Just a thought I would like to expand upon concerning the base problems associated with communication...

In communicating we stand to be misunderstood, is this our fault or the fault of the listener/reader/observer? Is it better to not communicate rather than risk misinterpretation of what we say? In the best circumstances it is a joint responsibility of communicator and audience to arrive at correct collective understanding.

This is one reason I enjoy writing a blog, I can say what I want, in the way I want to say it, without caring about the interpretation by the unknown reader. It would be interesting to receive feedback on your interpretation of my posts; though to receive comment is not the reason I write these communications.

The recent cartoon polemics are based on the reaction (in this case possibly an incited collective reaction) of the reader rather than the content of the cartoon. Surely a hand-drawn image with a couple of words must rely upon interpretation by the reader for the fuller message to be conveyed? This concept is further extended to the ultimate communication based on interpretation, namely art. The image possesses meaning beyond the directly visible subject. Intellect (literally "reading between the words") is the same concept applied to language.

So how do you know how your communication will be interpreted? What intellectual capacity does your audience possess or employ?

One Arab cartoon recently shown in the media simply represents the Star of David with a Swastika superimposed upon it. It is presented in the Western press as representing an Islamic anti-Jewish message. Possibly this was the original concept of the cartoons artist, however, to interpret the image as such is just that, interpretation. Any communication requiring interpretation is by definition ambiguous, so to react violently against your own interpretation is inflammatory. In this case a misinterpretation could come through, for example, an intended use of irony, how can the observer of this cartoon know the intention of the cartoonist?

It is certainly ironical that people are campaigning for "freedom of speech", when what they really want is freedom of expression. To apply this to another area of contension; if the Western world believes in the freedom of expression, how can they condemn pornography? or even condemn a potentially pornographic image of a child? Once again there is the problem of interpretation by the observer, pornography is only pornography when consumed as such, for sexual stimulation. Should the artist not have to defend their work, why should the pornographer? Can Mapplethorpe be condemned if Goya is not? Who is at fault, the producer, the consumer. or both? The grey areas between the black-and-white exist, the spectrum of opinion...

In an ideal world communication would always be rhetorical, a ping-pong of statements, questions and answers allowing approximation between the understanding of the parties involved. War only ensues after dialog ends.

So lets go back to the beginning, "tell me about your childhood..." (see previous posts).