or negative.Nor can my assessment of the glass being half empty or half full be an analysis of my positivity or negativity.I demand a reason for everything around me.If I’m still negative,then maybe I am.:)
PS:I have special appreciation for this one friend of mine who actually took a lot of effort in telling me exactly what she feels and I salute her for that.Loads of love.
- Skemp,Richard(2006),Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding,In Mathematics Teaching for Middle School(pp 88-95) retrieved on MAy 26th 2012 from http://employee.heartland.edu/cpulley/MATH%20135/files/Skemp%20article.pdf