Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Idle chatter aspect of Right Speech
seeker242
ZenFlorida, USA Veteran
So what exactly is "idle chatter"? Speech that serves no purpose or "small talk"? Is there really such a thing as speech that serves no purpose? I used to think so, until I took some communications classes in college and learned of the term "phatic communication". I don't think there is such a thing as speech that serves no purpose, not for myself anyway.
"Phatic communication" has several definitions like:
"Small talk: the nonreferential use of language to share feelings or establish a mood of sociability rather than to communicate information or ideas; ritualized formulas intended to attract the attention of the listener or prolong communication."
OR
a phatic expression is one whose only function is to perform a social task, as opposed to conveying information.
However, the one I prefer is this one:
"Speech to promote human warmth: that is as good a definition as any of the phatic aspect of language. For good or ill, we are social creatures and cannot bear to be cut off too long from our fellows, even if we have nothing really to say to them."
(Anthony Burgess, Language Made Plain, 1975)
So if the purpose of one's speech about "nothing in particular" is to promote human warmth, make friendly conversation with others, establish social rapport in order to make new friends, etc., then how can idle chatter even exist?
So what exactly is "idle chatter"?
"Phatic communication" has several definitions like:
"Small talk: the nonreferential use of language to share feelings or establish a mood of sociability rather than to communicate information or ideas; ritualized formulas intended to attract the attention of the listener or prolong communication."
OR
a phatic expression is one whose only function is to perform a social task, as opposed to conveying information.
However, the one I prefer is this one:
"Speech to promote human warmth: that is as good a definition as any of the phatic aspect of language. For good or ill, we are social creatures and cannot bear to be cut off too long from our fellows, even if we have nothing really to say to them."
(Anthony Burgess, Language Made Plain, 1975)
So if the purpose of one's speech about "nothing in particular" is to promote human warmth, make friendly conversation with others, establish social rapport in order to make new friends, etc., then how can idle chatter even exist?
So what exactly is "idle chatter"?
0
Comments
an excerpt : "you yourself perceive the topic about which you wish to speak and then speak. it does not have to involve someone else who understands it".
I think that its speech of self. Since self speech isn't related to liberation but suffering i think Tsongkhapa is refering to Self Centered speaking that comes from a inherent "I". But i could be wrong.
Good point here. And relevant to my life in particular
It may not be purposeless speech, but the purpose it serves is the opposite of noble.
Is this like I said about "speech that is centered in the view of self" . I immediately took the perspective of the whole corpus of buddhist teachings especially the framework of the Four Noble Truths and realized that "Senseless Speech" is action resulting in the attachment to self , which produces ignorance and is brought about by innate ignorance
(i've been studying the Four Noble Truths, and highly reccomend Geshe Tashi Tsering, He is a wonderful teacher)
Person 2: I don't watch sports
Person 1: ...
Perhaps the reason that it's not clear is because the conversation example was pointless to begin with, which was kind of the point I was making (i.e. pointlessness is the point).
Person 1 assumed everyone watched sports and so he thought it was okay to ask person 2 about the results of the game. He was confused by the strangeness of Person 2...why doesn't he watch sports?
Lack of interest in sports =/= clinging to an idea that sports aren't important.
I don't see how feigning interest is helping, Person 2 would only be feeding Person 1's delusion that sports are important.
Assuming that everyone likes sports, when not everyone does, is delusion. Being surprised by encountering a person who doesn't like sports is an opportunity for person 1 to awaken to the truth of "not-sport" (ansparta). So by not pretending to like sport, person 2 is doing the most compassionate thing possible, imo.
I think that person 1 like you have mentioned is clinging to sports and building identity from it. However with the amount of enthuisiam that you said person 1 has the actual underlying need is to validate that sports = happiness.
So yes, person 2 did give an appropriate response in relation to this aspect. However without taking into consideration Person1's reality ( fundemental ignorance, attachment and aversion) of suffering. Person 2 is actually causing a disconnect that is coming from a smug superiority in a person who doesn't identify from sports. So i believe that mutatis mutandis the arguement can be applied exactly to person 2.
The idleness is that after such a hidden exchange each has not understood the suffering of oneself or the suffering of the other. And conseqentially the Orgins of suffering can't be abandoned either.
Person 1: Did you see (sport team A) <insert a="" team="" sports="">kick (sport team
Person 2: No I didn't. Was it a good game?
Person 1: </insert></insert>Yes, it was awesome!
Person 2: Really, who won?
Person 1: The Cowboys!
Person 2: Really? That's nice. Are the Cowboys your favorite team?
Person 1: Yup, I'm a big fan.
Person 2: Why do you like the Cowboys so much?
Person 1: Well, I grew up in Texas.
Person 2: Interesting.
etc., etc, etc.
I would not view this as a pointless conversation, even though I have no interest in football at all. The subject matter of the conversation IS pointless, but the subject matter of the conversation is not the point. The way I see it, the point of that conversation would be not to show interest in sports but to show interest in the other person as a fellow human being, regardless of what their interests are, even though their interests are a result of the delusion and clinging to the idea "sports are very important". The entire conversation, from beginning to end, is of a phatic nature. I used to think that conversations like this were pointless but feel quite differently now. So much so that I can't see how any conversation could be pointless, at least from the viewpoint of person 2 anyway.
This was my exact point Guy. Im confused
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh245-p.html
What kind of progress is there to be made?
p.s. it's friendly small talk, what is actually said is irrelevant
and
there are 'dasa katha - 10 type of talks' that we should involve
hope someone would provide the links
Here you are!
Also, I am very curious about what the "'dasa katha - 10 type of talks' that we should involve" are. Google revealed nothing, could anyone provide?