Just about every thought you’ll think, every word you’ll speak, every sentence you write, and every action you take is encoded. These various manifestations of communication—yes, even action—are multilayered. As multilayered and as informed by as many sources as are you. Much of the encoding/layering may be accidentally inserted in your thoughts, words, sentences, actions. Some of the encoding is deliberately ‘placed’. For example: you might relish the idea of telling your boss where to get off, due to some mild or even serious injury you feel they’ve done to you, only to actually tell them something that’s politically correct or even self-effacing (though those things are not what you’re thinking, and yet, what you’re thinking is the encoding).
Photo by Negative Space from Pexels
This brief article is simply a suggestion, an idea, proposing that deliberate encoding is possible, and further, that it should be approached with the thought and intention that it will only reach, be revealed to, those who need it.
Let’s begin by choosing the medium of email. It’s kind of important that you choose the ‘right tool for the right job.’ If something is best or most appropriately said in email, or if you’re responding to a person who originally wrote to you using email, then you should use that medium too. Next, imagine if you will the idea of exercising deliberate control over the subtext (the layers) of your message, while getting across the overt and obvious points you had intended. We’ve all done things like this, as mentioned above, but maybe not as deliberately or (apparently) nonsensical as I’ll describe.
To try this out, choose an email that you want to respond to or compose that needs specific subtext that only a handful of people, or perhaps only one person, will get. It need not be the entire email message, and in fact, coding only a part of it will be easier to accomplish. A coded message, so to speak, that no matter how many people read, only one or a handful will understand. This is all about subtlety and subtext, remember. But it is deliberate. In typing the sentence you’ll see below, understand that I had an almost completely different message in my mind. I clearly ‘saw’ that deliberate message, the encoding, as I typed the sentence you’ll see. Read the following and see if you’re able to pick-up anything about the encoding. Keep a very open, almost passive mind when you read it:
“This is not a hierarchal group or organization.”
What could it be, if not about the subject itself?
On the surface of it—especially if I don’t accept the surface of it (that happens all the time, right, when we think there’s a hidden message or another meaning)—my mind might wander toward the following ideas. First, that it is a hierarchal group/organization. Next, that it may soon be or could become a hierarchal organization. Third, that I’m being told this because it is/isn’t relevant. Fourth, there’s a deeper message in there for me, and it’s one that the writer had in mind when they wrote that sentence. I’m going to go with the fourth choice, become purposefully distracted, and let the subtext or hidden message surface and ‘knock on my door.’
I should tell you at this point a couple of things. First, the better you become at encoding, the more the chance someone will pick-up on the hidden message. Second, the hidden message might be the key message for your intended audience, so only when they’re ready to receive it will it become known. And third, the encoded message might—and perhaps should—hit your intended audience like a ton of bricks. In my example, my hidden message does not deal directly with the obvious one.
First, the better you become at encoding, the more the chance someone will pick-up on the hidden message.
This process, of encoding and decoding, has happened to me a multitude of times. I’ll tell you three of them, each in their own way, valuable initiatory lessons for me. Each of them led to my changing course in my life, mundanely or spiritually.
One of the three arrived at my doorstep and ‘knocked on my door’ as I was reading Her-Bak, "Chick-Pea": The Living Face of Ancient Egypt, by author Isha Schwaller de Lubicz. I was transported to, allowed to perceive, the ‘face’ of ancient Egyptian religion and spiritualism as if from the ancient’s perspective. Not like looking at the past from today’s perspective. This was not like reading a historical or archeological account. I was deeply touched and felt and remain convinced I was afforded the teachings of an ancient master in today’s world. I was one of the people the messages were intended for. Another of the three occurred by virtue of watching an episode of the original Star Trek TV series. This was to create a significant, career-changing movement in my life. I resonated, strongly, with the character of Uhura, who was the Enterprise’s communications officer. The key word here: communications. I did a major career about-face and embarked on training and education to improve my communication skills so I might end up being employed in that very wide field. And I was, several times over. A third instance happened while attending a workshop on a closed order within a larger religious institution. It was to be the first time this particular order ‘came out’ and talked more publicly about what they were and what they did. I was absolutely taken by the workshop and presentations, more so, when near the end, it was mentioned that one ‘seat’ was currently open in the order. The day I arrived home, I wrote to the head of the order, asking if he would consider me for membership. That began a several month process where I was interviewed by several senior members. I ended up being accepted for the vacant seat.
I was transported to, allowed to perceive, the ‘face’ of ancient Egyptian religion and spiritualism as if from the ancient’s perspective.
To be fair, it could be argued that none of the three sources above (a) encoded anything in their content, or (b) encoded something just for me. That’s well and fine, and I suppose if pressed I could accept that three life-changing events weren’t meant for me specifically. Chances are high they were not (well, all but the last one). But I take the position that all of them, all of the content, had hidden coding. The de Lubicz’ are well known for their innovative, immersive writing style and form and perspective. Perhaps I was one of many who fell prey to this style. But I can only talk about myself here, and only affirm that I responded to what I considered to be encoded messages. And what of something so routine, so known, so hokey (and I say that lovingly) Star Trek? I contend that the actress’ belief in her character was profound enough to convey a message to some of us; a message never written in the script and never spoken. I responded to that calling. I know I’m not the only one. And the order membership? The validation was much more obvious: when I said to various members of the order, stated passionately and honestly, that the call for the vacant seat spoke to me personally, some of them confirmed that they understood it was so.
If there’s interest, I’d like to do a Part II and Part III on this topic, with, time and skill permitting, actual examples you can try for yourself. In the meantime…
The subtext I tried to encode in the quoted sentence was this: please get in touch with Ana if you’re a subject-matter expert.