Relationality

Did you ever hear an English teacher tell you “don't use the passive voice”? For example:

“The cake was eaten” (passive)
“I ate the cake” (active)

“The enemy was defeated” (passive)
“We defeated the enemy” (active)

“Caesar was stabbed”
“A group of senators stabbed Caesar”

“It fell over” (passive)
“She knocked it over” (active)

This is very common in Spanish as well.

“Se cayo”
“Lo tumbé”

It is impotant to note that the passive voice doesn't convey the agent of change (the one who is “verbing”). Thus, the change cannot be attributed to any specific entity by the listener. It is still possible to still avoid conveying the specific agent using a broad term.

“The tree was pulled down”
“Someone pulled down the tree”

There are many reasons why it is not recommended in Modern Standard English, but let's take a look at a different aspect.

“The cake was eaten” (passive)
“The cake was eaten by me” (???)
vs
“I ate the cake” (active

This creates a very distinct sentence with regards to the active voice from the first example. Somehow, the cake (subject) acts on me (object) by being eaten. At first, that may seem silly. I am the one who ate it, of course. But now consider this: the cake that was eaten elevated my blood sugar, gave me some nutrients, and jumpstarted a digestive process that includes hormones and bloodflow redirection, as well as neurological effects from sugar and flavors. The cake did indeed act on me.

Newton's third law is “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. This sentence is often misunderstood.



Two stars of identical mass will experience identical forces between them. How about the sun and the earth? Newton’s third law tells us they will experience the exact same force. So, if the earth falls towards the sun, the sun will fall towards the earth with the same force. However, since the sun is significantly more massive than the earth, its acceleration (and thus, how far it will travel because of that force) is much smaller. If the earth stopped orbit and fell towards the sun, it would fall 94 million miles towards the sun in 58 days, while the sun would fall towards the earth about 280 miles in 58 days.

“Equal and opposite” going to be reflected in every measurement you can make of the effect. A better way to look at it is that every action / verb is two directional; it is impossible for an agent to perform a verb on an entity without the verb affecting the agent as well.

Many times, the English language falls short in describing reality in this way. For example:

“I punch you”

suggests the following mental image



This is how chronological events are organized by English speakers, from right to left, just like the writing system. And it suggests an arrow, from me to you, of me causing you pain.

But how about the equal and opposite reaction?



Even without being punched back, the puncher has received an equal and opposite infliction, in several ways: hurt fist, hurt soul from knowingly causing pain, hurt reputation, and maybe even coming legal consequences. The English language does not require you to consider this when communicating.

Let's consider another example:

“I gave John a gift”

Where is the equal and opposite reaction? Clearly, John now has something he didn't have before, and you lost something. Or did you?

By giving John a gift, you will receive neurological benefits, friendship benefits, greater likelihood of having you reputation defended, and an increased likelihood of gifts or help when in need on future occasions. But more deeply, you strengthened the connection between yourself and John, which is actually an immediate effect. Many of the other things that can be said to happen because of this are actually actions caused by or facilitated by the any strengthened connection.

Every single verb / action used in every single sentence is bi-directional, even if your language doesn't reflect it or require you to speak about it. And just like the Earth and the Sun, the impact on you may look quite different. However, you must recognize that the impact is extremely real. Working your way through the depths of the implications of this is a system of thought sometimes called Relationality.

This idea is not my own, I learned it from Lakota Elder Tiokasin Ghosthorse, who speaks in this video on Einstein's fascination with the Hopi understanding of Relativity and E=MC^2 through relational intelligence that is baked into their language structure and culture. I highly recommend you listen to this 20 minute interview.



Pick a sentence, any sentence, and start to think it through.

“I bought a soda”
reverse???

First you must realize it is not the soda who you acted on unless you are assuming that becoming the owner is enough to understand your action. More elaborately:
“I gave an emissary of the industrial beverage production a few dollars. They gave me one of their bottled sugary products”
On closer inspection, this turns out to actually be 2 actions, each with complex reactions. And there are further implied actions that must happen after, like “I drank the soda” and “I disposed of the soda bottle”. There are also further implied actions that happened before, like “The oil company drilled petroleum” and “a refinery made the plastic” and “a factory brewed the soda” “a transportation company transported the soda using petroleum or minerals”.

Everyone in the news talks about the looming ecological crisis and how we must act quickly to do something about it, but not often do you meet someone with a convincing approach to fixing it. How about we start by de-rationaliizing and re-relationalizing our thoughts, speech, and actions? It may do wonders.