Shhh! This is PURE MATH.

The pandemic did many things that hurt, but it also provided access we wouldn’t normally have.  For me, I was able to have intermittent fly-on-the-wall experiences with my daughter’s classroom shenanigans and serious discussions.  Having to go to work and school from home gave many parents that type of access, regardless of how big or small the home space was.

In my case, the offspring decided that she would “attend school” at the dining table.  This was part of her way of breaking up the monotony of always being in her bedroom.  It worked.  Except, there would obviously be times when I was in the kitchen preparing breakfast, etc. while class was in session.  While I tried my best to not “be present,” there were times when topics of discussion among teachers and students would pique my interest, and I would intentionally pay attention.   From time to time, my observations would form part of a discussion that either I or my daughter would later initiate about whatever the topic was.

In my usual fashion, I gingerly navigated the pots and pans to minimize the disturbance to her “classroom.”   Although my daughter was having a robust discussion in English with her teacher, I realized, on this particular occasion, I could not grasp anything they were saying.  Despite me having mastered English – the concept, the analogies, the examples, and the problems being presented in the discourse were way over my head.  There was nothing in my degrees that prepared me for understanding the banter between pupil and teacher; I was out of my element.

They were having a Pure Math discussion/debate.

The context in which I operated is simple.  In high school, a few decades ago, I, along with a few other students, was approved to do the Basic Math external examinations, while other students were doing General Math.  The difference between the two is vast from my perspective.  In layman’s term (which is the best way I can explain it), being approved for basic math meant you were, for whatever reason, math-averse/dense (or dunce); while general math meant that you were able to grasp major concepts with greater ease.  Us basic math students could add, subtract, divide, multiply, and do simple worded equations that didn’t necessarily require formula application that the math gurus would have mastered.  Even so, I ended up failing. 

As I listened to my daughter banter with her teacher, whom I could tell was delighted about the exchange (every teacher wants the student who is excited about learning), it became pretty evident to me that I did not possess the brain capacity to understand.  If this wasn’t a metaphor for life, I don’t know what is.

HEAR ME OUT, PLEASE:

We often find ourselves trying to interject our ideologies in situations that are beyond our capability.  The fact that we may possess the gift of gab or just the mere ability to speak doesn’t automatically qualify us to provide feedback on every issue.  There are some things, that regardless of our educational achievements or proximity to the thing, we simply do not have the brain capacity to understand.  

This also extends to the validation we often seek from those we have no business seeking validation.  We crave the approval/assessment of our “pure math” problem by someone who barely grasped “basic math.” 

“STOP IT! GET SOME HELP!”

The simple truth is that some person’s capacity to deconstruct a situation can only occur from a basic math perspective, when the situation, and what it presents, is occurring in the “pure math” space.    This could be for a myriad of reasons to include the following:

1. Lack of context:  If we do not have the necessary information, it is difficult to understand what is happening in the situational equation and therefore we won’t be able to provide useful feedback necessary to solve the problem or make an effective assessment.

• Personal biases:   How we feel (attitudes/beliefs, etc.) about a person, place, or thing (whether intentional or unintentional), often prevents us from accessing that fair space; thus, when we interject our thoughts and/or opinions, it is often occurring from a limited and/or compromised perspective. 

• Dishonesty:  a person who is naturally dishonest and operating from their own agenda-fulfilling space is unable to effectively contribute.  The conundrum is that another person who is operating with a basic math brain capacity may think that the person who articulates well (but also has a basic math understanding) is offering sound advice solely on the premise on who they perceive that person to be.  So they are both operating with a basic math background, except one is posing as having pure math understanding.  Make sense?

• Lack of awareness/exposure:  if we don’t have access to a thing, have not been made aware of a thing, have not gone in search of the REAL truth about a thing, or attempt a knowledge-based deconstruction of a thing, we cannot speak on or assess such a thing.  This is true regardless of who we think we are against the backdrop of our “achievements”.  Our lack of awareness/exposure of that thing makes our understanding of that thing (pure math) tantamount to having a basic math education.  We remain CLUELESS.

• Do not possess the natural propensity:  There are some things that are just not for us; it is as simple as that.  Some people can draw, some can sing, some can dance, some are gifted engineers, some are great orators, and the list goes on.  Some people are naturally great at some things, while others find that same thing the most difficult thing to grasp.  It is just the nature of human beings.  We all serve different purpose.  So what is “pure math” for some, is “basic math” for another; and what is “basic math” for one is “pure math” for another.

THINK ON THESE THINGS!

Many of us are falsely led to believe that the level of our education, access to resources, or status in life/society, gives us the automatic edge to effectively participate in every discourse.  IT DOES NOT.  I can’t say this enough:  CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT TO CRITIQUE.

There are many “Pure math” instances in life that our circumstance (background, dishonesty, lack of awareness/education/understanding, lack of context and personal biases, etc.) may disqualify us from speaking on/about/for/with, etc.  This include ANY SITUATION THAT WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO (parenting, your friend’s marriage, introversion, your neighbour’s relationship, your co-worker’s homelife, abuse patterns, narcissistic abuse, mental illness, religion, the Bible, relationship dynamics, etc.).  This list is obviously not exhaustive since no one tells anyone everything.

It’s like being given an assignment with two parts.  The lecturer tells the student to read the case study (part A) and then answer the questions that follow (part B).  Even though the questions are written in a language that the student has mastered, he/she is unable to provide USEFUL feedback because the student DID NOT READ THE CASE STUDY.  The student can make something up that someone else who also has no context will believe to be true, solely because they sound good saying it; But guess what happens in the end?  The student gets a failing grade from the teacher.

Even though my offspring lets me know that Pure Math is not as hard as I think it is, I am still not able to participate in Pure Math discourse nor can I solve the equations because I have not done anything to access and/or understand its abstract concepts nor have I made any attempts to know anything more than its name – that it exists (or does it?).  Plus, PURE MATH isn’t really my thing, and it sure aint my business. LIFE IS EXACTLY LIKE THIS.  When we insert our limited understanding into things that are obviously bigger than us, we exacerbate situations. Therefore, let’s learn to stay on the side-lines and listen to those pure math conversations/scenarios, etc. that our basic math exposure and/or brain capacity prevents us from actively participating in.  Maybe we can learn something in the end, or maybe not.  Either way, hush!