The "or"

Should I buy a guitar or should I buy a piano?

Or. What does it mean? In common English, it means either one or the other. It means I am going out tonight or I am staying in. It implies a choice between two options, not the possibility of both. It means I should be either a guitar or a piano.

In the world of logic (according to my Patterns of Reasoning prof), the "or" is represented by a wedge "v" and represents all possibilities where at least one statement on either side of the wedge ("disjunct") is true. So, if the left disjunct is true, the statement is true. If the right disjunct is true, the statement is true. There is not a necessity that the opposite disjunct be false. In other words, BOTH can be true. So the answer to an "or" question can be yes.

Reread the first sentence: Should I buy a guitar or should I buy a piano? Yes.

Yes, you should buy one of them. It may not have been what I meant when I asked, in fact often times people are teased for answering "or" questions with a yes or a no, but it is a correct answer. At least one of the disjuncts is true.

The English major in me is a little bit weirded out by this concept, and I definitely voiced my confusion in class. How could any sentence more emphatically imply one or the other but not both than by saying "either a or b"? It was pointed out that one side being true does not necessarily imply that the other is false, unless the statements are a tautology, that is the encompass all possible outcomes (such as "a or not a" or "it is raining or it is not raining").

It seems to me that this has great implications for life. Imagine what it would be like if I was right and you could be right too. Obviously statements like "there is a god or there is not a god" cannot both be true, but there are other things that do not necessarily have to contradict.

Take for instance the concept of power. A lot of people view power as a finite resource, that is if I have power I don't want to give you any, because that means I lose some. The problem with that is that it is not true. If there is a disruptive student in a class who is always trying to control others and is simply belligerent, giving that student some power might help. I heard a story about this where the teacher wanted to do a presentation about a certain geographical area on Monday, so on Friday the teacher asked that student what she wanted to learn. The presentation was largely shaped by the student's input, but the teacher's end of teaching about that region was met. The teacher had the power to choose the topic, but the student had the power to choose the topic.

How many times to we assume that what we believe or how we do things is right because "it makes sense," "it's the best way," or "there can only be on right answer."

Or all of the above.

Why?

Why do we fill out our Facebook profiles for the whole world to look at the Sparknotes versions of us?

Why do we blog about our lives as if it was a private diary that we have left open for everyone to read?

And is there a difference between Facebook and blogging?

I think everyone has at least two lives. People have the life that they live on the outside, the one where they go to class or work, they act out certain values, and they return phone calls. (If people don't have two outer lives, they're doing pretty well.) But people also have inner lives; the lives where they process what the experience. The lives where they question why the go to class or work, act out or even hold certain values, and why they return phone calls. It's easy to see when you think about it. What are the two types of responses to the question "how are you doing today?"? People can say "Oh, I'm good. This thing in my life is happening" or they can say "I'm responding-or-thinking in this-way about this thing that happened."

I think different online venues reflect these types of communication.

Facebook is a social networking site; it allows people to connect to other people, and in my mind the people that are connecting are 3-D friends as well. Granted, they might be miles apart, but at some level their relationship was in the real world, not just the cyber world. At least in the way that I view "Facebook friends." People's "essentials" or preferences are put on their profiles to aid in identification and for fun. In other words, people put up "I like diet coke" and "I was born in Minnesota" but most people don't reveal too much beyond that. And for those that do put up too much personal information, they are shunned. Something is off about TMI in statuses, and it's still weird to put it in a note. Everyone can see it. That's the thing about Facebook--everyone DOES see it. Even if I have my security settings to "only friends," there is still substantial pressure to accept every friend request and never delete anyone. My theory? If we're not actually friends in real life and we never communicate online, why do you need to have access to my information?

Blogging, on the other hand, is more like a journal or a thought process, and we just put it up for anyone to read. So, it's kind of like the worst of Facebook, because everyone can read it. But it's also better than the best of Facebook, because it's a different venue and people seeking a video clip, a funny quote, or a picture won't read a bunch of text. Take my blogger, for example. I put up things that I am thinking about, things that are going on inside of me... things that are actually a part of my inside life. While this information is "more personal" and less guarded against the amorphous "everyone," it is for a different type of person. On Facebook, "likes," "pokes," comments and notifications are essential to the continuation of the communication. A blog, at least this one, operates for a different reason.

Yeah, it's nice to have people comment on my posts. That's kind of the point of putting up a musing instead of simply thinking it--to engage in some sort of a discussion. But this information is less identifiable. It is a thought that is personal because it comes from inside me, but it is not personal because it is about something outside me. If I love going to Chipotle every day for lunch (which I would if I had the money and had one significantly nearer than 150 miles), I work at X establishment and there is a Chipotle next door, that information is harmless but it's creepy to have anyone online know. Stalker much? It's not that any of the information is bad, too personal, wrong, or creepy, but assembling it in one place is just awkward. For me, at least.

I think a blog is not just "safer" from the online-creeper standpoint, but it actually has potential to connect people. Knowing you and 1,437,380 other people like Chipotle does nothing for you. Knowing what someone else thinks about x-y-z even when you don't know who that person is... now that can actually be beneficial.