Fidel Castro's Relationship Advice

My current unemployment leaves me with time to think about subjects that interest me, and nothing interests me more than the mathematics of personal interaction. I receive squinted eyes as a response when I reveal this as my hobby, since mathematics is synonymous with arithmetic for the majority of the population. But there is a significant distinction: arithmetic is a branch of mathematics that deals with the study of quantity, while mathematics is the study of logical quality. I prefer to think of mathematics as Albert Einstein did: as the poetry of logical ideas.

In my mind, interpersonal interactions carry both weight and shape. The shape is the type of statement we form in response to another person; the weight is the effect that statement has on the other person's beliefs. In conversations where two people express opposing views, there is a desire to create a unified belief system between the two individuals. Each person wants the other to subscribe to his own beliefs, and both appeal to logic and reason to justify their claims. First, we need an understanding of where the thought process that you and I almost subconsciously subscribe to began.

Logic and rationality were not born in the Garden of Eden, but rather in Greece during an intellectual blossoming of the fourth century. Several schools of thought existed at that time, including the school of Socrates. The Socratic method of revealing truth through questions was formed during this time period. Plato was a disciple of Socrates, and wrote dialogues in which his master used the Socratic method to question, and vanquish, rival philosophers and rhetoricians. I am not going to enter into a treatise on rhetoric but, if you are interested after reading this post, there is a fantastic book I want to recommend called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig.

My point is to show that logic is just one of the many schools of thought that existed at the time, but it is the one the Western world adopted. And that is a good thing, because logic runs the computer on which I am typing, and the internet through which I will broadcast this post. However, I wonder if logical thought is the best way to deal with human interactions, and if the Socratic method is the best way to unify opposing belief systems. We appeal to logic and rationality whenever we argue with another human being, always under the implicit assumption that the rules for logical thought and rationality are universal.

One of my favorite documentaries is The Fog of War, a chronicle of the decisions of former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He described the Cuban Missile Crisis as follows:

"I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today."

Rational individuals came close to total destruction. But what scares me about this scenario is Castro. Was Castro rational? McNamara asked Castro these three questions in a meeting after the crisis:

"Number one: did you know the nuclear warheads were there? 

Number two: if you did, would you have recommended to Khrushchev in the face of an U.S. attack that he use them? 

Number three: if he had used them, what would have happened to Cuba?"

Castro's responses are chilling:

"Number one, I knew they were there. 

Number two, I would not have recommended to Khrushchev, I did recommend to Khrushchev that they be used. 

Number three, 'What would have happened to Cuba?' It would have been totally destroyed."

How is self-destruction a rational choice? Castro must have assumed that mutual destruction was inevitable, therefore nobody would be left alive to care who was responsible. Rational indeed. The choice, illogical to everyone else, was logical to Castro. 

I can imagine Khrushchev staring in disbelief at Castro's recommendation and asking, "Are you crazy?" Castro probably responded with, "Lo digo como lo veo." Translation: "I'm just telling it like it is."

This phrase bothers me when I hear it, because what is really means is, "Only my belief system is rational and logical," which is the same thing as saying, "You are irrational and illogical." No wonder over fifty-percent of marriages end in divorce: when you're assumption that is logic is universal, any argument means that one of the spouses is out of this universe (in a bad way). And nobody wants to be that person. 

The only relevant part of a conversation is what is heard, not what is said. Our words have no meaning other than the meaning which the listener attributes to them. 

This is because each human being is the intersection of an infinite amount of circles. For example, if I draw a circle labeled "Mormon," and another labeled "Man," then I am the intersection of the two. Now add a circle labeled "Moderate Republican," then one labeled "Husband," then one called "Brother." I am still at the intersection. 

Then draw one for "Baseball games with Dad" and "Grandpa has dementia" and "Mom was full-time homemaker" and on and on and on. Draw one for every experience, every feeling of happiness and heartbreak, then multiply the number of circles you have by infinity, and take the intersection of those circles. 

That is me. 

The labels on those circles define my frame of reference, which is the foundation for my own brand of logical thought and reason. I derive my assumptions from my frame of reference, and from there I form my premises and conclusions. My logic is my own, and so is yours. 

The stereotype that women are illogical always makes me laugh. Illogical compared to what? You? Some Aristotelian universal logic? It turns out that the circle labeled "Woman" is pretty important. 

Since logic cannot be used to change another person's mind, what can be? Rhetoric. Socrates and Aristotle just rolled in their graves, for the art they detested is the answer to the problem they created. 

Rhetoric deals with form, rather than substance. You have the ear of the listener in mind when you speak, instead of your own mouth. Presentation is the key. For which is better: to tell your son he should care more for the poor, or to take him to a soup kitchen? Both relay the same message, but one is combative to his belief that he already does care, or doesn't need to care, while the other provides another circle in his frame of reference. One tries to cut a branch, another adds a root.

I'll talk more about rhetoric in relationships in a future post.