One cup equals one-half pint. One inch equals 2.54 centimeters. Zero degrees Celsius equals 32 degrees Fahrenheit. We can even convert Newtons to dynes, joules to ergs, and watts to foot-pounds per second. Conversions are usually a matter of straight-forward math. Given this unit, then that unit. Not so with conversions of thought.
Some realization is the converting impetus and mechanism for conversions of thought, but ultimately, there’s no equivalence. We’re all a bit too different to be “the same.” Yet, we do, at times, seek conversion formulas or even believe we have discovered them. Want to convince So-n-so of an ideology? Do this. Or that. Say this or that. If this approach fails, try that one. Throughout our lives we often sit with those of differing opinion around conversion tables of thought. Each participant, both in turn and often raucously and simultaneously, offers some expression. Frequently, neither side offers an equation, but rather an expression, something like 5x + y -3. Thrown onto the table of discussion by one side, the expression, without identity of the variables, is meaningless on the other side. Kept in the dark about the precise meaning of each x or y, the opposing side of an argument sees no way to solve the problem. When there is no equal sign, there is nothing to equal.
Even without the prospect of equivalence, we continue to seek perfect conversions in the personal meanings of our expressions. What is it that drives us to convert the thoughts of others to our own without finding equivalence? Is it a refusal to recognize their uniqueness while standing firmly by our own? Do we think the equivalence we seek is better than the equivalence others seek? Who has the best conversion tables?
Here’s some advice on how to find some equivalence from Ben Franklin as reported by General John Dayton:
"It is, however, to be feared that the members of this [Constitutional] Convention are not in a temper, at this moment, to approach the subject in which we differ, in this spirit. I would, therefore, propose, Mr. President, that, without proceeding further in this business at this time, the Convention shall adjourn for three days, in order to let the present ferment pass off, and to afford time for a more full, free, and dispassionate investigation of the subject; and I would earnestly recommend to the members of this Convention, that they spend the time of this recess, not in associating with their own party, and devising new arguments to fortify themselves in their old opinions, but that they mix with members of opposite sentiments, lend a patient ear to their reasonings, and candidly allow them all the weight to which they may be entitled; and when we assemble again, I hope it will be with a determination to form a constitution, if not such an one as we can individually, and in all respects, approve, yet the best, which, under existing circumstances, can be obtained."
As members of the Constitutional Convention sat around their own conversion table, they seem to have heeded Franklin’s advice and did, in fact, reach an agreement. As the Bill of Rights indicates, that initial conversion formula was not necessarily a perfect equivalence. The formula of the Convention had to be tweaked. It was, nevertheless, the best one that “under existing circumstances” could be obtained.
Of course, you might argue that our inability to discover a universal formula for conversions of thought is a good thing and that equivalence leads to a lessening of individualism, of a demise of uniqueness. Consider, however, how much the world might benefit from everyone’s sitting at a table of conversions and offering not mere expressions with undefined variables, but rather equations, even though those equations, unlike the equations in math, establish only partial equivalences. Like the Founding Fathers, we might later have to tweak the equation, but, at least, we will have defined terms we all understand, and we will be near, if not at, equivalence and mutual conversion.
Some realization is the converting impetus and mechanism for conversions of thought, but ultimately, there’s no equivalence. We’re all a bit too different to be “the same.” Yet, we do, at times, seek conversion formulas or even believe we have discovered them. Want to convince So-n-so of an ideology? Do this. Or that. Say this or that. If this approach fails, try that one. Throughout our lives we often sit with those of differing opinion around conversion tables of thought. Each participant, both in turn and often raucously and simultaneously, offers some expression. Frequently, neither side offers an equation, but rather an expression, something like 5x + y -3. Thrown onto the table of discussion by one side, the expression, without identity of the variables, is meaningless on the other side. Kept in the dark about the precise meaning of each x or y, the opposing side of an argument sees no way to solve the problem. When there is no equal sign, there is nothing to equal.
Even without the prospect of equivalence, we continue to seek perfect conversions in the personal meanings of our expressions. What is it that drives us to convert the thoughts of others to our own without finding equivalence? Is it a refusal to recognize their uniqueness while standing firmly by our own? Do we think the equivalence we seek is better than the equivalence others seek? Who has the best conversion tables?
Here’s some advice on how to find some equivalence from Ben Franklin as reported by General John Dayton:
"It is, however, to be feared that the members of this [Constitutional] Convention are not in a temper, at this moment, to approach the subject in which we differ, in this spirit. I would, therefore, propose, Mr. President, that, without proceeding further in this business at this time, the Convention shall adjourn for three days, in order to let the present ferment pass off, and to afford time for a more full, free, and dispassionate investigation of the subject; and I would earnestly recommend to the members of this Convention, that they spend the time of this recess, not in associating with their own party, and devising new arguments to fortify themselves in their old opinions, but that they mix with members of opposite sentiments, lend a patient ear to their reasonings, and candidly allow them all the weight to which they may be entitled; and when we assemble again, I hope it will be with a determination to form a constitution, if not such an one as we can individually, and in all respects, approve, yet the best, which, under existing circumstances, can be obtained."
As members of the Constitutional Convention sat around their own conversion table, they seem to have heeded Franklin’s advice and did, in fact, reach an agreement. As the Bill of Rights indicates, that initial conversion formula was not necessarily a perfect equivalence. The formula of the Convention had to be tweaked. It was, nevertheless, the best one that “under existing circumstances” could be obtained.
Of course, you might argue that our inability to discover a universal formula for conversions of thought is a good thing and that equivalence leads to a lessening of individualism, of a demise of uniqueness. Consider, however, how much the world might benefit from everyone’s sitting at a table of conversions and offering not mere expressions with undefined variables, but rather equations, even though those equations, unlike the equations in math, establish only partial equivalences. Like the Founding Fathers, we might later have to tweak the equation, but, at least, we will have defined terms we all understand, and we will be near, if not at, equivalence and mutual conversion.
RSS Feed