Tools of Communication

Everyone accepts a fact that we are living in a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-formal world where plurality is a reality. There are cultural plurality, religious plurality, political plurality, economic plurality and even plurality in food, dress habits etc. The question that arises is how it is possible to get an effective means of communication in a pluralistic world. Is no meaning in saying that a monolithic or a uniform world is better than a pluralistic world because nature never provides a uniform world or a monolithic world; there are differences and diversities. All such differences and diversities mean proper means of communication. How is it possible to make communication effective? The modern philosophical trend in philosophy, literature and media etc. have got a very firm opinion that communication is something that is different from what it is intended by the author. The text here is a different entity and the author has no role to play in the text or the intention of the author need not be considered as a proper element in communication, whatever be the intention of the author, the intention that has been explained explicitly or implicitly there in the text. We, the readers or the hearers have got full freedom to understand it in a way which is in tune with our context. It is well and good that if a particular term has been written by a particular author, has a specific meaning. This theory gives us the right that it can be understood in a different meaning. Suppose a term ‘mother’ has been used to explain the lady who has given birth to me, the meaning can be interpreted as mother-in-law, who is the mother of my wife. So, mother cannot be mother-in-law. That is a very serious aspect. But they simply says that any term be interpreted in any manner. This results in anarchy in the very experience of communication. In an anarchical state where there is no communication at all, there must be some specific order communication and communication can be easy only we are able to establish some common elements between ‘I’ and ‘you’. Where there are no common elements, there is no communication. The post-modern trend says that there is similarity but nothing common between them; this makes communication ineffective or it creates chaos in the field of communication. Hence, what makes us more difficult is that the other remains as a mysterious entity as far as I am concerned. Such a trend in philosophical life as well as in cultural life really creates a serious problem. In his context it is essential to look into all possibilities to overcome this crisis and establish a dialogue between ‘I’ and ‘You’. Take for example the inter-religious dialogues. The Western Christianity developed based on a trend given by the Greek philosophers especially by the Aristotelian logic. Thomas Aquinas was instrumental to make it possible to adopt the Aristotelian logic in Christianity through his theology. He said that the Aristotelian logic is enough to incorporate Christ experience. But it is a proven fact that one cannot be able to understand Christ with the tool provided by the Greek forefathers, especially Aristotle. Hence, we have to find out a new tool. When we make a comparison between Hinduism and Christianity, there is the question, ‘should we follow the tool as developed by either Hinduism or Christianity’. With Hindu tools, your assessment of Christianity need not be correct and vice versa. So, whenever we are in need of an effective communication system, we have to develop a new epistemology which is able enough to keep up identity at every level. Such a logical identity can be developed by the Advaitic System of logic. Advaitic System says that differences are not deficiencies but are the marks of nature; hence, we can be sure of the fact that there are diversified objects and all such diversified objects have something in common and it is that common element which helps us to make communication, more easy and possible. If we are not able to realise and recognise that common element then it is not possible to establish a meaningful dialogue in a pluralistic world.