WORDS IN EXPRESSIONS
"But words are things,
and a small drop of ink,
Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think."
...Lord Byron
A language consists of a set of words that denote
concepts and the relation between them.
A language is developed as the communication medium between people within a social
setup. That is the foundation of language : as a social communication medium, between
people, primarily to convey thoughts, feelings and experiences that needed to be shared or
expressed. This need for communication arises through two factors : the need for survival
and the need for inner self - expression. The first factor becomes the predominating
factor
in civilizations, the second predominates in tribal cultures. In the first case, the
requirements
of survival, domination and expansion determine the development of language into a science
and technology driven usage, and in the second case the development of language is more
towards its artistic usage : in songs, hymms, chants, stories etc, and so this language
does
not become technically sophisticated, and also that its usage is mostly spoken and not
written.
The Language of Instinct
This need for sharing or expressing is a human drive,
although it is not absent in other
animals, but is mostly through instincts and gestures. This communication through sheer
instinct, basic sounds or gestures must have been the original media for primitive man,
before the development of formal languages ( having a definitive form and structure ).
And this was the most effective communication media in a person to person mode
of communication. In the development of social structures, this instinctive mode of
communication devolved to the point of being almost extinct. It was replaced by
definitive, formal and structured set of symbols or language.
Person to Person Communication : Spoken language
Praise, flattery,
exaggerated manners and find high-sounding words were
not part of Lakota politeness. Excessive manners were put down as
insincere, and the constant talker was considered rude and thoughtless.
Conversation was never begun at once, or in a hurried manner. No one was
quick with a question, no matter how important, and no one was pressed
for an answer. A pause giving time for thought was the truly courteous
way of beginning and conducting a conversation.
--Chief Luther Standing Bear (Ota Kte, Mochunozhin) , 1868-1939
This advent of mass communication killed something
vital in its wake : person to person
communication. A formal language is more of a hinderance than a useful tool in person to
person communication, where body language, instinct, intent, feelings and emotions
play the dominant part, and formal language is only secondary, if at all required. In a
formal and structured language based communication, the advantage of precise
communication is largely offset by the not-at-all-obvious disadvantage of the potential
for mis-communication and deception. Besides, precision in communication is required
only in a scientific context, whereas in person to person communication, an intutive,
aesthetic and creative use of one's faculties is vital and indispensable.
Even before the development of formal language, most
ancient cultures had a picture
or figure based language structure, with certain shapes denoting corresponding
objects ( physical ) or concepts ( abstractions ) or entities ( spirits or non-physical
phenomenon ).
Written Language : use and abuse
"It does not require many words to speak the truth"....Chief Joseph
A developed tribal culture understands the potential
of misuse of the written word and
so instinctively detests the written word, for they also understand that direct and true
communication can only take place face to face, valid between one specific person to
another specific person, in a paticular situation, time and context. The first
extensive
use of the written word took place when a society or culture became post - shamanic,
and that is : the advent of organised religion, which required scriptures in order to
enact ritual and systematised indoctrination. The original use of language, that for
informal but expressive person to person communication gives way to a formal and
systematic use of words and their inter-relationship ; the structure of that language.
The first use of the written word was thus for the
purpose of organised religion, that
is, a religion for the masses. In a shamanic society ( see :
social structures and
constructs and religions) religion is purely
a personal affair, and has no specific
doctrines. It is purely a personal quest, and any interpretation of the results of this
quest are not considered as definitive, as is the case with organised religion. In a
shamanic society, the written word was not only not needed, and so not invented
or developed, it was perhaps even shunned altogether as depreciating to the very
process of human communication.
Advent and development of written language
The primitive man was a man of action and instinct,
and as few words as
neccessary. Language was used in mythical stories to be told to
children.
The use of language was imaginative and vision oriented, no hard and fast
rules were required. People spoke from the heart rather than babble with
their minds.( In any case the primitive man did not have a restless mind )>
Since defintive from of language was not needed, their languages
remained spoken and not written.
The written word developed in post-shamanic societies
by the need for the
priests to indoctrinate the elite in order to perpetuate its own vested interests.
Oganised religion was the first in need of the written word, and from there the
structured languages of the world arose, ultimately culminating in language
being almost completely seized by science and technology. ( See ART
)
Language for internal communication
"Better to write for
yourself and have no public, than write for the
public and have no self"..........Cyril Connolly
One of the most striking use of language is for
internal communication : as a tool
to sharpen, exercise, reorder and enhance one's faculties, especially that of the
intellect. Most of the knowledge that one holds has to be tested and exercised for
its applicability, and here language plays a crucial role.
Even more fundamental, the very structure of one's
mind is shaped by the internal
use of lanuage. In the process of self expression, language becomes even
crucial, for it is then that it acquires a special potency : that of transforming
the
mind itself.
"The limits of my
language are the limits of my mind. All I know is
what I have words for." ...........Wittgenstein
"The limits of my mind
are the limits of my expressions in language.
Whatever may be the language, whatever may be the words, it is how
they are related, constructed and finally how they are expressed, is
the process by which I know something." ..Updated ....Nov 2003.
The very limits of one's mind are determined by it's
ability to handle language. It is the
only way the rational process can breakthrough its limitations to launch its counter-
process : the intutive and creative , which can then lead to experiences as well as
understanding beyond any other means.
"For me words are a form
of action, capable of influencing
change. Their articulation represents a complete, live
experience".....Ingrid Bengis
The ultimate use of language is the integration of
the Self through written form
of Self-expression that brings out the deepest resources from within into
concrete form.
The act of writing is the act of making soul,
alchemy.
.....Gloria Evangelina Anzaldua
Language for External Communication
"Words should be a
little wild because they are the assult
of thoughts upon the unthinking." .....John Maynard Keynes
The mastery of the internal processes is itself
insufficient unless it reflects
positively towards one's interactive environment, in which other human
beings are the affected entities. It involves not only the articulation of new
and fresh ideas that have a wider applicability, but also to provide a voice
to those who want to be heard, but lack the ability or the articulation.
"Go out and speak for
the inarticulate and the submerged."
...........William Maxwell
Beaverbrook
One of the greatest challenges of the use of language
is its use in the
defence of law, order and justice. Language is the only tool for upholding
the basic rights of all living creatures, for upholding the basic dignity of
life itself.
The ultimate challenge of language is to prevent, block, and attack the
abuse of language in justification of oppression, suppression and
exploitation. Only language can undo the abuse of language. Only
language can break down the wall of deception behind which tyrants
hide by hiring "sold out itellectuals" to justify or deflect from their
misdeeds. Only language can anticipate and cut off their
ultimate escape route
"A word carries far --
very far -- deals destruction through time
as the bullets go flying through space"......Joseph Conrad
ON THE USE OF WORDS IN COHERENT EXPRESSIONS
"The greatest
masterpiece of literature is only a dictionary
out of order".....Jean
Cocteau
Words by themselves are nothing. They are merely the
tools and materials by which we
mould our thought process, as also the medium by which we communicate or give expression
to experiences, abstractions and imaginative endeavors. It has been repeatedly emphasised
in this work that language and its underlying, related concepts are to be used as tools
for self
expression in the process towards self realisation in which both our creative as
well as rational faculties are exercised.
"Work on good prose
has three steps: a musical stage when it is
composed, an architectonic one when it is built, and a textile
one when it is woven"...........Walter Benjamin
The idea is to find the
right balance between the artistic use of
words ( poetic ) to trigger the synthesis process and the
intellectual use of words to develop the rational process.
The ideal expression is that which accomplishes both
these simultaneously. That is why
sometimes a novelist can have a greater and wider impact. than a poet, because a
poet
very rarely has an impact upon the rational process. The thrust of this work has been a
development of the rational process, so that it gains a necessary amount of flexiblity
and fluidity in its working, so that it can, whenever required, be able to make a space
for the initiation of the synthesis.
"Language is a process
of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed,
but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free
and infinitely varied. Even the interpretation and use of words involves
a process of free creation.".....Noam Chomski
The Non-rational use of Language
"Poetry is a matter of life, not just a matter of language"......Lucille Clifton
Pre-civilization man did not need
poetry, for his relation to nature was a harmonious one.
And so, the artistic use of language was redundant, The artistic forms of expression
were mostly in the form of chants. The exercise of the synthesis process was mostly in
the form of visionary excursions. ( the vision quest in Native Americans )
With civilization came mankind's
alienation from nature, and the inner anguish of man
found expression in the form of poetry.
Poetry arose from the desire, the
need to express the depths of abstract feelings and
emotions that could not be expressed rationally. Poetry therefore does not follow any
rules of language and yet its domain covers the whole range of human feelings.
This does not imply, however, that poetry could not be abused. Rather it was one of
the first of the arts that was abused. It was abused by those in power - political or
religious to further their own interests as well as to amuse themselves. And if the
tyrant did not possess this art, as was usually the case, he simply "bought it
".
Again, the "selling" of art was not confined to poetry alone but also to all
other
arts : acting, singing, dancing, painting and sculpture. And part of this commerce
were the schools that "taught" these arts. In the Greek civilization, the
Sophists
were the "teachers" of the art of speaking and persuading called rhetoric,
but
made it into a commercial activity by charging a heafty fee ( naturally from the
rich ) for this "teaching of virtue", which was almost equated with the art of
fine
speaking, so that the pupils could further their political carriers, or become
lawyers in the courts ( and thereby themselves charge a heafty fee from their
clients).
The Rational use of Lanuage
Socrates and Confucious were the first few ones to make extensive use of the
the rational faculty in discourse, by attacking and exposing the limitations
of the non-rational use of language especially the teaching of "rhetoric".
This practice came for almost immediate attack by Socrates who questioned
whether "virtue" can be taught at all, and that the very concept of
"virtue" was
was an antithesis to commercial value and money. He was correct in pointing
out that the primary motivation in this practice then became wealth and thus
"virtue" itself became corrupted and lost in the process. However, his own
method of the dialectic ( a questioning dialog between people to arrive at
"truth" ) as contrasted with rhetoric, whereby one person tries to persuade
another as to what is "virtue" or "truth", itself only
demonstrated that the
"search for truth" leads to contradictions that cannot be resolved by the
process of dialectic agreement. Surprisingly, even Socrates did not fully
realise the significance of his having stumbled upon a "fundamental truth".
This "fundamental truth"
that "what is true" for one is not neccessarily "what
is true" for another was itself lost to the Greeks and the entire West by
the imposing or persuading "science of Aristotle" ( a quest for
"objective"
truth ) until its resurrection by Kierkegaard, thousands of years later.
He did realise however quite clearly that " virtue" or "goodness" or
"justice"
could not be "taught" or remain as a mere art, and must undergo rational
examination as well. Moreover, he implied, these qualities cannot be evoked
by "persuasion" or "teaching", but from within by a rigorous
examination of
one's own motivations and values.
"That which is moved from without is
souless"...Socrates
Both Socrates and Confucious were deeply interested in the social and
political implication of virtue or morality, and these were the first steps
of man in an examination of the crucial relationship between subjective
truth and the social, political or objective truth. For the first time both had
hit upon a fundmental objective truth : that unless men of impeccable
integrity were in charge of the political arena, widespread social
degeneration was the inevitable consequence. Another significant
point that they raised was that institutionalised religion had lost all
moral authority, and therefore should not have a political role.
This search for the relation between
objective truth and morality and
the ideas about them by these two contemporaries was not taken
up or developed further seriously by anyone else.
This obsession of Aristotle for a quest for "objective truth" through the
study of the physical world also killed the Socratic quest for the study
of "virtue" or "goodness" in its social and political implications.
One of the greatest ironies for the West was the death of Socrates
who was accused of being " impious" and corruptor of youth. (and
for asking too many uncomfortable questions ! )
In the East the concept of
"goodness" and morality in public life was never
given any consideration. Everything was supposed to sort itself out by the
concept of "karma", ( actions of past life ), a doctrine of fatalism that man's
destiny is predetermined by all past actions. Probity of man's actions in
public life was never a priority, and things like justice and accountability
were all trivial matters.
In the East, while "truth is
relative" was well understood from a long time,
there was no quest for an "objective truth" only a quest for "ultimate
truth"
or "ultimate reality" (so much for terminology !)which was all beyond any
words ( except sacred religious scriptures ! ) and beyond life itself,
to be realised by the escape from the cycle of life and death. Thus in
the East, the rational use of language never developed. In the indian
subcontinent the entire energies went into meditation, and in the
Chinese culture the obsession wth martial arts became the ultimate
frontier. The irony of the East was the denial for the value of life itself
in the quest for " ultimate reality ". Even Buddhism got entangled in
such escapism.
The rational use of language then
became the exclusive domain of the
West, without any idea of its potential for abuse by those in power and
those with an instiable greed for wealth.
LANGUAGE PITFALLS
Therefore is the name of it
called Babel ; because the Lord did
there confound the language of all the earth : and from thence
did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
.....King James Bible, Genesis 11 : 9
The development of the rational use of language
resulted in the formation of two
crucial social institutions that then became the foundations of societies : the school
and the church or temple. Both these instituitions were institutions of indoctrination of
the so called "truths" that had been discovered by that society. ( or
rather "objective
truths, since now the concept of truth had become wholly objective or ultimate thanks
to people like Aristotle and the Priests or preachers of religion )
WORD PITFALLS
Some of mankind's most terrible misdeeds
have been committed
under the spell of certain magic words or phrases...James Conant
The first step is therefore to develop an awareness
of the pitfalls involved with words.
One of the major pitfalls that very few people realise is the over-emphasis on the
use
of a particular word, that then becomes so catchy that it includes everything, and then
it becomes so meaningless that it becomes almost a religious icon.
Plenty of examples can be given : God, Love, Faith,
and now the latest , Matrix. I
have just finished reading an article on the abuse of this word that has become a
word that every kid not only knows, but also believes that we are living in a matrix
world run by a computer. This is not to say that the concept depicted is totally
irrelevant or misleading, but to literally believe in something that is clearly meant
to be a metaphor is a symptom of concept perversion. What can you expect
when there is no other space for thinking except in scientific, mathematical terms,
which were some few hundred years back religious terms like God, Holy, Nirvana ?
And I really feel like blowing my brains out when some moron makes smug
statements of certainity like : 'reality is pure mathematics' or 'all is love
of God' or
some such sweeping statement that completely demeans a certain word and thus
the concept that the word signifies. People rarely see that when a concept is used
to imply 'everything', it becomes not only meaningless but also misleading to those
who become 'infected' by it. Such kind of abuse is common and widespread in
religion.
OUT OF CONTEXT,
LIMITED or INFLXIBLE
CONTEXT
The second kind of misuse of words is when they are
used out of the context in which
they are valid. This is usually done either because the person has a deliberate
intent
to mislead or just being frivolous or one of the most common reason is to divert the
issue or responsibility that is apparently confronting the person. Another simple
reason is lack of talent in recognising a valid context. Or the context may be so
limited that many words become meaningless within that narrow context and thus
reducing the entire exercise into a farce.
As an example, the entire field of Psychology became redundant and misleading
when it was insisted by John Watson and subsequently by others that psychology
must discard all references to "consciousness", "mind" and all such
subjective
sounding words, thereby reducing the entire field of psychology to that within the
narrow context of the physical sciences.
This is fairly common in academic circles to narrow
down the context of
expression and communication into specialist categories or 'isms and then
treat everything within the narrow bounds of that speciality. This is so even
within the arts where there are sub-categories of paintings, music, poetry,
etc. This inflexibility of context is a particularly modern malady that is no
longer confined to the academic world, but has also spread to professional
work.
TECHNICAL JARGON
A third kind of misuse of words are when they are
applied mechanically, as a jargon to
hide one's ignorance, as well as lack of originality. This abuse of language has become
most widespread these days both in professional life, religion as well as philosophy.
Instead of using words for clear and original expressions, certain words that are high
and sophisticated sounding are hurled in order to score points. The most affected are
the academic circles where there is no originality of thought or expression and people
become PhD's just by permutations and combinations of technical words that even
the writer cannot comprehend but zaps everyone else.
COMPLEX instead of SIMPLE
Most expressions do not demand complicated and
entangled use of words. Rather
only those expressions are powerful that use simple words to convey ideas and
feelings. Complexity of words and symbols may be required in scientific and
mathematical works, but as a rule is not applicable in the arts, literature and
humanities. If an idea or concept is a totally new one, some complexity may be
required, but even there the rule of thumb should be to use an inter-relation of
simple words, so that the concept or idea to be conveyed does not become so
abstract that it takes ages for another to go through a few sentences which
invoke the concept.
ENIGMATIC or PARADOXICAL WORDS :
CASE Study : Resilience and Paradox
Resilient : now that's a word to ponder upon. I have
never used it before but that's
because I am not a writer. At least not professional or even trained. And I have only
rarely seen it used. Perhaps because resilience itself is in short supply these days. I
had presumed that it meant a certain strength of character of a person : an
ability to
withstand adversity. My dictionary says that it means " bounce back"
or "spring
back" or "recover quickly from a setback".
This itself does not say much about this word. It is
when you check the thesaurus
carefully, that the word really jumps at you, and then you realise that it is one of
those
enigmatic words that signify a paradox that is hidden and not at all obvious.
A thing appears paradoxical when it shows up
two contrary qualities that
seemingly contradict "and yet" are undoubtedly and simultaneously
present in that thing.
"Take away the paradox
from a thinker, and you have a
professor"......Kriekegaad
( For example light, or electromagnetic rays have two
contradictory properties :they
behave both as particles ( discrete) as well as waves ( continuous ) .)
The hidden paradox in this word becomes clearer when
you look at the synonyms
as well as the antonyms of the two sets of alternate words in the thesaurus
( from Encarta thesaurus ) :
1st set : hardy, strong, tough, robust, buoyant, irrepressible, spirited, resistant
antonym : defeatist
2nd set : elastic, pliable, flexible, supple, resistant, tough, durable, sturdy.
antonym : rigid.
A paradox is best represented in language by the "yet" or "and yet" or
"but still" or "as well as" logic.
When we use this logic of "and yet" to describe the word resilience we get :
Something that is "hardy" and yet "elastic".
Something that is "strong", yet "pliable".
Something that is "tough", and yet "flexible".
Something that is "robust", yet "supple".
Something that is "buoyant" yet "resistant".
Something that is "irrepressible" as well as "tough"
Something that is "spirited" as well as "durable"
Something that is "resistant", yet "sturdy"
Now if you include all this it gives the image of a
character who is a cross
between Christ and Superman ! And the opposite ?
Both defeatist and rigid are antonyms of resilience
but between the two of them,
quite contrary to each other. However, I think both of these words don't quite
convey an opposite of resilience.
To concieve an appropriate antonym ( which should be
a picture of the opposite
of resilience ) :
Something that is "crafty" and yet "slimy"
Something that is "smart" as well as "stupid"
Something that is "stubborn" as well as "weak"
Somthing that "only shows change" but still "remains same inside".
Something that is "docile" and yet "treacherous"
Something that is "inflexible" as well as "soft"
Now try to picture a person with all this. I am
sure this is not beyond many people's
imagination. Anyway, the word that comes closest to the above is as I find it :
Shameless.
As with any other word, the word resilience too can
just as easily be abused.
And just as there can be a thin dividing line between "evolved" and
"dominant",
there can be a thin dividing line between "resiliant" and "shameless",
for
example.
Just as an oppressive and dominating people can call
themselves "evolved" and
develop a philosophy around it, a shameless people could well call themselves
resilient and develop a religion around it.
The point of this exercise is to show that a single
word by itself is very likely to be
abused, and at best only useful in religious worship. The use of a single word,
or even a small set of very few words used in a definitive relationship with a
definitive emphasis on them, can only lead to a situation that looks like a
religion's or cult's iconography or ritual.
TOUGH WORDS : TRUTH and FACT
"I often wish . . .
that I could rid the world of the tyranny of facts. What are
facts but compromises? A fact merely marks the point where we have
agreed to let investigation cease"........Bliss Carman
"The belief that there
is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of
it seems to me the deepest root of all evil that is in the world"....Max Born
" Say not that ' I
have found The Truth', say instead ' I have found a truth'".
.......Kahlil Gibran
Some words are so commonly used, and yet are
so difficult in comprehending the
meaning behind the use of that word, and the context of the author. A classic example
would be the word : Truth and its relation to the surprisingly confusing word : fact.
"The telephone book is
full of facts, but it doesn't contain a single idea".
.........Mortimer Adler
So common is its usage and so baffling is its
meaning, specially so because most of the
time even the user is not sure what it means. The safest meaning of the word is : Truth is
that which conforms to facts, or that which does not contradict the facts of an event that
occured. The opposite of Truth is falsehood : that which contradicts the facts of an
event.
But the real falsehood occurs when these words are used to deliberately obscure the
the very meaning that these are supposed to communicate.
"Facts can't
be recounted; much less twice over, and far less still by
different persons. I've already drummed that thoroughly into your head."
..............Augusto Roa Bastos
Let's look at the meaning of the word
"fact". It is an event that occurs and is recorded in
the accuracy of its occurence by the witnesses to the occurence and agreed upon as
to its description. If someone says "Tom is tall", he is simply describing what
he has
observed and interpreted according to a convention or standard, which in this case is
the average height of men. But if he says "Tom is a good man", he is stating
that which
seems to be true from his point of view, or conversely, he could well
be"untruthful" in
the sense that he actually believes Tom to be a bad man, but either wants to deceive
by saying the opposite of what he believes, or is just being sarcastic, or is lying
for
some reason that compells him to do so ( for example, Tom may be threatening to
kill that person, unless that person announces Tom to be a good man ). As we can
see in this example, a simple statement like "Tom is a good man" can only mean
in terms of "facts" that some person, say Dick, has uttered these words and that
at least one other person, say Harry, has heard these words.
"There's a world of
difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure
truth."............Maya
Angelou
But what is the "truth" in this
case is not at all simple and there is no way to
for anyone to be sure of the "truth". And if we say that the "truth"
is again
nothing more than Dick making a statement about Tom, and this being
heard by Harry, then we are back to square one by equating "truth" with
"fact", there being no difference between the two.
"Truth knows no color; it appeals to intelligence".....James Cone
So for "truth" to be a meaningful
concept it has to be more than just "facts".
In the example above "truth" is likely to be very different for all three
persons,
but if they all willingly agree, it becomes an established "fact".
Thus it is possible to establish "facts" in the limited domain of science, but
in
the process of linguistic communication between living entities, "facts" are
very difficult, if not impossible, to establish. It is only possible to establish
"facts" if all entities involved in the communication have the same purpose
and objective, and the fundamental premises or assumptions of all are the
same. The only domain in which this is possible is science. The domain of
linguistic communication cannot therefore be subject to the methods of
science.
So Then : What are facts ?
"Facts are stupid
until brought into connection with some general law."
........Louis Agassiz
Thus facts themselves are only those that are
established by consensus in a social
context by a set of individuals who are supposed to have witnessed the event, and then
recollecting it from their respective memories, agreed upon the details and
interpretations
of the event. Now here is where we are bound to run into trouble. That in this elaborate
process of establishing the facts, even if one of the individual disagrees with the
details
or interpretations of the witnessed event, we have a major problem on our hands :
what happens to the "Truth" ? "The Truth" is commonly understood
as sometning that
is independent of the opinions or interpretations of anyone. Science is based upon this
premise. The laws and equations of Science are considered as "The Truth", at
least by
the scientists These laws are taken to be absolute and unchanging. Most religions
even
treat the concept of truth as refering to the absolute : even God.
Most religions consider God and "The
Truth" as synonyms. Some insist that "The Truth"
and "Ultimate Truth" are the same. So much for religion.
"Let the facts speak for
themselves" is a common rhetoric that the factologists resort to.
But the "truth" is that facts never speak for themselves - someone or another is
always
speaking for them and in this process that any event actually becomes a "fact" -
a process
that is nothing more than an agreed upon interpretation of a witnessed event.
"Facts and truth
really don't have much to do with each other."
....William Faulkner
So Then: What is Truth ?
"I tore myself away
from the safe comfort of certainties through my love
for truth - and truth rewarded me".............Simone de Beauvoir
A 'Truth' is no more than the correct interpretation of the sum of all the
facts and circumstances or events of one's life ; it is what one makes of
the facts and what they mean - it is what one has to believe about what
the facts are pointing towards.
"Good writers define
reality; bad ones merely restate it. A good writer turns
fact into truth; a bad writer will, more often than not, accomplish the
opposite.".............Edward
Albee
A falsehood is an incorrect interpretation of the facts of one's life - an
underestimation or an overestimation of what these facts add up to
or a misinterpretation of their significance or meaning.
"Men occasionally
stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves
up and hurry off as if nothing had happened".......... Winston Churchill
INTERESTING WORD : COMPELLED
" Wherever the
personality betrayed itself in some such way, or whenever
I recalled the warm and unstudied talk of the great prophets themselves,
I noticed how far more near was their approach to my own feeling than their
written word. Their vision and mine of hills clicked suddenly into the same
focus, like the two eyes of a glass, and I saw the men themselves differently.
It reminded me of the feeling when my father, after the sixty five years of
silence about the alps which followed his Mont Blanc accident and the death
of his brother, one evening began to talk of his first tour, in the Dolomites, and
how, crossing a low pass, he had seen a white slope hanging far above in the
gathering dusk and had felt compelled to leave the others, and, racing the
darkness, had reached it, and so stood upon his first perpetual snow.
As his deep musical voice stressed the word 'compelled', I understood
him suddenly as I never had before." G W Young.
THE ART OF WRITING
"The writer who
possesses the creative gift owns something of
which he is not always master- something that at time strangely
wills and works for itself."............Charlotte Bronte
A writer needs three
things, experience, observation, and imagination,
any two of which, at times any one of which, can supply the lack of the
others....William Faulkner
Language is a potent medium for a person's search for expressions, especially
internal expressions : those that reveal an internal truth ( talent or predilection )
and its possible directions. The art of writing is the bringing together of all that
is good within oneself with the truth of one's life's conditions.
"I am convinced that
anyone can be a great writer . . . if he can only . . .
tell the naked truth about himself and other people. That, a little
technique with words and the willingness to bare heart, soul and
body are really all it takes".........Clive Barnes
In the art of writing it is no simple matter, nor so easily condensed. The truth of
one's capabilities and talents cannot be capped or limited or constrained by
oneself by coming to a conclusion that these are complete or final and that
nothing more needs to be said. As long as there is life there is the never
ending possibility finding new truths, new talents and to synthesise them
with one's essence or goodness.
It is not only impossible but also misleading in this search for personal truths
to use a single word, or even just only a single sentence by which one can
totally relate to ( for example, enlightenment ).
Sometimes a sentence or a set of sentences may seem to perfectly account
for one's situation. But such clarity should be deliberately defied, for else one is
very likely to be stuck in such a clarity for a long, long time. The same goes for
a particular technique, style or method of expression. A method or technique
that works well for a given condition will not likely work well in a different or
changed situation. This is particularly so if the method is applied in a routine,
mechanical and repeated manner. The end result is not only stale but also
that which leads to degeneracy.
"There is a point at which methods devour themselves". ....Frantz Fanon
IMPROVISATION and INNOVATION
"The question is whether words can be made to mean
so many different things"...Lewis Carrol
Very few statements are powerful enough to be used repeatedly to reinforce an
internal truth. And that too the repetition is only warranted when the conditions
demand it. Else it becomes a religious chant, a ritual. One of the conditions in
which a repetition is warranted is "command" statements that have to do with
one's purpose. Since expressions in language essentially reflect one's Will and
purpose, it should be obvious to any explorative individual that limiting oneself
to one set of definitive statements about oneself or reality automatically limits
one's entire being. And yet, not using any language whatsoever puts one in the
mystical domain that turns everything into a meaningless drama or at best an
abstract mystery. In that domain, no further development of the physical,
social and environmental is possible. The limits of these domains are then
unexplored. And it is here that language is indispensable. And it is here that
continuous innovation in language expressions is indispensable. The
limits are then only limits of our ability to innovate, firstly by the its
application in internal exploration, and then inter-human
communication in a social sysytem.
Expressions in language take a person to his limits only if these are first of
all internally meaningful, and then these expressions are tested for their wider
implications, which then provides the feedback for further improvisations,
innovations and developments. All this is possible only if first of all the basics
have been cleaned and hammered out. If the basics have not been clarified,
needless and debilitating conflicts will just keep repeating on and on.
"The most ordinary
word, when put into place, suddenly acquires
brilliance. That is the brilliance with which your images must shine
.........Robert Bresson